Proof that Dr. Gill was not a hyper-calvinist

[ManleyBeasley]

This is from John Gill's "A Body of PRACTICAL Divinity: Book 3—Chapter 3"

4b1c. The gospel of salvation, the word of salvation, and salvation itself; it is a publication of salvation by Christ; it is the faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ came into the world to save the chief of sinners; it declares, that there is salvation in him, and in no other; and that whoever believes in him shall be saved: this is the gospel every faithful minister preaches, and every sensible sinner desires to hear.

This clearly shows (in my opinion) he believed in a free offer of the gospel.

 

[JonathanHunt]

I would have to disagree. The evidence is there in the quote:

and every sensible sinner desires to hear

Sensible sinner? One of Gill's devices to get AROUND the free offer. It is only a free offer to SOME, the 'sensible' ones.

From Dr Gill’s commentary on Isaiah 55:

The word "ho" is expressive of calling, as the Jewish commentators rightly observe; and carries in it an invitation, in which there seems to be a commiseration of the case of the persons called and it is delivered in indefinite terms, and very openly and publicly; and has in it the nature of a Gospel call or invitation, to persons described as "thirsty"; not in natural, much less in a sinful sense, but in a spiritual one; thirsting after forgiveness of sin by the blood of Christ; after justification by his righteousness; after salvation by him; after more knowledge of him, more communion with him, and more conformity to him; and after the milk of the word, and breasts of ordinances; being sensible of sin and danger, and having a spiritual appetite, and a desire after spiritual things. Such as these are persons made alive; are in distress, and sensible of it; and have desires formed in them after divine things: and these are invited and encouraged to "come to the waters"

This is Dr Gill’s loophole to make this a discriminate, limited offer. One may be intimidated by his learning, but it has to be said that a good firm tug will close the loop. There are many sinners who are dissatisfied with this world and what it offers, looking for something new – indeed, that is a fair description of the human condition. All humans are thirsting – always drinking of the next ‘new thing’ and never finding satisfaction. This passage does not refer to an elect few thirsting after righteousness, but to all sinners.

 

[Hippo]

These threads always founder on the differing definitions of hyper-calvinism that people adhere to. As hyper-calvinsim is a perjoritive label it is in my view really unhelpful to any open discussion on preaching the gospel to use hyper-calvinism as a yardstick.

It is often a fine distinction between declaring the gospel and making a "free offer" of the gospel. The doctrine of limited atonement does restrict what can be either anounced or offered and as long as the gospel is announced to elect and reprobate alike I do not think that a perjorative label is justified.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I would have to disagree. The evidence is there in the quote:

and every sensible sinner desires to hear

Sensible sinner? One of Gill's devices to get AROUND the free offer. It is only a free offer to SOME, the 'sensible' ones.

From Dr Gill’s commentary on Isaiah 55:

The word "ho" is expressive of calling, as the Jewish commentators rightly observe; and carries in it an invitation, in which there seems to be a commiseration of the case of the persons called and it is delivered in indefinite terms, and very openly and publicly; and has in it the nature of a Gospel call or invitation, to persons described as "thirsty"; not in natural, much less in a sinful sense, but in a spiritual one; thirsting after forgiveness of sin by the blood of Christ; after justification by his righteousness; after salvation by him; after more knowledge of him, more communion with him, and more conformity to him; and after the milk of the word, and breasts of ordinances; being sensible of sin and danger, and having a spiritual appetite, and a desire after spiritual things. Such as these are persons made alive; are in distress, and sensible of it; and have desires formed in them after divine things: and these are invited and encouraged to "come to the waters"

This is Dr Gill’s loophole to make this a discriminate, limited offer. One may be intimidated by his learning, but it has to be said that a good firm tug will close the loop. There are many sinners who are dissatisfied with this world and what it offers, looking for something new – indeed, that is a fair description of the human condition. All humans are thirsting – always drinking of the next ‘new thing’ and never finding satisfaction. This passage does not refer to an elect few thirsting after righteousness, but to all sinners.

I'm not sure what you mean. What I'm discussing is the preaching of the gospel and the call to repentance and faith. He made it clear in the text I posted that whoever believes can come. Of course, only those called will believe. It doesn't negate the free offer to say that only sensible (called and regenerate) sinners will desire it. Do you mean something else?

-----Added 12/21/2008 at 02:47:54 EST-----

These threads always founder on the differing definitions of hyper-calvinism that people adhere to. As hyper-calvinsim is a perjoritive label it is in my view really unhelpful to any open discussion on preaching the gospel to use hyper-calvinism as a yardstick.

It is often a fine distinction between declaring the gospel and making a "free offer" of the gospel. The doctrine of limited atonement does restrict what can be either anounced or offered and as long as the gospel is announced to elect and reprobate alike I do not think that a perjorative label is justified.

It is absolutely biblical to declare to any lost sinner that God will save them if they repent and put their trust in Christ. From the quote above I believe Dr. Gill makes that claim also. Gill was a supporter of George Whitfield and I believe Whitfield exhorted people to believe.

