# Best Scholarly Defense of Calvinism



## Neogillist

It is a known but sad fact that certain thorough-going Calvinists throughout the history of the church, and also more recently have fallen out of their original position to embrace the Arminian scheme. While as a general rule, nonetheless, is that most Christians who start out semi-Pelagian and become monergists remain so until for the rest of their life, there are a number of exceptions to the rule, some of whom had even read much Puritan and Reformed literature. It is a historic fact that James Arminius, who had been trained as a strong Calvinist under the tutorship of Theodore Beza and originally believed the doctrines of grace, was asked to defend Reformed doctrine against Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert, a liberal scholar of the day, and found himself unable to refute him. Little did people know that those seeds of doubts, sown into Arminius’ mind would grow into the most proeminent system of semi-Pelagianism in the history of the Church.
This is an important lesson for all of us, and I would say more especially so for those who were brought up in a Reformed church, under a steady diet of Heidelberg Cathecism, Belgic Confession or even Westminster Confession of Faith, and learned to trust those historic documents before being well acquainted with the Bible. Perhaps in your reading of Scriptures you have encountered passages that seemed to conflict with the doctrines of grace, or that you were unsure if the concept of an atonement for the elects alone was really scriptural. Personally, I myself had started to find some inconsistencies between the secret, as opposed to the revealed will of God, and had started to believe that the Arminian scheme does present the concept of a God who is truly loving. But even if you are not one of those people, and that no doubts in regard to Calvinism have even come to your mind, it would still be a good idea to read the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, or at least so in my opinion, and ensure that the foundation of your faith remains firm and unshakeable. 
While John Wesley is considered by his followers as the greatest Arminian of all times, the best Arminian scholar of the eighteenth century, was probably neither him nor Adam Clark, but Dr. Daniel Whitby, an Anglican bishop and theologian. In 1733, his Discourse on the Five Points was reprinted, and judged a masterpiece on the subject, an unanswerable attack on the Five Points of Calvinism in favour of the Arminian Scheme. Whitby had essentially refined certain arguments from the Remonstrants, and constructed his own, presenting a large number of passages as “prooftexts” for Arminianism, and refuting all the main passages of Scripture that historic Calvinists had appealed to in favor of their system. He had directed much of his arguments both against low Calvinists like John Davenant and high Calvinists such as William Twisse. It would obviously take more than an amateur theologian to answer Dr. Whitby, perhaps more like a genuis, someone of the same calibre as Owen or Calvin. John Gill took the charge at hand and started writing a point-by-point refutation of Discourse on the Five Points which would send the treatise into the grave, where its master was then lying. Along with John Owen’s Death of Death I would judge The Cause of God and Truth as the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, both indeed being unrefutable.
The Cause of God and Truth consists of four parts. In the first part, Gill performs a thorough exegetical analysis of sixty different passages of Scripture that Dr. Whitby and other Arminians had raised in support of their system. Many of these passages are still being appealed to by Arminians today, whether in seminaries or on the Web. Yet, not a single one of them have taken the time to refute Gill on any one passage, and however less would have time to do it point-by-point. Gill’s approach to the Scriptures is both systematic and scientific. In his defense, he first presents the Arminian interpretation or argument drawn from Scriptures and point out the logical flaws in Dr. Whitby’s reasoning. Next, he begins to rule out various false or improbable interpretations by looking at the context, the grammar in the original language, or facts of history. He also frequently appeals to rabinical sources from non-Christian scholars, presenting their views, and he finally begins to converge towards the most probable interpretation that takes into account what the inspired author had in mind in writing what he did. Making continual use of the analogy of Scripture, the reader quickly learns to trust John Gill’s exegesis, for he never attempts to “prove his point,” occasionally adopting an interpretation that is less favourable to the Calvinist. Moreover, Gill is not carried away by every whimp of emotion when he writes. Unlike John Calvin, he does not use any demeaning language against his opponent, instead politely calling him “the learnt writer,” and unlike John Owen, he does not attempt to impress or shock his opponent with the large number of arguments he can raise against a sophist interpretation. Moreover, Gill is careful not to contradict himself, and is very technical in his semantics, ensuring that not a single door remains open for the Arminians to go through. He has always more than one possible solution to provide, but always highlights the most probable one rather than the most Calvinistic one. The reader who is acquainted with the Calvin and Owen will soon realize that Gill frequently converges to the same interpretation as those two, showing the great consitency that exists among high Calvinist scholars.
In the second part of the work, Gill presents a number of passages that carefully, and indeed clearly teach the doctrines of grace, presenting the historic Reformed interpretation, and then refuting the twisted arguments that Dr. Whitby had raised against them. The reader will be amazed to see the exposition of John Gill, as well as the malice of Arminianism in trying to fight the very Holy Spirit of Scriptures. This part has really helped me realize that Arminianism is truly heretical, and that Arminians who attempt to refute the clear and logical meaning of such passages are doing no less than resisting the truth of the Gospel.
In the third part of his work, Gill finally responds to many philosophical arguments that Whitby had raised in support of the Arminian scheme and against the Calvinistic one. Dr. Gill also admits how Calvinism share both similarities and differences with Stoicism, but is careful to clear the charge that Augustianism had risen from the influence of Stoicism in the early church. Unlike many low Calvinists who preceeded him, John Gill is not a fan of paradoxes, and consequently does not like to combine universal concepts with Calvinistic ones. Consequently, he does not feel obliged to support the concept of a general will in God to save all mankind, and a specific will to save some and damn others, or to add certain universal aspects to the atonement like other Calvinists such as Charles Hodge and James Ussher have done. In some cases, Gill actually agrees with his opponent, and is never overly dogmatic on a particular issue. In many respects, Gill adopts an agnostic position in regard to theological ideas that the Scriptures do not prove, such as whether dying infants are saved or damned, or the origin of the soul. Overall, the Calvinism of John Gill is the simplest, most logical model that naturally seems to pop out of Scriptures.
In the fourth part, Gill presents quotations from the writings of different church fathers to disprove Dr. Whitby’s claim that synergism was the theological system of the early church. Although certain writers like Origen were inconsitent or careless in some of their remarks, Gill shows that most of them were very much in the same line of thinking as Augustine, and that all Augustine did was to clarify and fine-tune the teachings of the apostles and church fathers, thus making Calvinism or Augustinianism the original truth of the early church. This is truly a masterpiece that must have required a lot of research on the part of Dr. Gill, in identifying all the hundreds of quotations and translating them into English. For example, from Irenaeus he points out: “He plainly hints at the stability and immoveableness of the decree of election, when he calls it, turris electionis, “the tower of election;” for why should he call it a tower, but because it is impregnable and immoveable, because “the purpose of God, according to election, is that foundation which stands sure, not of works, but of him that calleth?”
Unfortunately, some have criticized this work as being “one of hyper-Calvinism’s greater works” according to Dr. Matthew McMahon, and other Reformed theologians of today labelling it “John Gill’s hyper-Calvinistic Cause of God and Truth.” One may indeed appeal to different exerpts from the book that sound somewhat hyper-Calvinistic in their semantics, but it must be noted that the same language can be found in the writings of John Owen, John Calvin, and even a lot more so in Arthur W. Pink. Perhaps it is the fact that John Gill rejects the concept of a universal offer of grace that makes low Calvinists uncomfortable, or that Gill says that “the gospel is not an offer, but the power of God unto Salvation…” However, the careful reader will see that Gill is simply avoiding careless semantic that would make irresistible grace sound resistible. John Calvin and other Reformed theologians would speak of the “Gospel Offer” or the “Universal Offer,” with the original Latin connotation behind the word offero, which means to “present” or “put forth.” However, by 1735 it appears to me that the word had started to change connotation in the English tongue, suggesting that the gospel presentation had turned into today’s gospel offer, although I would need to do more research to prove this. This is at least true for the word passion, also derived from Latin which originally carried the connotation of “suffering” in English, and today means “a mild obsession.” Moreover, John Gill clearly believes in common grace, although he calls it “providencial goodness” or “kindness,” and clearly denies equal ultimacy, suggesting that God is passive towards the reprobates, not taking pleasure in adding unecessary burdens upon them. While Arthur Pink argues that God sovereignly hardens the reprobate, Gill interprets the hardening of the heart as a second cause. John Gill even shows that God is good towards the reprobate, occasionally granting them an outward or ceremonial repentance so that they may receive a milder punishment in hell. In regard to duty-faith, Gill presents various propositions in support of it, but later opts for an agnostic position, pointing out that God calls the reprobates to have at least a historical faith in Christ, but that it cannot be proven from Scriptures by direct exegesis whether God actually expects them to believe to the saving of their soul or not. Moreover, while many infralapsarians nowadays attempt to win Arminians over by portraying the supralapsarian scheme as cruel and extreme so as to make their position appear more moderate and biblical, John Gill actually defends both views against the attacks of Whitby, but overall seems to come down more infralapsarian, as can also be shown from other of his writings, and is also alleged by Toplady and his biographer John Rippon. Consequently, I do not see how the charges of hyper-Calvinism can be raised against Gill anymore than against Owen, Twisse, Calvin or Pink, especially in comparison to the real hyper-Calvinists that arose after him like John Ryland, James Well and more recently Herman Hoeksama.
The Cause of God and Truth is no less than a must-read for every Reformed Christian desiring to know how to defend his faith against the attacks of Arminians and Papists. John Gill’s Cause of God and Truth did not bring a final blow to Arminianism, since so long as there are sinners on earth there will be free-willers; rather, it brought a final blow to the scholarship of Arminianism. Today’s Arminians are like chicken without heads, leafing through their Bible in search of prooftexts where there are none. Those theologians who claim to believe in the authority of Scriptures and are outwardly Arminian are willfully ignorant, just like their father Wesley. Interestingly, while much of Wesley’s influence today has degenerated into some liberal church denominations, or Charismatic/Pentecostal movements, John Gill’s influence still stands through all his precious and influencial writings. There were no fewer than four pastors/theologians who wrote to Wesley urging him to stop spreading the lie, including John Gill, George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady and Jonathan Edwards. Unfortunately, Wesley hard-headedly continued to drive his movement forward, ignoring the wise and godly advise of his contemporaries. Perhaps if only he had tried to think rationally and read The Cause of God and Truth, things would have been different. Gordon H. Clark, the greatest Reformed philosopher of the twentieth century (along with Van Til) said that John Gill was a genuis for writing this treatise. I agree.


