# Reading John Gill



## bookslover (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: _A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures_ by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).

The two parts, I understand, were published separately; the _Doctrinal_ (1767), then the _Practical_ (1670). And, these were his last two books, published before his death in 1771, at the age of 73.

I've never read Gill before. Any suggestions?


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 11, 2009)

bookslover said:


> I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: _A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures_ by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).
> 
> The two parts, I understand, were published separately; the _Doctrinal_ (1767), then the _Practical_ (1670). And, these were his last two books, published before his death in 1771, at the age of 73.
> 
> I've never read Gill before. Any suggestions?



Be advised that Gill was a hyper-calvinist and believed in Eternal Justification.


----------



## DavidinKnoxville (Aug 11, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: _A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures_ by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).
> ...



With all due respect elder; John Gill was a high calvinist. Not a hyper.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 11, 2009)

DavidinKnoxville said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



I appreciate the input David and your respectful attitude as well. Indeed there continues to be debate about Gill's particular strand of Calvinism. I do not believe he was as hard-shell as his followers, such as Brine but Gill had by the 1720's begun to distance himself from his 1689 brethren, drawing up his _Declaration of Faith and Practice_ in 1729.


----------



## JML (Aug 11, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: _A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures_ by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).
> ...




I don't mean to be difficult but a lot of times the same words mean different things to different people. Could you define what you mean the bolded statement above? Is the fact that he believed in eternal justification make him a hyper-Calvinist or what doctrines did he believe that made him according to your definition a hyper-Calvinist? Just trying to understand your statement. Thanks.


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2009)

“It is reported of the dove, that it will allure wild doves by its familiar converses into the dove-house with it: those who are called by grace, will use all proper ways and methods to allure and gain others to Christ, and to compliance with his ways and ordinances, as the church does the daughters of Jerusalem in this Song.” John Gill on Song of Solomon II:14

No, Gill was not a Hyper. I’ve read much, MUCH of his work and highly recommend him to all. The Cause of God and Truth is one of the best works on Calvinism ever written.
jm


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 11, 2009)

John Lanier said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



Gill was an important figure in Baptist history and I will continue to consult his writings _all the while seeking to discern his blind spots_.

By Hyper-Calvinist I mean the practical outworking of a rigid supralapsarian theology which results in a passivity relative to the gospel.

Gill wrote:_That there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny; nay I deny that they are made to any; no not to God's elect: grace and salvation are promised for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit_ from THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION STATED- 1752


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2009)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/where-you-calvinism-chart-20840/

start here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/new-john-gill-audio-51521/


----------



## JML (Aug 11, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > rbcbob said:
> ...




So, you mean because he didn't believe in a "free offer" of the gospel?


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2009)

The audio on Gill is really worth listening to.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 11, 2009)

John Lanier said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > John Lanier said:
> ...



"But it may be said, if conversion is not in the power and will of men, to what purpose are such exhortations as these; “Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; turn yourselves, and live ye?” and again, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted?”Ezekiel 18:30,32; Acts 3:19
to which it may be replied, That these passages have no respect to spiritual and internal conversion, but to an external reformation of life and manners."-Gill, Body of Divinity, p.549


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 11, 2009)

> Bob, where do those passages speak of God offering grace?



Josh, could you flesh out your question a bit? I am not sure that I understand your meaning.


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2009)

bookslover said:


> I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: _A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures_ by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).
> 
> The two parts, I understand, were published separately; the _Doctrinal_ (1767), then the _Practical_ (1670). And, these were his last two books, published before his death in 1771, at the age of 73.
> 
> I've never read Gill before. Any suggestions?



Let's not hijack the thread.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 11, 2009)

Joshua said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > > Bob, where do those passages speak of God offering grace?
> ...



Josh, "grace" has a variety of shades of meaning in both Biblical and Theological speech. If preaching the good news indiscriminately to sinners on God's behalf [*2 Cor 5:20*] can in some sense be understood to be apprising the sinner that the grace of God is coming to his ears via His messenger then, in this sense God , through us, is bringing the offer of His grace to such a sinner.

Gill, especially in his later years, would no sympathy with this.


