Reading John Gill

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
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 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.
 
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.

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

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

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.
 
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.


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.
 
“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
 
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.


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.

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


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.

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


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

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


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

"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
 
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. :)
 
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.
I am saying that denial of a "gracious well-meant offer by God to all men indiscriminately" is not Hyper-Calvinism, and that Gill's denial of said offer does not qualify him as a hyper-Calvinist.

My question pertains to God offering grace, when all throughout Scripture grace is something given in the context of the Elect, not the reprobate.

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.
 
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.
 
“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!!!:cheers:
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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



Just because someone is a hyper-Calvinist that doesn't mean they are not a christian... it just means they are not out of the historical mainstream of calvinism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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

Does anybody have any suggestions for Richard? He was asking for opinions on what to read, not opinions on Gill.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Now I know what you really think of me (unloving, harsh, critical)...

:hug::lol:
 
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:lol: who loves John Gill and considers him one of the greatest theologians who ever lived.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top