----------



## JM

I'm a big Gill fan as well, thanks for posting.

YouTube - (Bible Study) Genesis 1:1 (John Gill)


----------



## Neogillist

Thanks for the You Tube Bible study, I guess it was taken from Gill's exposition of the Bible, right? One of my goals in life is to read all the works of John Gill before I die. I think I can do away with ignoring many puritan authors, but I just can't ignore John Gill. It's like pure goal, quality before quantity. I think my favourite theologians after all are John Gill, John Calvin, John Owen and Thomas Goodwin; all these guys are good to read, and in fact very consistent among themselves.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I thought the best defense of Calvinism was Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Wasn't Gill a hyper-Calvinist?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I thought the best defense of Calvinism was Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.
> 
> Wasn't Gill a hyper-Calvinist?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



John Gill was probably more of a high-Calvinist than a hyper-Calvinist.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> John Gill was probably more of a high-Calvinist than a hyper-Calvinist.



John Gill certainly did not believe that the reprobate were duty bound to have saving faith in Christ. I started writing a book on Gill's view of preaching but this has been put on hold.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I throughly enjoy Dabney's defense found here.


----------



## KMK

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill was probably more of a high-Calvinist than a hyper-Calvinist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *John Gill certainly did not believe that the reprobate were duty bound to have saving faith in Christ*. I started writing a book on Gill's view of preaching but this has been put on hold.
Click to expand...


Is this a criterion for hyper-Calvinism?

BTW, Owen's "A Display of Arminianism" is very good.


----------



## christianyouth

I think rejecting 'duty faith' as well as the well meant offer places you in the Hyper camp, historically, Pastor Ken. In that case Gill would be most definitely a hyper.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I can't recall the specifics of his argument off-hand, but Tom Nettles agrees that the denial of duty faith is a characteristic of Hyper-calvinism and also denies that Gill was a Hyper. Cf. _By His Grace and for His Glory_ (Baker Books, 1986).

I also like Gill and think his _Cause of God and Truth_ is not appreciated enough.


----------



## AV1611

KMK said:


> Is this a criterion for hyper-Calvinism?



I am not too sure what hyper-Calvinism is, but Gill went far further than the Puritans and in my opinion went into error on this issue.


----------



## AV1611

Gomarus said:


> I can't recall the specifics of his argument off-hand, but Tom Nettles agrees that the denial of duty faith is a characteristic of Hyper-calvinism and also denies that Gill was a Hyper. Cf. _By His Grace and for His Glory_ (Baker Books, 1986).



So Nettles believed that Gill taugh duty-faith?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill was probably more of a high-Calvinist than a hyper-Calvinist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill certainly did not believe that the reprobate were duty bound to have saving faith in Christ. I started writing a book on Gill's view of preaching but this has been put on hold.
Click to expand...


I would be interested in reading such a book. My experience of Gill is mostly thorough his commentary on the whole Bible (the best ever written). But I have heard that he goes further in _The Cause of God and Truth_ (which I own but have not read).


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> My experience of Gill is mostly thorough his commentary on the whole Bible (the best ever written). But I have heard that he goes further in _The Cause of God and Truth_ (which I own but have not read).



One example is:

...it is the duty of all men to love the Lord, as they are the creatures of his make, the care of his providence, and supplied by him with the blessings of life; and, so long as they are, the obligation to love him continues, and would have continued, had there been no redemption at all by Christ. It is true, redemption by Christ lays a fresh obligation on those who are interested in it, to love the Lord; and, indeed, those who have no interest in that special blessing of grace, have reason to love the Lord upon the account of it; since it is owing to Christ’s engagement to redeem his own people, that the rest are continued in their being, and supplied with the blessings of providence, which were forfeited by sin. Besides, though such cannot be obliged to love the Lord for that redemption which never was intended for them, nor for that grace which will not be vouchsafed to them; yet, all to whom the gospel revelation comes, are obliged to love the Lord on the account of redemption by Christ; since all who see their need of it, and are desirous of interest in it, have no reason to conclude otherwise, than that Christ died for them, and has redeemed them by his blood. (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3, pp. 170)​
Another:

...no man is bound to believe more than what is revealed. If evidence is given of Christ’s being the Son of God, the Messiah and Savior of the world, as was to the Jews, credit should be given thereunto; which the Jews should and could have given, though they could not believe unto salvation, without superior power and grace: if Christ is represented, to any persons as a proper object of faith, trust, and confidence; it becomes such persons to believe in him, and rely upon him; and such are, by the grace of God, enabled so to do. If the Spirit of God reveals to a man his particular interest in the death of Christ, or that Christ died for him in particular, he ought to believe it. (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 8, pp. 210)​
Note in his commentary on verses such as Acts 3:19, he argues that the repentance urged upon is external _not_ saving, hence he writes "no other repentance and conversion may be here meant than an external one" (see here as well). Whilst in places he is a little unclear, I am convinced that he went too far.

It should be observed, that repentance is either evangelical or legal, and this either personal or national. Evangelical repentance is not in the power of a natural man, but is the gift of God’s free grace. Legal repentance may be performed by particular persons, who are destitute of the grace of God, and by all the inhabitants of a place, as the Ninevites, who repented externally at the preaching of Jonah, though it does not appear that they had received the grace of God, since destruction afterwards came upon that city for its iniquities; and such a repentance these Jews are here exhorted to, on the account of a national sin, the crucifixion of Christ, with which they are charged (vv. 14-18), and in the guilt and punishment, of which they had involved themselves and all their posterity, when they said, His blood be upon us, and upon our children (Matthew 27:25). *Likewise the conversion here pressed unto us, is not an internal conversion of the soul to God, which is the work of almighty power, but an outward reformation of life, or a bringing forth fruit in conversation meet for the repentance insisted on.* Besides, exhortations to any thing, be it what it will, do not necessarily imply that man has a power to comply with them. Men are required to believe in Christ, to love the Lord with all their heart, to make themselves a new heart and a new spirit, yea, to keep the whole law of God; but it does not follow that they are able of themselves to do all these things. If, therefore, evangelical repentance and internal conversion were here intended, it would only prove that the persons spoken to were without them, stood in need of them, could not be saved unless they were partakers of them, and, therefore, ought to apply to God for them.​


----------



## JM

AV1611 said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall the specifics of his argument off-hand, but Tom Nettles agrees that the denial of duty faith is a characteristic of Hyper-calvinism and also denies that Gill was a Hyper. Cf. _By His Grace and for His Glory_ (Baker Books, 1986).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Nettles believed that Gill taugh duty-faith?
Click to expand...


A few places to look:

Tom Nettles says of Gill, "He has doubtless been judged more harshly and even maliciously than any man of comparable repute in Baptist history." Many have called John Gill a hyper-Calvinist who denied the need to preach the gospel to the lost. I will not seek to answer that question in this forum. Read Tom Nettles By His Grace and For His Glory, pages 73-107, for a thorough and balanced discussion of this issue​. John Gill - The Baptist Page - Portraits

It's not a settled issue:

Gill's relationship with hyper-Calvinism is a matter of academic debate.​ John Gill (theologian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

A little more:

Nettles finds one place where Gill “appears to hold the hyper-Calvinist view,” in that “Theoretically Gill held that the non-elect were not obligated to evangelical obedience, because the necessity of such obedience did not exist in unfallen humanity as deposited in Adam” (226). Nettles demonstrates, however, that this view did not work its way into Gill’s own practice (227). Gill disputed with Wesley, but he “did not differ in any essential theological category from the Grand Itinerant, George Whitefield” (241). 