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2009)

Gill, 

Of a stoical apathy is the phrase to be understood; as if a man should be quite unaffected with an afflictive providence; though the affections are to be checked, when they become inordinate, yet there may be a due use of them; they are not indeed to be set on earth, and earthly things, but upon things in heaven; and such a disposition of them will make a man more quiet and easy under the loss of things temporal; yet he is not wholly divested of his affections under such losses; when Job lost all his substance, as well as his children, and was all submission to the will of God, yet he gave manifest tokens of his affections being moved by the providence; as by rending his mantle, shaving his head, and falling down upon the ground: and though Christians are not to sorrow for the loss of relations and friends, as the heathens, without hope, and in that immoderate and barbarous manner they did, yet may with moderation; Abraham went to Hebron to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her, when dead; and Joseph made a mourning for his father seven days; devout men carried Stephen to his grave, and made great lamentation over him; and Christ himself wept over the grave of Lazarus.​
16. Of Resignation to the Will of God.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 11, 2009)

JM said:


> “It is reported of the dove, that it will allure wild doves by its familiar converses into the dove-house with it: those who are called by grace, will use all proper ways and methods to allure and gain others to Christ, and to compliance with his ways and ordinances, as the church does the daughters of Jerusalem in this Song.” John Gill on Song of Solomon II:14
> 
> No, Gill was not a Hyper. I’ve read much, MUCH of his work and highly recommend him to all. The Cause of God and Truth is one of the best works on Calvinism ever written.
> jm


Amen to that!!!


----------



## the particular baptist (Aug 11, 2009)

The relation between an "offer of grace" and the proclamation of the gospel is an important aspect of understanding Gill. As seen, Gill rejected the idea that grace, Christ, or salvation could be offered. In his rebuttal to Wesley's harangue on predestination, Gill distances himself from any attempt to defend the sincerity of an "offer" of grace when grace is sovereignly withheld. (From, By His Grace and For His Glory by Dr. Tom Nettles pg.47)


It is in this context then that we can rightly read the following;

... _That there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny; nay I deny that they are made to any; no not to God's elect: grace and salvation are promised for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit; much less are they made to others; wherefore, this doctrine is not chargeable with insincerity on that account. Let the patrons of universal offers defend themselves from this objection, I have nothing to do with it. _( Gill, Doctrine of Predestination pgs. 28.29)



Dr. Gill also believed in the use of means for the conversion of the elect.


_...yet they may preach the gospel of salvation to all men, and declare, that whosoever believes shall be saved: for this they are commissioned to do._ (Gill, Cause, pg. 164)

_
...the harvest is great and the faithful and painful ministers are few. There are scarcely any that naturally care for the estate and souls of men, and who are heartily concerned for their spiritual welfare: all comparatively seek their own things, their honor and applause from men, their ease, reputation, and riches; and none or few the things which are Jesus Christ's , or which relate to his honor, glory, kingdom, and interests in the world._ (Ivimey, English Baptists, 3,277) (quote from 1750)


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2009)

In all honestly I can’t think of a theologian that has influenced me more then Gill.

6. Jehovah's Prerogative and His Love to put away the Sins of His People
*It is the Lord’s work*, and his only, it is his act, and deed, to put away sin from his people. Of this, they themselves are sensible; and therefore, under a sense of sin, apply to him for the removal and putting of it away: hence Job says, I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou Preserver of men?—Why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity? (Job 7:21); plainly intimating, that no other could pardon and forgive, or take away his sin, but the Lord himself, against whom he had sinned: and hence David, when he was under a strong and full conviction of the sin he had been guilty of, here referred unto, in the fifty-first Psalm, that penitential Psalm penned on this occasion, entreats, that God would blot out his transgressions, and cleanse him from his sin (Ps.51:1, 2); which is the same thing as in the text, putting away his sin from him. *This is the Lord’s act, and his only.*​


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 11, 2009)

DavidinKnoxville said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



I love gill but he was a hyper-Calvinist. "How irrational it is, for ministers to stand 
offering Christ, and salvation by him to man, when on the one hand, they 
have neither power nor right to give; and on the other hand, the persons they 
offer to, have neither power nor will to receive." (Sermons and Tracts, 1st 
ed, vol.2, p.146) "The grace of God is bestowed upon them, applied to them, 
and wrought in them, but not offered. And as for the non-elect, grace is 
neither offered to them, nor bestowed on them..." (Cause of God and Truth, p. 
156). I have read lots of Gill's writings (and my ex pastor Curt Daniel has read all - some of them several times) - and we
have never seen anything resembling his acceptance of free offers anywhere. 
Tom Nettles does not produce any nor any defender of Gill in just calling him a ''high Calvinist''. He was a hyper-Calvinist just like Hoeksema and at times AW Pink was.


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> DavidinKnoxville said:
> 
> 
> > rbcbob said:
> ...