-----Added 12/21/2008 at 02:50:30 EST-----

"it declares, that there is salvation in him, and in no other; and that whoever believes in him shall be saved"

"It" is the "gospel of salvation"

 

[JM]

"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 well pleasing 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

Gill does deny man's ability to savingly repent and believe the Gospel, "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."

The hyper-Calvinist will conclude that since they can't or won't come to Christ they can't be expected to do so, Gill does not make that claim.

On Acts 16:31 he writes, "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..."

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

 

[Herald]

A similar thought entered my mind during this mornings message. I had a good idea that a few of the people in attendance were not saved. We've had three young sailors attending over the past two months. They brought a friend with them today. As I preached I focused on the gospel towards the end of my sermon. I wasn't concerned about who was or wasn't elect. My concern was to strengthen the saints and convict the sinner. The only weapon at my disposal was the Word of God. The call to repentance and faith, while only effectual for the elect, was freely proclaimed to all. While Mr. Gill might have cringed at my exegesis, I believe he would have approved of the free offer of the gospel.

 

[Ivan]

Dr. Thomas J. Nettles, in pages 89-107 of By His Grace and For His Glory does an outstanding job of defending Gill from charges that he was a hyper-Calvinist. If you believe that Gill was, then you should read this section before further asserting such. I'm assuming that most Reformed book stores will have a copy, and I'm fairly certain that any of the SBC's Lifeway stores will carry a copy.

You can get it here:

By His Grace and For His Glory

 

[Prufrock]

Dr. Thomas J. Nettles, in pages 89-107 of By His Grace and For His Glory does an outstanding job of defending Gill from charges that he was a hyper-Calvinist. If you believe that Gill was, then you should read this section before further asserting such. I'm assuming that most Reformed book stores will have a copy, and I'm fairly certain that any of the SBC's Lifeway stores will carry a copy.

I'll have to read that.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Dr. Thomas J. Nettles, in pages 89-107 of By His Grace and For His Glory does an outstanding job of defending Gill from charges that he was a hyper-Calvinist. If you believe that Gill was, then you should read this section before further asserting such. .

Who did assert that? I probably muddied the waters. I don't believe Dr Gill would approve of my preaching and he'd probably find me a bit Arminian. I don't personally think we can classify Dr Gill as a hyper-calvinist at all. But I don't for one moment think that he held that the gospel is really offered freely to all. He held that the gospel is offered freely only to 'sensible sinners'.

I think that 'being a hyper-calvinist' and 'believing in a free offer of the gospel' are not neccessarily identical issues, and hence we have got our wires crossed a bit. Manley's first post said 'Gill not a hyper' - I agree. It also said 'Gill believed in free offer' - I respectfully disagree. I believe that the free offer of the gospel is a holy mystery, and that we cannot from our puny human minds reconcile the ways of God absolutely. The gospel is offered freely and yet only some are elect. Those are the facts. Some can't accept this and spend a lot of time on constructing ways to reconcile these matters. For me, I am happy to let God be God, and to accept both truths from the word of God, like Mr Spurgeon did. With Dr Gill sneering at him from the wall ;-)

 

[Pilgrim]

If I recall correctly Phil Johnson has referred to Gill's views as "ultra high Calvinism" but not hyper.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Dr. Thomas J. Nettles, in pages 89-107 of By His Grace and For His Glory does an outstanding job of defending Gill from charges that he was a hyper-Calvinist. If you believe that Gill was, then you should read this section before further asserting such. .

Who did assert that? I probably muddied the waters. I don't believe Dr Gill would approve of my preaching and he'd probably find me a bit Arminian. I don't personally think we can classify Dr Gill as a hyper-calvinist at all. But I don't for one moment think that he held that the gospel is really offered freely to all. He held that the gospel is offered freely only to 'sensible sinners'.

I think that 'being a hyper-calvinist' and 'believing in a free offer of the gospel' are not neccessarily identical issues, and hence we have got our wires crossed a bit. Manley's first post said 'Gill not a hyper' - I agree. It also said 'Gill believed in free offer' - I respectfully disagree. I believe that the free offer of the gospel is a holy mystery, and that we cannot from our puny human minds reconcile the ways of God absolutely. The gospel is offered freely and yet only some are elect. Those are the facts. Some can't accept this and spend a lot of time on constructing ways to reconcile these matters. For me, I am happy to let God be God, and to accept both truths from the word of God, like Mr Spurgeon did. With Dr Gill sneering at him from the wall ;-)

What I was referring to was the free offer of the gospel in gospel preaching. I believe Dr. Gill told to whomever he preached the gospel "repent and believe" as opposed to the semantic games the later hyper-calvinists played. Maybe I'm being simplistic but I have no problem with the belief that God offers the gospel to all but only elects some. Man is responsible to repent and believe but only will if God has elected, called, and regenerated him. Man is also responsible to only tell the truth but is also unable to do that.

Some of his theology may have influenced some to not command all who hear to repent but I don't think this is the practical application of John Gill himself. As I mentioned, he was a strong supporter of George Whitfield who certainly commanded his listeners to repent and believe.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

As for 'free offer,' I certainly believe it insofar as the denotation of those terms go. But I don't equate 'free offer' with 'well-meant offer.' Of course, that's neither here nor there, since the post is about Gill and not me.

Thanks, that is what I'm trying to say.