Some took hold of Gill’s “theoretical” answer, and as a result they did not call sinners to repentance. They reasoned like Grantham: sinners are not obligated to do what they are unable to do (247–48). Helped by Jonathan Edwards’ distinction between Natural Inability—what one is physically unable to do, and Moral Inability—what one is unable to do because one is unwilling to do it (the Gospel does not call people to do what they are physically incapable of doing but to what they volitionally refuse to do)—Andrew Fuller wrote The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, which argued for “the congruity between divine sovereignty and human responsibility” (250). Like their Baptist forefathers, Fuller joined with John Ryland Jr. and William Carey in the opinion that “the affirmative side of the Modern Question [the Gospel should be indiscriminately proclaimed and all called to believe it] was fully consistent with the strictest Calvinism” (290). These three men who held to “the strictest Calvinism” initiated the modern missions movement. Clearly “strict Calvinism” is not to be equated with “hyper-Calvinism,” which Fuller rejects as “false Calvinism” (245). There is an important point here. Hyper-Calvinism is a specific theological position. It seems today that some non-Calvinists are ready to label anyone who appears to be less evangelistic than they think themselves to be as hyper-Calvinistic. The rejection of manipulative methods and coercive techniques in favor of boldly proclaiming the pure Gospel and trusting the Spirit to quicken hearts is not less evangelistic but more so (compare Paul’s practice in 1 Cor 2:1–5).​ The Baptists, vol. 1 of 3, by Tom Nettles « For His Renown

Last one:

A Hyper-Calvinist, Gill`s major critics say, does not believe that God calls indiscriminately all who hear about Christ to believe in Him. They say this, holding that man is obliged as a matter of duty to trust in Christ as a condition of salvation. It is odd that this opinion is often closely associated with Gill for several reasons. First, this view applied to Gill is an anachronism as the idea of saving faith being the known duty and within the natural ability of all men reached its fullest expression amongst the Baptists in 1785 with the publication of Andrew Fuller`s controversial book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Gill, however, died in 1771 thus obviously having nothing to do with the debate that tore the Baptist churches apart after the book was published. The second reason is that during the earlier part of the 18th century the view of what came to be called ´duty-faith`, formerly propagated by Anglican Latitudinarians such as Tillotson , was gaining ground amongst the Independents but Gill, a staunch Baptist, maintained he did not take part in this debate . Even Andrew Fuller believed that Gill did not enter into the controversy and John Ryland Jnr, quoting Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth, argued that Gill never wrote on the subject of ´the Modern Question ` and exonerates him from taking the usual Hyper-Calvinist stand . John Rippon assumes that Gill did enter the debate in later life because of certain ´corrections` he made to his book The Cause of God and Truth. Rippon, however, does not state what these ´corrections`, are and how they might have applied to the debate in question . 

In The Cause of God Gill clearly stresses the Christian duty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to call and command sinners to repent . All men are naturally bound to repent, argues Gill, because they have naturally broken the law. Commanding them to repent is putting them under the curse of the law which they have broken in their natural state. To Gill, this is a law-ordained need for repentance in the legal sense. What man has broken, he has a duty to mend. This does not mean, however, that man can mend what he has broken and obtain legal righteousness, but he is still a debtor to the law for having broken it. The law forces its demands on every one because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. What Gill calls evangelical repentance, is for him another matter. He sees this as a turning form sin to receive pardon in Christ. This kind of turning from sin to Christ can only come about by a sovereign act of God`s goodness which leads to true repentance and Gospel righteousness. 

Calvin taught likewise that there was an ´antithesis between Legal and Gospel (i.e. evangelical) righteousness`. Quoting Romans 10:5-9, he argues that there is a righteousness which is according to the Law described by Moses, "that the man who doeth those things shall live by them". This is quite different to the righteousness of faith which says, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."​ John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism


----------



## JM

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/john-gill-charge-hyper-calvinism-25267/

Some have attributed to Gill to be the first systematizer of a Baptist Hyper-Calvinist theology. Others have argued that Gill was in fact not a Hyper-Calvinist. Regardless, it was during Gill’s time period when the Particular Baptist Churches began their decline into Hyper-Calvinism. Gill did believe in eternal justification (that the elect were justified in eternity past) and did not seem to appeal to all in the same way that further generations of Evangelical Calvinists did, but it seems difficult to say that Gill was undeniably in fact a Hyper-Calvinist. Instead, most likely, Hyper-Calvinists used Gill’s theology and went past him to solidify their own theology.​ Brief Biography of John Gill (1697-1771) « Working out Salvation with Fear and Trembling

Nettles says that Daniel started with the assumption that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and then defined hyper-Calvinism from Gill. For ages, people have said that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist without offering any proof from the writings or sermons of Gill (or at least not in context), and people simply accept what they are told. 

Another reason people mistakenly believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is they do not read his supposed anti-free offer comments in the context in which they were written. Usually, in these cases, he was writing against universal salvation. He did not deny that ministers should urge sinners to believe. He simply said that this external call in and of itself can do nothing. There must also be the irresistible internal call of the Holy Spirit as well.​ The Sane Asylum: Another John Gill Post

John Gill and his Successors

New Focus | That the purpose of God according to election might stand

New Focus Interview on Hyper-Calvinism


----------



## AV1611

Jason,

I do not doubt your genuiness but perhaps you could quote Gill himself to show that he did not deny duty-faith? I have read pretty much all that he wrote and have concluded that he did deny duty-faith. 

I adore the work of Gill, but on this issue he is dead wrong. For the record, the fact that Gill preached to convert does not mean he did not deny duty-faith. I find the following, taken from _The Doctrine of the Cherubim Opened and Explained_, one of the best explanations of the work of a minister:

And this is the business that you, my Brother, should be constantly employed in, in instructing men that they are not to be saved by their own works, duties and services; that God saves and calls men, not according to their works, but according to his purpose and grace; that men are to expect the pardon of sin, not on the account of their repentance and humiliation, but through the blood of Christ, and according to the riches of God’s grace; that by the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified in the sight of God but that a man is justified by faith in the righteousness of Christ, without the deeds of the law; that men are not saved by the best works of righteousness done by them, but by the abundant mercy and free grace of God, through Christ. You are to acquaint all that you are concerned with, that salvation is by Christ alone; that God has chosen and appointed him to be his salvation to the ends of the earth; and that he has appointed men to salvation alone by him; that he has sent him into the world to be the Saviour of them; this is the faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, you are to publish and proclaim, that Christ came into the world to save the chief of sinners; and that by his obedience, sufferings, and death, he is become the author of eternal salvation to them; and that there is salvation in him, and in no other; and that there is no other name given under heaven among men whereby they can be saved. Souls sensible of sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree of life unto them; and say, as some of the cherubs did to one in such circumstances, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16:31. Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin; and in his name you are to preach the forgiveness of it to them; you are to direct believers, under your care, to go by faith daily to Christ the mediator, and deal with the blood of sprinkling for the remission of their sins, and the cleansing of their souls; which sprinkled on them speaks peace and pardon, purges the conscience from dead works, and cleanses from all sin. You are to point out the righteousness of Christ, as the only justifying righteousness of men, by whose obedience only men are made righteous; the ministration of the gospel is a ministration of righteousness, even of the righteousness of Christ, which is revealed in it from faith to faith; and such should he your ministration. You are to acquaint men, that this righteousness is unto all, and upon all that believe; and that, such are justified from all things by it, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses; and that the acceptance of men with God, is only in Christ the beloved. You are to observe to men the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God and to direct them, as one of the cherubs did, pointing to him, and saying, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! John 1:29, to bid them view the sin-bearing and sin-atoning Saviour, and look to the Lamb in the midst of the throne as though he had been slain; by whose slain sacrifice sin is put away, and they perfected for ever that are sanctified.​
I also find Murray's explanation of Gill's theology to be very poor indeed.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Phil Johnson on his C.H. Spurgeon website has an excellent description of what it is to be a Hyper-Calvinist:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

His website is the best one on Spurgeon I have ever seen.

-CH


----------



## JM

RJS, we've read the same articles and we simply disagree. We should also keep in mind that it's not a clear cut issue as I quoted earlier, "Gill's relationship with hyper-Calvinism is a matter of academic debate."

First, this view applied to Gill is an anachronism as the idea of saving faith being the known duty and within the natural ability of all men reached its fullest expression amongst the Baptists in 1785 with the publication of Andrew Fuller`s controversial book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Gill, however, died in 1771 thus obviously having nothing to do with the debate that tore the Baptist churches apart after the book was published. 