You are in the company of many hyper calvinists.  Don't muddy the waters.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/where-you-calvinism-chart-20840/


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 11, 2009)

JM said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > DavidinKnoxville said:
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 11, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> I love gill but he was a hyper-Calvinist. "How irrational it is, for ministers to stand
> offering Christ, and salvation by him to man, when on the one hand, they
> have neither power nor right to give; and on the other hand, the persons they
> offer to, have neither power nor will to receive." (Sermons and Tracts, 1st
> ...



Where did you cut and paste this from? Have you not read through this thread? Go two posts above yours to PactumServa72's post. From what I have seen of Curt Daniels I am not all that impressed by him.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 11, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > I love gill but he was a hyper-Calvinist. "How irrational it is, for ministers to stand
> ...



my personal correspondance with him of course! I did edit a bit of it to make it applicable to the forum.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 12, 2009)

This subject is so sad . . .

The charges of "Hyper-Calvinist" achieve nothing but distraction, dilution, and oftentimes interference and prevention of the fine teachings of many faithful Reformers.

I can only evaluate anyone making such charge, to be an enemy of Scriptural truth and a sincere Christian witness.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 12, 2009)

So, I'm wondering. . . .

Does anybody have any suggestions for Richard? He was asking for opinions on what to read, not opinions on Gill.


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 12, 2009)

bookslover said:


> I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: _A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures_ by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).
> 
> The two parts, I understand, were published separately; the _Doctrinal_ (1767), then the _Practical_ (1670). And, these were his last two books, published before his death in 1771, at the age of 73.
> 
> I've never read Gill before. Any suggestions?



I'm far from an expert on Gill, but have read the work in question; and so to help keep with the OP I would make the following under-educated suggestions for reading his works:

1.) Find and read Richard Muller's articles, "John Gill and the Reformed Tradition," and "The Spirit and the Covenant: John Gill's Critique of the Pactum Salutis."

2.) Read Gill with a deep focus upon the prior tradition and on how he interacts with it. He is consciously outside it in a sense, but makes great use of it (and has an impressive command over it). Though he shares much in common with Reformed doctrine, he is not a "Reformed theologian" and we should not attempt to squeeze him in to all our presuppositions. Understand (both with respect to methodology and content) how Gill differs from and is similar to the Reformed tradition and the theology of his day.

3.) In my unlearned opinion, in the Doctrinal Body, books II and V represent Gill at his finest, even when he departs from orthodoxy. These sections deserve careful reading.

4.) At the time I studied Gill, I was of the opinion that the Practical Body was "less important" than the former, and did not read it as carefully. I wish I had not done so.

5.) Read Gill in conjunction with Turretin or van Mastricht (etc). It will make Gill much more useful.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 13, 2009)

Thanks, Prufrock. Those are excellent suggestions.

As for Gill's alleged hyper-Calvinism, I guess what's needed first is a clear definition of hyper-Calvinism, a definition that most could agree to, in the main.

As I said in the OP, I've never read Gill, but I'm going to get to him soon.

If anyone else has suggestions as to how to read him, or anything about Gill's background, etc., I'd be interested to hear it. Perhaps that calls for a different thread, though.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 13, 2009)

Whether Gill is a hyper or not is often just a semantic game.

Personally, I think denying the free offer of the gospel is a serious problem. My anecdotal observation and experience of modern Gillites is very negative (unloving, harsh, critical etc.). Theology is life! What we believe affects what we do.

Hence, I would encourage people to read other more balanced Systematic Theologies before they read Gill, say Bavinck, Hodge, Shedd, Mike Horton's new one.


----------



## JM (Aug 13, 2009)

Now I know what you really think of me (unloving, harsh, critical)...


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 13, 2009)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Whether Gill is a hyper or not is often just a semantic game.
> 
> Personally, I think denying the free offer of the gospel is a serious problem. My anecdotal observation and experience of modern Gillites is very negative (unloving, harsh, critical etc.). Theology is life! What we believe affects what we do.
> 
> Hence, I would encourage people to read other more balanced Systematic Theologies before they read Gill, say Bavinck, Hodge, Shedd, Mike Horton's new one.


The only ""Gilite"" I know personally is the Rev. John Bodner in Mississauga, Ontario. A more humble, loving, irenic Christ-like saint is hard to find. No, I am not a Baptist, just a ""baby-dunking"" Dutch Reformed Believer who loves John Gill and considers him one of the greatest theologians who ever lived.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 14, 2009)

Hey Joshua,

I suspected I might get a response from you. I didn't want to offend by anything I said; but I am speaking from my raw experience of Gillites. There exists very little in the way of mission activity from them in my experience (I'm not speaking for everyone's experience, only mine).