The second reason is that during the earlier part of the 18th century the view of what came to be called ´duty-faith`, formerly propagated by Anglican Latitudinarians such as Tillotson , was gaining ground amongst the Independents but Gill, a staunch Baptist, maintained he did not take part in this debate . Even Andrew Fuller believed that Gill did not enter into the controversy and John Ryland Jnr, quoting Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth, argued that Gill never wrote on the subject of ´the Modern Question ` and exonerates him from taking the usual Hyper-Calvinist stand. John Rippon assumes that Gill did enter the debate in later life because of certain ´corrections` he made to his book The Cause of God and Truth. Rippon, however, does not state what these ´corrections`, are and how they might have applied to the debate in question .​
When Gill denies man's ability to repent he's not saying that it's not their duty to do so but that, "the power and liberty of the will of man to come to Christ , that they rather declare the perverseness and stubbornness of it; that man has no desire, inclination, or will, to go to Christ for life, but rather go anywhere else, than to him. Man is stout-hearted, and far from the righteousness of Christ, and submission to it; is not subject to the law of God, nor the Gospel of Christ; nor can he be, till God works in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure; or until he is made willing in the day of his power. No one can come to Christ, except the Father draw him; nor has he a will to it, unless it is wrought in him ." [quoted from the Ella article] The hyper Calvinists will conclude that since they can't/won't come to Christ they can't be expected to do so. 

Ella and Nettles do a good job of understanding Gill without removing him from his place in time, or taking his words and applying them to latter controversies. 

We both agree that, "Murray's explanation of Gill's theology to be very poor indeed."



j


----------



## JM

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Phil Johnson on his C.H. Spurgeon website has an excellent description of what it is to be a Hyper-Calvinist:
> 
> A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism
> 
> His website is the best one on Spurgeon I have ever seen.
> 
> -CH



According to Mr. Johnson many of PB's posters are hypers.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> When Gill denies man's ability to repent he's not saying that it's not their duty to do so



Jason, I would suggest a re-read of Gill himself as he clearly denies that man is duty bound to repent spiritually as the following prove conclusively.

"it will be difficult to prove, that God anywhere calls and invites all mankind, and particularly such who are not eventually saved, to *spiritual and evangelical repentance*" (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 1)

"Besides, God never calls persons to *evangelical repentance*, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent. God does not require all men to believe in Christ, and where he does, it is according to the revelation he makes of him. He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; and those who only have the outward ministry of the word, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than that *external revelation* they enjoy, reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc...And as for those, who besides the *external*, have also an *internal revelation* of Christ, as they are called to the exercise of *evangelical repentance*, and to faith in Christ as their Savior and Redeemer, who loved them, and gave himself for them; they have that grace bestowed upon them, and that power put forth in them, which enables them to believe and repent." (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3)

"As for those texts of Scripture, I know of none, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ *for salvation*; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an *external repentance* and reformation, and an *historical faith* in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah." (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3)​


----------



## JM

RJS, I would suggest you take the scholarship of others on this matter over your own reading and understanding of Gill's words who can be hard to understand at times. Too often we read into a section of history something that isn't there, or understand terms from our own perspective in history.

"Gill calls evangelical repentance, is for him another matter. He sees this as a turning form sin to receive pardon in Christ. This kind of turning from sin to Christ can only come about by a sovereign act of God`s goodness which leads to true repentance and Gospel righteousness."

I'll have to go with Nettles [regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America] and Ella on this one.


----------



## AV1611

Jason, If Gill "sees this [evangelical repentance] as a turning form sin to receive pardon in Christ" then explain the following:

"God _never_ calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent."

"As for those texts of Scripture, I know of _none_, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ _for salvation_; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an _external repentance and reformation_, and an _historical faith_ in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah."​
You are hiding behing Nettles and Ella. Gill clearly denies that all who hear the gospel are commanded to believe savingly in Christ!


----------



## Neogillist

JM said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Phil Johnson on his C.H. Spurgeon website has an excellent description of what it is to be a Hyper-Calvinist:
> 
> A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism
> 
> His website is the best one on Spurgeon I have ever seen.
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Mr. Johnson many of PB's posters are hypers.
Click to expand...


I took a look at his website. I think he's just a bit too charismatic for guys like us. The same is true for John Piper, where the preaching must always be characterized with tender affections on God's behalf. One underlying assumption they have is that if God is such and such, then we believers are also called to be such and such. If God desires to save all men, then we also must desire that all men be saved. Do you see the fallacy here? That God has the right to hate the reprobate and love the elect does not give us the right to desire only the salvation of some. God has the right to use a means to an end. He has the right to be selfish, to hate and to kill his creatures. We however do not have such rights. We must desire the salvation of all, we must be graceful to all, merciful to all, forgiving to all, because has been such to us. As to whether God is like that is irrelevant to us, since our duty is clearly outlined in Scriptures. When we say that God hates the reprobate with an absolute hatred (just like Dr. William Twisse believed), it is only a theoretical idea that we try to infer from Scriptures, but this does not mean that we have the right to hate our enemies as such. It is not hyper-Calvinism, so long as we don't fall into the trap of thinking that we can mimic God. Besides, it is not our business to assign human affections to God; this is to bring Him down to our level and commit atheism (as John Gill points out). This is a serious error that has been creeping among evangelicals lately. For instance, John Eldredge wrote "Wild at Heart" (a terrible unreformed book by the way), where he argues in one place that God calls us to take risks in life because He Himself takes risks. Do you see the atheism here? This is basically to deny his sovereignty! It is true that as Christians we are called to take risks for God's kingdom, but God Himself does not take risks, he knows very well what He is doing, and it is nothing more than illogical, irrational and unscriptural arguing to claim that if we can prove that God is such and such from Scriptures, than we humans must also be such and such. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly how low-Calvinists basically reason with the concept of universal love, and the well-meant offer. They don't seem to realize that we can on one hand hold or try to hold a universal love, or offer the gospel, and on the other hand let God be God.


----------



## Neogillist

AV1611 said:


> Jason, If Gill "sees this [evangelical repentance] as a turning form sin to receive pardon in Christ" then explain the following:
> 
> "God _never_ calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent."
> 
> "As for those texts of Scripture, I know of _none_, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ _for salvation_; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an _external repentance and reformation_, and an _historical faith_ in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah."​
> You are hiding behing Nettles and Ella. Gill clearly denies that all who hear the gospel are commanded to believe savingly in Christ!



Like I said myself, Gill adopts an agnostic position on the issue. I think he is right, however, since his position can reconcile what Arminians keep bashing us over with. However, since it is theoretical and unprovable either way, we should keep it secret and still urge people to believe in Christ to the saving of their soul so that this might provide a stepping stone for unbelievers to come to Christ. Besides, don't we desire all people to believe in Christ?


----------



## JM

AV1611 said:


> Jason, If Gill "sees this [evangelical repentance] as a turning form sin to receive pardon in Christ" then explain the following:
> 
> "God _never_ calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent."
> 
> "As for those texts of Scripture, I know of _none_, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ _for salvation_; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an _external repentance and reformation_, and an _historical faith_ in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah."​
> You are hiding behing Nettles and Ella. Gill clearly denies that all who hear the gospel are commanded to believe savingly in Christ!



RJS, lets remove your italics and let Gill's works stand as they are. 

Instead of reading our own definition into his writings and adding our own italics we should set pride aside and allow scholars who have studied this topic in the context of history as well as theology help us to understand Gill. Brother, and I mean it when I call you brother, you were just a Gospel Standard Baptist a year ago [03-08-2007], and you continue to follow their line of thought concerning Gill.

Am I "hiding" behind better scholarship because I refuse to accept your interpretation?


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> RJS, lets remove your italics and let Gill's works stand as they are.



Fine, so will you now interact with what Gill actually says?



JM said:


> Instead of reading our own definition into his writings and adding our own italics we should set pride aside and allow scholars who have studied this topic in the context of history as well as theology help us to understand Gill.



I have read Ella on Gill, I have Ella's biography of Gill and yet his points do not really work. This has been pointed out by a number of 'scholars' including Professor Engelsma who has interacted with Ella's work:

Standard Bearer - V.72 - I.14 - Bring the Books - John Gill: Hyper-Calvinist? By Prof. David J. Engelsma
Standard Bearer - V.72 - I.17 - Letters - By Various Authors
Standard Bearer - V.72 - I.19 - Letters - By Various Authors

Indeed, in his biography of Gill, when he tuches upon duty-faith and Gill's views Ella misses the point. Furthermore, Ella does not interact with what Gill said. He does not discuss the quotes I provided above. 

Ella's argument is thus:
*1.* Critics have charged Gill with denying we should preach the gospel to all because he denied duty-faith.
*2.* Gill preached the gospel to all
*3.* Gill therefore could not have held to duty-faith
*4.* This is supported by Nettles.

Sounds a credible argument until you realise that he makes a few errors in logic. 



JM said:


> Brother, and I mean it when I call you brother, you were just a Gospel Standard Baptist a year ago [03-08-2007], and you continue to follow their line of thought concerning Gill.



Indeed, and I was moved to denying duty faith through reading Gill. Having read more widely I realise that that position is wrong. However the question underdiscussion is not the rightfulness or wrongfullness of what Gill believed but we need to determine, from reading Gill himself, what he believed.



JM said:


> Am I "hiding" behind better scholarship because I refuse to accept your interpretation?



Not at all, but you are yet to deal with the question. You simply say "Well Ella says that Gill was not a hyper...". The question is very simple, "Did Gill believe that it was the duty of all who heard the gospel to savingly repent (evangelical repentance) and believe in Christ for salvation?" Can you provide any evidence from Gill's own wor where he clearly answers this with a "Yes"?

"...this external call may be considered, as a call of sinners in a state of nature and unregeneracy; but then it is not a call to them to regenerate and convert themselves, of which there is no instance; and which is the pure work of the Spirit of God: nor to make their peace with God, which they cannot make by anything they can do; and which is only made by the blood of Christ: nor to get an interest in Christ, which is not got, but given: nor to the exercise of evangelical grace, which they have not, and therefore can never exercise: nor to any spiritual vital acts, which they are incapable of, being natural men, and dead in trespasses and sins." (12. Of Effectual Calling.)


----------



## Neogillist

AV1611: 

Prof. Engelsma is actually even more hyper-Calvinistic than Gill himself, for although he and his denomination do not reject duty-faith, they actually reject common grace. One must be reading the Bible blindfolded not see how common grace is so interwoven throughout the Scriptures. John Gill clearly believed in common grace, although he called it "providencial goodness". Gill also alleges that reprobates who repent at least legally such as king Ahab or the Ninivites did, will receive a milder punishment, and that it is not out of hatred that God commands them to repent, and that there is no insincerity in it. The position of Engelsma and his PRC is one that comes close to equal-ultimacy. While they reject "the well-meant offer", they do not reject duty-faith because it serves as a means for enhancing the punishment of the reprobates, which is pleasing to their theology. Gill's hyper-Calvinism was a soft-core seeker-friendly type, while Engelsma's is a hard-core, cold-blooded hyper-Calvinism that would make Arminians cringe. 

Engelsma also misinterprets Gill's reason for rejecting duty-faith. He says that Gill rejected duty faith because the reprobates are unable to "believe savingly" in Christ. No, Gill rejected duty-faith because of his covenant theology. It was due to a clever logical move. Gill taught that the covenant of grace was unconditional and only made with the elects, while all the reprobates were left under the covenant of works. Because the moral law was binding on Adam and all his prosperity under covenant of works before the fall, it also remained binding upon both the reprobates and the elects. However, because Adam prior to the fall was not required to believe in a Savior as he had nothing he needed to be saved from, God would not impose any more burden upon the reprobates than was present prior to the fall. Consequently, although the reprobates after the fall are no longer able to obey all the moral law, it remains nonetheless binding upon them since God has not lost His authority and power in requiring that from them. Since Adam prior to the fall was able and responsible in believing in the second head of the trinity as Lord, likewise the reprobates after the fall are also required to believe in Christ as Lord; but because Adam did not have to believe in Christ as Savior before the fall, likewise the reprobates are not required to do that. Gill's argument is extremely logical. Gill simply went through the door that the other high calvinists (including John Owen's Death of Death) had opened up for him, and used the same extreme logicism that they themselves used.

In reading "The Cause of God and Truth" I came to realize that Gill seems to adopt an agnostic position on duty-faith, (although in one or two places he seems to reject it openly), first in order to fully refute Dr. Whitby's argument that it would be cruel on God's part to expect the reprobates to believe savingly in Christ, while denying them the grace to do it. It would be like telling them to save themselves, just like those wicked men told Jesus on the cross. "Come down from the cross and save yourself." Gill is forced to agree with Dr. Whitby because of his covenant theology, and the desire to salvage the face of calvinism as making God look cruel towards the reprobates. Other high calvinists like A. W. Pink (who also deny concept of the well-meant offer) and Engelsma basically believe God uses the call of the gospel to fatten up the wicked like cows ready for the slaughter. Gill, however, just like Calvin argues that the hardening of the reprobates is accidental, and not owing to any want of grace on God's part. Only the reprobates who reject the outward call of the gospel to accept Christ as Lord will receive a harsher punishment, not those who accept him as Lord but are never regenerated by the Spirit because they are not elect. It seems that Gill actually saw the danger that this theology posed, by being so clear-cut and logical. For this reason, in his preaching he would urge people to believe in Christ to the saving of their soul, in the hope that they might do so with the power of God's grace. If Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, it he was not so in practice, only in doctrine, and it must be admitted that he was the lowest of all hyper-Calvinists. I think that the reason Tom Wells and Ellas have tried to remove the stains of hyper-Calvinism from Gill is because they see a lot of good things in his writings, and yet many people are dismissing all his writings althogether because of the label that other tagged him with. I personally don't mind people calling Gill a hyper, so long as they realize that he was not the father of hyper-Calvinism (that guy was Joseph Hussey), but the lowest of the hypers.


----------



## JM

> The question is very simple, "Did Gill believe that it was the duty of all who heard the gospel to savingly repent (evangelical repentance) and believe in Christ for salvation?"



Confession: 
"This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavor, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all wellpleasing in all things. Zech. 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezek. 36:31; 2 Cor. 7:11; Ps. 119:6, 128." Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF​
I think Gill's views are high but within the Confession, the Confession does not deny duty faith but makes it clear that "saving repentance is an evangelical grace" using Gill's term "sensible" to describe the work of the Spirit.

As for you being "moved to denying duty faith" I think you really need to slow up just a little on blaming Gill, you were also reading Gosden's commentary on the Gospel Standard Articles, Gilbert Beebe and a ton of hyper-Calvinist articles at the time and you quote them all over this forum in support of your conclusions along with Gill. 

Wish you well.

j


----------



## AV1611

Neogillist said:


> Prof. Engelsma is actually even more hyper-Calvinistic than Gill himself, for although he and his denomination do not reject duty-faith, they actually reject common grace. One must be a fool not see how common grace is so interwoven throughout the Scriptures. John Gill clearly believed in common grace, although he called it "providencial goodness".



Gill certainly agreed with the classic understanding of common grace, but it would be wrong to say that he agreed with the CRC's three points of 1924. The PRC agree with the classic understanding of common grace though they disagree with the CRC's three points of 1924. 

Gill writes: "Again, grace is, by some, distinguished into "common" or "general", and "special" or "particular". "Common" or "general" grace, if it may be so called, is what all men have; as the light of nature and reason, which every man that comes into the world is enlightened with; the temporal blessings of life, the bounties of providence, called the riches of God's goodness, or grace, (Rom. 2:4) which all partake of, more or less; and the continuance and preservation of life; for "God is the Saviour of all men" (1 Tim. 4:10)." 



Neogillist said:


> No, Gill rejected duty-faith because of his covenant theology.



brother, I know why he denied duty-faith, I was pointing out to JM that Gill did in fact deny it, a fact that JM disputed.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> I think Gill's views are high but within the Confession, the Confession does not deny duty faith but makes it clear that "saving repentance is an evangelical grace" using Gill's term "sensible" to describe the work of the Spirit.



Gill's view may me within the bounds of that section of the Confession but then the discussion is to determine an answer to the question; "Did Gill believe that it was the duty of all who heard the gospel to savingly repent (evangelical repentance) and believe in Christ for salvation?" You are yet to do so.

How does Gill define evangelical repentance? Gill writes, 

"There is an evangelical repentance, which lies,

In a true sight and sense of sits; in a sight of it, as in itself considered as exceeding sinful in its own nature, and not merely as in its effects and consequences ruinous and destructive; not only in a sight of it in the glass of the divine law, but as that is held in the hand, and seen in the light of the blessed Spirit; and in a sight of it as contrary to the pure and holy nature of God, as well as repugnant to his will, and a breach of his law; and in a view of it as it appears in the glass of pardoning love and grace.

In a hearty and unfeigned sorrow for it; this sorrow for it is the rather because it is against God, and that not only as a holy and righteous Being, but as good, and gracious, and merciful, of whose goodness, both in providence and grace, the sinner is sensible; the consideration of which increases his sorrow, and makes it the more intense and hearty.

It is attended with shame and confusion of face, as in Ezra 9:6,8,10 and Luke 18:13 this shame increases the more, the more a sinner is sensible that God is "pacified towards him for all that he has done" (Ezek. 16:63).