Joshua said:


> But I grow weary of the "crying 'wolf'!" that seems to be concerning those who disbelieve the idea that God "sincerely desires" something which is in complete contradiction to His decree.



I guess I grow weary of being told this is a contradiction, when the clear majority in the 16th and 17th century reformed tradition didn't see it as such. Hence, Francis Turretin drew a distinction between between God's will of εὐδοκίας (‘‘good pleasure”, the decretive will) and εὐαρεστίας (“approbation” / “complacency” / "delight" the preceptive will) [Turretin, _Institutio Theologiae Elencticae_ III.xv.8, Opera 1:200]. In this way Turretin explains Ezek. 33:11 that God delights not in the death of anyone (εὐαρεστίας) but wills only the salvation of the elect (εὐδοκίας ).

Hence, other reformed divines taught:

*Zacharias Ursinus*:
"'God wills that all be saved' [1 Tim. 2:4], (i) in respect that he delights (_delectatur_) in the salvation of all" . (Ursinus, _Doctrinae Christianae Compendium_ Canterbury: Thomas Thomasius, 1585, p. 483).

*Robert Rollock*:
"He [God] wills, I say, the salvation also of the reprobate, because the salvation of the creature is in itself a good thing" (Rollock, _Analysis Dialectica [...] in Pauli Apostoli Epistolam ad Romanos_ 8:19-39, p. 140.)

*Thomas Manton*:
"God may be said to like the salvation of all men, yet not to intend it with an efficacious will" (Manton, _Sermons upon Ezekiel XVIII.23_ Sermon I, Works 21:465)

*Matthew Henry*:
"It is true, that God has determined to punish Sinners, his justice calls for it; and pursuant to that, impenitent Sinners will lie for ever under his Wrath and Curse; that’s the will of his Decree, his consequent Will, ‘tis not his antecedent Will, the Will of his delight: though the Righteousness of his Government requires that Sinners die, yet the Goodness of his Nature objects against it." (_An exposition of The Old And New Testament_, 4:459).

There are much better systematic theologies with which to get one's teeth into than Gill.

Blessings,

Marty.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2009)

I would highly recommend referring to his commentaries when ever possible. They are always enlightening historically and exegetically.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 14, 2009)

Does anyone have an opinion on Gill's _The Cause of God and Truth_?


----------



## JM (Aug 14, 2009)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/best-scholarly-defense-calvinism-32911/


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Aug 15, 2009)

JohnOwen007 said:


> . . .
> I guess I grow weary of being told this is a contradiction, when the clear majority in the 16th and 17th century reformed tradition didn't see it as such. Hence, Francis Turretin drew a distinction between between God's will of εὐδοκίας (‘‘good pleasure”, the decretive will) and εὐαρεστίας (“approbation” / “complacency” / "delight" the preceptive will) [Turretin, _Institutio Theologiae Elencticae_ III.xv.8, Opera 1:200]. In this way Turretin explains Ezek. 33:11 that God delights not in the death of anyone (εὐαρεστίας) but wills only the salvation of the elect (εὐδοκίας ).
> . . .
> 
> Marty.



I searched my Giger Dennison P&R 3 Vol edition of Turretin and could not correlate to your reference. However, the ref to Ezek. 33:11 may be found in my 1:408. But I don't think your point is obvious. Turretin is consistent in his distinction between the decretive and preceptive aspects of God's will. You rightly indicate that Turretin sees this will of complacency/delight as indicating God's "preceptive" will. A few pages later, in 1:412, Turretin clearly says that God's will of complacency (εὐαρεστίας) "commands man's duty and declares what is pleasing to God."

The confusion comes when one tries to maintain that God has a "volitional" desire for the salvation of the reprobate. God's volition is expressed in his "decretive" will, not his "preceptive" will. Turretin is not confused here while I believe Amyraldians and Davenantian "dual reference" men are! So were Murray and Stonehouse in their "Free Offer" argument.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Aug 15, 2009)

You might want to try and get your hands on a copy of John Rippon's biography of Gill - "_The Life and Writings of the Rev. John Gill, D.D._" It can be obtained on Amazon fairly cheaply (around $10).

I have found it very informative and interesting.


----------



## CarlosOliveira (Aug 15, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: _A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures_ by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).
> ...



You may read this article on-line here


----------



## bookslover (Aug 15, 2009)

CarlosOliveira said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



Thanks, Carlos. I read it. That was a fascinating article by Muller; he really shed light for me on the sources of Gill's theological thought.


----------