Such a repentance is accompanied with a loathing, detestation, and abhorrence of sin as the worst of evils; to truly penitent sinners sin appears most odious and loathsome; nay they not only loath their sins but themselves for them, and the rather when most sensible of the goodness of God in bestowing both temporal and spiritual blessings on them, and especially the latter (Ezek. 20:40-44; 36:25-31), yea they abhor it as of all things the most detestable, when they are in the exercise of this grace; so it was with holy Job, when favored with a special sight of the greatness and goodness of God (Job 42:6; Isa. 6:5)."​
What does Gill say about how evangelical repentance and the external call of the gospel relate? He writes that "this external call may be considered, as a call of sinners in a state of nature and unregeneracy; but then it is not a call to them to regenerate and convert themselves, of which there is no instance; and which is the pure work of the Spirit of God: nor to make their peace with God, which they cannot make by anything they can do; and which is only made by the blood of Christ: nor to get an interest in Christ, which is not got, but given: nor to the exercise of evangelical grace, which they have not, and therefore can never exercise: nor to any spiritual vital acts, which they are incapable of, being natural men, and dead in trespasses and sins." (_Of Effectual Calling_.)

Well, what Gill did say is that "it will be difficult to prove, that God anywhere calls and invites all mankind, and particularly such who are not eventually saved, to spiritual and evangelical repentance" (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 1). 

He went on to say that "God never calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent. God does not require all men to believe in Christ, and where he does, it is according to the revelation he makes of him. He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; and those who only have the outward ministry of the word, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than that external revelation they enjoy, reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc...And as for those, who besides the external, have also an internal revelation of Christ, as they are called to the exercise of evangelical repentance, and to faith in Christ as their Savior and Redeemer, who loved them, and gave himself for them; they have that grace bestowed upon them, and that power put forth in them, which enables them to believe and repent." (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3) 

He also states that "As for those texts of Scripture, I know of none, that exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent, and believe in Christ for salvation; they can only, at most, concern such persons who are under the gospel dispensation; and, in general, only regard an external repentance and reformation, and an historical faith in, or assent to, Jesus as the Messiah." (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3)

You are yet to provide any _primary_ evidence whatsoever that finds Gill teaching that it was the duty of all who heard the gospel to savingly repent (evangelical repentance) and believe in Christ for salvation (saving faith). What he _did_ say was that that "God never calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls"!!


----------



## JM

You've complicated the question. You're asking me to provide a quote where Gill requires saving faith as a responsibility and a gift, which he doesn't. In places such as Acts 16:31 Gill comments, "There is a faith indeed which the law requires," and "Souls sensible to sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree to live to them; and say, as some of the cherubs did to one in such circumstances, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16:31. Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin, and this name you are to preach the forgiveness to them" but nothing that I know of that will answer your question.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> You've complicated the question.



brother, I think if you look at my previous posts I have been consistent in what I have been asking you to demonstrate. I have been asking for evidence that Gill held it to be the duty of all who heard the gospel to savingly repent (evangelical repentance) and believe in Christ for salvation. I have provided evidence from the pen of Gill that demonstrate that Gill does not believe that it is the duty of all who hear the gospel to savingly repent and believe in Christ for salvation. 

That is the importance of Gill saying the bit in bold: 

"God never calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent. God does not require all men to believe in Christ, and where he does, *it is according to the revelation he makes of him*. He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; and those who only have the outward ministry of the word, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than that external revelation they enjoy, reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc...And as for those, who besides the external, have also an internal revelation of Christ, as they are called to the exercise of evangelical repentance, and to faith in Christ as their Saviour and Redeemer, who loved them, and gave himself for them; they have that grace bestowed upon them, and that power put forth in them, which enables them to believe and repent." (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3)​


JM said:


> You're asking me to provide a quote where Gill requires saving faith as a responsibility and a gift, which he doesn't.



All I am asking is that you provide evidence that Gill held it to be the duty of all who heard the gospel to _savingly_ repent and believe in Christ _for salvation_. These, he taught, were the duty of sensible sinners alone. Hence the importance of his saying:

"God never calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent. God does not require all men to believe in Christ, and where he does, it is according to the revelation he makes of him. He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; and those who only have the outward ministry of the word, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than that external revelation they enjoy, reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc...And as for those, who besides the external, have also an internal revelation of Christ, as they are called to the exercise of evangelical repentance, and to faith in Christ as their Saviour and Redeemer, who loved them, and gave himself for them; they have that grace bestowed upon them, and that power put forth in them, which enables them to believe and repent." (_The Cause of God and Truth_, Part 3, Chapter 3)​
I know it has been repeated but it is so important that you see what Gill is saying here! Notice how Gill distinguishes the following groups and then differentiates the duties of each group according to the revelation of Christ they receive:

"He does not require the *heathens*, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all;"

"and *those who only have the outward ministry of the word*, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than that external revelation they enjoy, reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc..."

"And as for those, who besides *the external, have also an internal revelation of Christ*, as they are called to the exercise of evangelical repentance, and to faith in Christ as their Saviour and Redeemer, who loved them, and gave himself for them; they have that grace bestowed upon them, and that power put forth in them, which enables them to believe and repent."

So for Gill the only group who have a duty to savingly believe in Christ are those who also recieve the effectual calling, here termed an "internal revelation of Christ".

So:

*1.* Those who do not hear the gospel (external call) are not duty bound to believe savingly in Christ for their salvation. 

*2.* Those who hear the gospel (external call) are not duty bound to believe savingly in Christ for their salvation but are duty bound to assent to the truth of that external revelation (a duty of historical faith and external repentance). 

*3.* Those who hear the gospel (external call) and the Spirit works on their heart (internal call) are duty bound to repent and believe savingly in Christ (a duty of saving faith and evangelical repentance).


----------



## JM

Gill wrote that it was the duty of all to have faith, it would be worth a glance back to see what has been posted so far.


----------



## Neogillist

The purpose of this thread was not to discuss whether Gill was a hyper or not, but rather to discuss whether "The Cause of God and Truth" is a good scholarly defense of calvinism, which I am convinced it is. Now remove the semantics you don't like from here and there about evangelical repentance vs legal repentance. Gill wrote an amazing work, as Gordon H. Clark points out, and if anyone is going to throw away the baby with the bath water, I challenge him to read it for himself and make up his own mind. Are we going to avoid reading Warfield because he believed in theistic evolution? Or Hodge because he did not hold to a strictly limited atonement? Or Cotton Mather because he wrote a book on witchcraft based on old English mythology? There is not a single theologian who was right on every point.

Besides, evangelical repentance and saving faith are essential the same thing. Repentance in the Bible simply means a change of mind, but we know that a true change of mind also result in a change of lifestyle and attitude, which only those who have true saving faith will exercise, while other will simply give false pretense of it. All those who repent evangelically will also repent legally, but not vice versa. It is possible for someone to repent legally and not evangelically.


----------



## JM

Which is why I posted what I did, it's best to review what has been written and move on.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Gill wrote that it was the duty of all to have faith...




Indeed he did but not saving faith. This is really the crux of the matter. Gill distinguishes between different types of faith and different types of repentance. He held that all were duty bound to repent both naturally and legally, but only sensible sinners were duty bound to repent evangelically. He held that all are duty bound to believe in God, but only sensible sinners are duty bound to savingly believe in Christ. 

Here Gill explains his distinctions between varieties of faith:
There is what is called an *historical faith*, not because it is only giving credit to the historical part of the scripture, which is to be believed as well as other parts; nor because the scripture is read, and attention paid to it only as a common history or human testimony; for men, with this faith, believe it to be a divine testimony, and regard it as such; it may rather be called a theoretic faith, a speculative one, receiving all things in the theory but reducing nothing to practice; or a bare naked assent to the truth of what is contained in the word concerning God and Christ, and divine things; it is a faith common to good men and bad men; it must be and is where true faith is, and there can be no true faith without it; but if a man stops here and goes no further, it falls short of spiritual, special faith, or the faith of God’s elect, and is no other than the faith of devils, and of bad men.

There is also a *temporary faith*, which continues only for a time, in some persons, as in the stony ground hearers, "Who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13), this sort of faith differs from the former, in that it is not a mere assent to truth, but is attended with affection, joy, and gladness, as in Herod, who heard John gladly, and did many outward things (Mark 6:20 and in those the apostle speaks of, "who tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come" (Heb. 6:5), all of a natural and superficial kind, arising from a principle of self-love, and from the novelty, harmony, and connection of truths, and from a false presumptuous hope of future happiness in consequence of their assent unto them; and so is different likewise from the faith of devils, who believe and tremble, but have no joy; and it differs also from true faith, because it is without the root of grace in the heart, and is loseable, is only for a time, for when trouble and persecution arise because of the word, such who have it, drop their profession of it; whereas where there is true faith, such do not "draw back", but continue "to believe" to "the saving of the soul" (Heb. 10:39).

There is a *special faith*, which is peculiar to God’s elect, and is by some called saving faith, though strictly speaking salvation is not in faith,[1] nor in any other grace, nor in any duty, only in Christ; there is no other name but his under heaven whereby we must be saved; he only is the author of eternal salvation; and yet there are some things in scripture which seem to countenance such a phrase; as when Christ said to the woman who repented of her sins, and had the forgiveness of them, loved Christ, and believed in him, "Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace" (Luke 7:50), unless the object of faith should be meant; and certain it is that salvation is promised to faith, and connected with it, "He that believes shall be saved", and is what faith issues in; true believers receive "the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls" (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 1:9)​
Here he differentiates between different types of repentance:

First, there is a *natural repentance*, or what is directed to by the light of nature, and the dictates of a natural conscience; for as there was in the heathens, and so is in every natural man, a knowledge of good and evil, of the difference in some respects between moral good and evil, and a conscience which, when it does its office, approves of what is well done, and accuses for that which is ill; so when conscience charges a man with doing an ill thing, and he is convinced of it, the light of nature and conscience direct him to wish he had not done it, and to repent of it, and to endeavour for the future to avoid it; as may be seen in the case of the Ninevites, who being threatened with the destruction of their city for their sins, proclaimed a fast, and issued out an order that everyone should turn from his evil ways, in hope that the wrath of God would be averted from them, though they could not be fully assured of it. The Gentiles laid great stress upon their repentance to conciliate the favour of God unto them; for they thought this made complete satisfaction for their sins, and wiped them clean, so that they imagined they were almost if not altogether pure and innocent:[5] there is a repentance which the goodness of God in providence might or should lead men unto, which yet it does not, but after their hardness and impenitent heart treasure up wrath against the day of wrath, and righteous judgment of God (Rom. 2:4,5).

Secondly, There is a *national repentance*, such as the Jews in Babylon were called unto, to which temporal blessings were promised, and a deliverance from temporal calamities; as on the one hand, a living in their own land, and a comfortable enjoyment of good things in it; and on the other hand, captivity, and all the distresses of it threatened; "Repent, and turn yourselves from your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin" (Ezek. 18:30-32), and which has no connection with the special grace of God, and with spiritual and everlasting things. The same people were called to repent of their Pharisaism, of their disbelief of the Messiah, and other evil works; and were told that the men of Nineveh would rise up in judgment and condemn them, who repented at the preaching of Jonah, and yet a greater than Jonah, even Christ himself, called them to repentance (Matthew 12:41). The same people were called upon by the apostles of Christ to repent of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, and to turn unto him, and to save themselves from temporal ruin, which for their impenitence and unbelief came upon their nation, city, and temple (Acts 3:19).

Thirdly, there is an *external repentance*, or an outward humiliation for sin, such as was in Ahab, which, though nothing more, it was taken notice of by the Lord, "Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me?" and though it lay only in rending his clothes, and putting on sackcloth, and in fasting, and in a mournful way, yet the Lord was pleased to promise that the evil threatened should not come in his days (1 Kings 21:29). And such is the repentance Tyre and Sidon would have exercised, had they had the advantages and privileges that some cities had, where Christ taught his doctrines, and wrought miracles; and of this kind was the repentance of the Ninevites which was regarded of God (Matthew 11:21; 12:41).

Fourthly, there is an *hypocritical repentance*, such as was in the people of Israel in the wilderness, who when the wrath of God broke out against them for their sins, "returned" unto him, or repented, but "their heart was not right with him" (Ps 78:34-37), so it is said of Judah, she "hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord"; and of Ephraim, or the ten tribes, "they return, but not to the Most High, they are like a deceitful bow" (Hosea 7:16), who turned aside and dealt unfaithfully.

Fifthly, there is a *legal* *and there is an* *evangelical repentance*. There is a *legal one*, which is a mere work of the law, and the effect of convictions of sin by it, which in time wear off and come to nothing; for, There may be a sense of sin and an acknowledgment of it, and yet no true repentance for it, as in the cases of Pharaoh and of Judas, who both said, "I have sinned" (Ex. 9:27; Matthew 27:4), yet they had no true sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, nor godly sorrow for it. There may be a kind of sorrow for it, not for the evil of fault that is in sin, but on account of the evil of punishment for it, as appears in some cases, and in Cain’s (Gen. 4:13). There may be a great deal of terror of mind because of sin, a great outcry about it, a fearful looking for of judgment for it, abundance of tears shed on the account of it, as were by Esau for the blessing, without success; the devils believe and tremble, but do not repent;[6] there are weeping and wailing in hell, but no repentance. Such a repentance, if no more than a mere legal one, issues in despair, as in Cain, whose words may be rendered, "My sin is greater than that it may be forgiven"; it is a repentance that may be repented of and is not unto life, but ends in death, as it did in Judas; it is "the sorrow of the world which worketh death" (2 Cor. 7:10).

There is an *evangelical repentance*, which lies, In a true sight and sense of sits; in a sight of it, as in itself considered as exceeding sinful in its own nature, and not merely as in its effects and consequences ruinous and destructive; not only in a sight of it in the glass of the divine law, but as that is held in the hand, and seen in the light of the blessed Spirit; and in a sight of it as contrary to the pure and holy nature of God, as well as repugnant to his will, and a breach of his law; and in a view of it as it appears in the glass of pardoning love and grace. In a hearty and unfeigned sorrow for it; this sorrow for it is the rather because it is against God, and that not only as a holy and righteous Being, but as good, and gracious, and merciful, of whose goodness, both in providence and grace, the sinner is sensible; the consideration of which increases his sorrow, and makes it the more intense and hearty. It is attended with shame and confusion of face, as in Ezra 9:6,8,10 and Luke 18:13 this shame increases the more, the more a sinner is sensible that God is "pacified towards him for all that he has done" (Ezek. 16:63).​
You raise the issue of Acts 16:31. Well this is classic Gill!

*And they said, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ;* Not with a bare historical faith, as only to believe that he was the Son of God, and the Messiah, and that he was come in the flesh, and had suffered, and died, and rose again, and was now in heaven at the right hand of God, and would come again to judge both quick and dead, for there may be such a faith and no salvation; but so as to look unto him alone for life and salvation, to rely upon him, and trust in him; to commit himself, and the care of his immortal soul unto him, and to expect peace, pardon, righteousness, and eternal life from him; the answer is much the same our Lord returned to the Jews, when they asked, though not with the same affection and sincerity as this man, what they must do to work the works of God, John 6:28.​
Why is this not Paul urging mere historical faith? Because the question of verse 30 indicates that the jailor was a sensible sinner!

Contrast that with what Gill writes on Acts 3:19

"Though no other repentance and conversion may be here meant than an external one; and the blotting out of sin, and forgiveness of it, may intend no other than the removing a present calamity, or the averting a threatened judgment, or the deliverance of persons from national ruin, Ex 32:32."​
I will leave the matter here but I would urge you to re-read Gill on the classic repentance verses in Scripture.

Just for example:

*Ezekiel 18:30 repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions;* this is to be understood of a national repentance for national sins, to prevent national judgments, being an address to the whole house of Israel; and not of evangelical repentance, which is the gift of God, and of an external reformation, as the fruit of it; and not of the first work of internal conversion, which is by the powerful and efficacious grace of God...​


----------



## AV1611

Neogillist said:


> There is not a single theologian who was right on every point.



No-one has suggested we should not read Gill.


----------



## JM

AV1611 said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gill wrote that it was the duty of all to have faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed he did but not saving faith. This is really the crux of the matter.
Click to expand...


Yes Richard, that's why Neo mentioned semantics.

Back to the op?

The cheapest place to buy:
chapters.indigo.ca: The Cause Of God And Truth: John Gill: Books


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Yes Richard, that's why Neo mentioned semantics.



So you agree that Gill denied it was the duty of all who hear the gospel to believe savingly in Christ, i.e. Gill denied duty-faith?


----------



## JM

Gill believed all have a duty to believe, faith is required from all, as Nettles points out in his book and as I quoted from Gill. So you agree then? Gill requires faith from all but different kinds of faith?


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Gill believed all have a duty to believe, faith is required from all, as Nettles points out in his book and as I quoted from Gill. So you agree then? Gill requires faith from all but different kinds of faith?



I have never denied that Gill taugh all have a duty to have faith, the issue was what type of faith. However, what Gill plainly denies is that it is the duty of all who hear the gospel to believe savingly. Now duty-faith is the teaching that all who hear the gospel have the duty to believe savingly. Gill would therefore have disagreed with Pink who said, "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" (_Duty-Faith_).

Therefore Gill denied duty-faith.


----------



## JM

> I have never denied that Gill taugh all have a duty to have faith...





Good, we agree. Gill taught all have a duty to have faith.




Sorry Neo for getting off topic.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Good, we agree. Gill taught all have a duty to have faith.



Whilst Gill taught all have a duty to have faith he did not teach all have a duty to have _saving faith_ and that is where Gill become unorthodox and that is why we can say he denied duty-faith.

As for Gill being the best defence of Calvinism one needs to determine if what Gill taught was Calvinism. Did Gill defend the theology of the Canons of Dordt?

*Head I, Article 3 - The Preaching of the Gospel*
So that men may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends heralds of this most joyful message to whom He will and when He wills. By their ministry men are called to repentance and to faith in Christ crucified. For how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? (Rom 10:14, 15)

*Head II, Article 5 - The Universal Proclamation of the Gospel*
The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe.

Gill could not subscribe to these statements, hence his 'Calvinism' is un-Confessional.


----------



## Neogillist

AV1611 said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Richard, that's why Neo mentioned semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that Gill denied it was the duty of all who hear the gospel to believe savingly in Christ, i.e. Gill denied duty-faith?
Click to expand...


I agree that Gill did deny that it is the duty of all who hear the gospel to believe in Christ to the saving of their soul. But that this is the definition of duty-faith, I am not sure. Take a look at the following:

"A Hyper-Calvinist, Gill`s major critics say, does not believe that God calls indiscriminately all who hear about Christ to believe in Him. They say this, holding that man is obliged as a matter of duty to trust in Christ as a condition of salvation. It is odd that this opinion is often closely associated with Gill for several reasons. First, this view applied to Gill is an anachronism as the idea of saving faith being the known duty and within the natural ability of all men reached its fullest expression amongst the Baptists in 1785 with the publication of Andrew Fuller`s controversial book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Gill, however, died in 1771 thus obviously having nothing to do with the debate that tore the Baptist churches apart after the book was published. The second reason is that during the earlier part of the 18th century the view of what came to be called ´duty-faith`, formerly propagated by Anglican Latitudinarians such as Tillotson , was gaining ground amongst the Independents but Gill, a staunch Baptist, maintained he did not take part in this debate . Even Andrew Fuller believed that Gill did not enter into the controversy and John Ryland Jnr, quoting Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth, argued that Gill never wrote on the subject of ´the Modern Question ` and exonerates him from taking the usual Hyper-Calvinist stand . John Rippon assumes that Gill did enter the debate in later life because of certain ´corrections` he made to his book The Cause of God and Truth. Rippon, however, does not state what these ´corrections`, are and how they might have applied to the debate in question." 
John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism

Gill was an extremely precise theologian, and most puritans who came before him did not use terminology as fined-tuned as he did, so it is easy to misinterpret Gill on certain points. I think it is best to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was actually reading Jonathan Edwards in "A Treatise on Religious Affections," where he actually points out that it is possible for an "evangelical hypocrite" to have assurance of salvation under the instigation of the devil, and yet remain totally unsaved. According to Edwards, it is a sin for the people to have faith in Christ when they are not in a "gracious estate." Consequently, I agree with Gill that the reprobate must not believe in Christ as their Saviour, since that would be hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there are many evangelicals (especially dispensationalist) today who believe that Christ is their Savior, simply because they have been told that Jesus died for them, and that God simply requires them to "accept" what Jesus did on the cross for them. What God requires from men is that they feel sorrow because of their sins for having broken His law, believe in Christ and repent. However, if they believe in Christ without having experienced sorrow over their sins, their faith is false and sinful.

Gill taught that faith precedes repentance, while some other Reformed theologians argue that repentance precedes faith. Consequently, I think Gill simply distinguished between two types of faith and two types of repentance to highlight which is given by God, and which is required from man. Later, however, this dichotomy was denied by theologians, and that all it was argued that all the types of faith and repentance are required by God. Consequently, they made Gill into a hyper-Calvinist when he never got the chance to defend himself.


----------



## Neogillist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I thought the best defense of Calvinism was Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.
> 
> Wasn't Gill a hyper-Calvinist?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



The Institutes by Calvin are the best defense of Reformed theology against Popery, but not against Arminianism. However, by Calvinism I meant the five points of Calvinism, as opposed to the Arminian position. Arminians will agree with a lot of the content in the Institutes, except for the five points, and perhaps a few other things here and there. 

Another defense of Calvinism I know is Lorraine Buettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination," but his is not an exegetical treatise, and leaves a lot of paradoxes and questions unanswered before the Arminian attacks.

Spurgeon also wrote a defense of Calvinism, but I think it is only 32 pages, and is not a scholarly work. Like I said, John Owen's "Death of Death" is an excellent defense of definite atonement, and his "A Display of Arminianism" is a good critique against early Remonstrance, but not to the same exegetical level as his "Death of Death," and Gill's "The Cause of God and Truth." Interestingly, Gill's exegesis is often very much in line with that of Owen and Calvin.


----------



## Dahlseide

AV1611 said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, we agree. Gill taught all have a duty to have faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst Gill taught all have a duty to have faith he did not teach all have a duty to have
> 
> 
> 
> saving faith[/qoute] and that is where Gill become unorthodox and that is why we can say he denied duty-faith.
> 
> As for Gill being the best defense of Calvinism one needs to determine if what Gill taught was Calvinism. Did Gill defend the theology of the Canons of Dordt?
> 
> *Head I, Article 3 - The Preaching of the Gospel*
> So that men may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends heralds of this most joyful message to whom He will and when He wills. By their ministry men are called to repentance and to faith in Christ crucified. For how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? (Rom 10:14, 15)
> 
> *Head II, Article 5 - The Universal Proclamation of the Gospel*
> The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe.
> 
> Gill could not subscribe to these statements, hence his 'Calvinism' is un-Confessional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you please explain why you think Gill could not? This whole issue seems to me to be saying that the gospel (my meaning is the whole scripture) is not to be preached to the forever-unconverted i.e. the reprobate. Hence a pointless argument - none of us know who they are (thankfully!). It seems to me those that tag Gill hyper-C or high-C are claiming that he would disagree with _This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe_. If all that is preached is the gospel of the gospel sans the law of the gospel then I agree that Gill could not, would not, subscribe.
> 
> What in the world is the use of using the word faith if the meaning is not saving faith when used in the context of the gospel?
Click to expand...


----------



## Neogillist

Dalhseide, Gill would not have had trouble subscribing to the Canons of Dort. In fact, in his "Cause of God and Truth," he actually defends certain arguments that John Davenant had made in another book. Davenant was a low calvinist who served as one of the delegates to the Synod of Dort. Gill had nothing to argue against the rulings of the synod. Moreover, the concept of duty-faith was defined after Gill's death, and Gill never really had a chance to clarify his semantics in what he meant by denying that any man must believe "to the saving of his soul." It seems to me that Gill was denying that faith effects regeneration, which was one of the predominant tenets of Wesley and other Arminians of his day. Gill simply attempts to drive away the notion that God commands man to save himself through believing in Jesus; which is essentially what Arminianism teaches. There is no corporeal difference between saving faith and mental faith, other than one is accompanied by a true love for Christ, and good works, while the other is conceited. Gill did teach that all men must have a true love for Christ, but that this love should not be directed at the benefits that they may draw from the cross. (This is exactly what Jonathan Edwards proves in his "Treatise on Religious Affections"). Edwards was actually a contemporary of Gill, and in fact thought highly of Gill. Gill defined those different kinds of faith and repentance because the Scriptures speak of various kinds of faith. See John 2:23, where the believing "in his name" clearly suggests (within the context) that those people did believe or made mental assent to Christ, but did not have saving faith. Later, in John 3:15-16, however John speaks of people "believing in Him," which itself refers to saving faith, again based on the context. Finally in John 3:18, you see again "have not believed in the name of God's one and only son...", which ultimately refers to denying that Christ is the messiah, and thus refers to a mental assent, apart from personal trust. Those men who persistently resist God's common grace so as to deny (all their life) that Jesus is the Christ (messiah), and God's Son, are condemned already, because they make God to be a liar. They have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit. James also speaks of a faith that is "dead", and consequently not saving.


----------



## AV1611

Dahlseide said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Head II, Article 5 - The Universal Proclamation of the Gospel*
> The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please explain why you think Gill could not? This whole issue seems to me to be saying that the gospel (my meaning is the whole scripture) is not to be preached to the forever-unconverted i.e. the reprobate. Hence a pointless argument - none of us know who they are (thankfully!). It seems to me those that tag Gill hyper-C or high-C are claiming that he would disagree with _This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe_. If all that is preached is the gospel of the gospel sans the law of the gospel then I agree that Gill could not, would not, subscribe.
Click to expand...


The Canons speak of the gospel including "the command to repent and believe" but Gill would have to say that this means legal or historical repentance and faith. i.e. they are not to be commanded to repent and believe savingly.


----------



## caddy

I purchased _The Cause of God and Truth_. Reading it now. I'm sure I will be reading it for a long time. The only thing I don't like about it so far is the "Font." It's horribly small....


----------



## Neogillist

caddy said:


> I purchased _The Cause of God and Truth_. Reading it now. I'm sure I will be reading it for a long time. The only thing I don't like about it so far is the "Font." It's horribly small....



Yea, the font is really small, but I'm sure you will really like it. I actually read the whole thing in 10 days just after finishing school.


----------

