A Discussion Amongst Calvinists

I am a baptist calvinist who believes in evangelism, alter calls, and praying to Christ for forgiveness and salvation and then thanking him for it. Basically I believe in praying to receive Christ!

The following passages are clear in the following:

1. that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
2. that those who call upon the name of the Lord already believe in him, thus regeneration has already happened.
3. that regeneration and faith in Christ occur when one is exposed to the gospel message.

Thus I believe it is biblical to evangelize the world for Christ, invite them who believe in him to repent and call upon him to save them.

That does not make me an arminian because I believe regeneration preceeds faith and I believe the bible teaches the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, atonement limited to only those with faith in Christ, irresistible grace, and preservation through Christ.

Romans 10:13-17 ESV
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?3 And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

So everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. It is evident that everyone who really has faith will indeed call upon the name of the Lord.

I am somewhere in the moderate to low calvinist bracket.

 

One thing that you need to remember when reading the "scholars" on those sights you mentioned: they have an agenda against those who do not hold to the free offer and common grace. The simple truth is that any who have actually read Gill knows that he is not hyper. I would suggest aht tyou read a few of His sermons before you start painting him with the brush of hyper.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#1

 

That sounds a lot like my view.

 

In no particular order:

Tom Ascol,Richard Muller,Paul Helm,Vincent Cheung,Gordon Clark,Gregory Wills,Sharon James,George Ella,John Ryland Jr.

That's enough for now.

And in the 18th century before the term hyper-Calvinist caught on John Gill was friends with and his church supported the evangelist George Whitefield. Toplady and James Hervey were good friends of his. Gill certainly maintained relations with evangelically-minded preachers --because he was too.

 

Yes.. and I can produce a very long list as well.
However I note that you don't state that even Tom Nettles discerns 'some elements of Hyper-Calvinism" in Gill, especially his understanding with regard the gospel offer.

Anyway.. it really depends on how a person 'chooses' to define Hyper-Calvinism, of which places Gill either into that catagory or not. It is interesting that while some American scholars are defending Gill as not being Hyper, the Reformed English Evangelicals are doing the opposite.

And again, I am only quoting others of the Reformed view who not only know what that fully entails but are also well respected in and among their peers.

Yes. This is a common statement made by those supporting Gill as 'not' being Hyper or having such tendencies - specfically in relation to the Gospel being presented to all.

Yet, it is of note that you do not hear of Gill or members of his church going out and doing any such things. To give verbal consent does not mean that he himself was not necessarily opposed to it. The end result was still the same in essesne, for those who became saved during such a work, were still saved regardless of activity - offering the gospel to all.

That is where Gill most certainly divides from others of mainstream reformed faith. They state the gospel 'is' offered to all men everywhere.. but Gill holds, like others and states - no, a call or invitation (words which Gill uses often) is presented, though not actaully for all (even though all are present) but only for those who will respond. Thus in truth the gosple message is not 'for' or toward the world in general but only and specfically to the elect. This is a hyper view.

So what evangelist things did he do?
I realize he had 'friends' that went out and evangelized, personally witnessed to other and presented the gospel to all without reservation. But what evangelsism or evangelistic things did he do or had his church do or even be apart of?
That is an honest question.

 

Those sites I mentioned, also have articles and such on the opposing view.
I stated those sites to enforce the point it was not my view but others of the Reformed view who hold him such.

I have many of Gills works. And while I have read these (some not as in deapth as others) I was not doing so to determine whether he was hyper or not.. however from my own readings I can say he definately has hyper tendency in regard to the reformed view of the gospel 'offer'. However, to keep my bias apart from this discussion I simply refered and deferred to those well studied and known Calvinists who place Gill in that camp.. or even leaning (a prototype so to speak) of Hyper-ism to come.

 

Well,then name them.

Nettles does not put Gill in the hyper camp. Besides,Nettles agrees with Gill regarding the so-called "offer" terminology.

Yes,it certainly does depend on how one defines hyper-Calvinism.

Be specific.Name them. And do those scholars (?) represent the majority of Calvinistic Brits? Perhaps some Brits here would like to weigh in.Even ex-Brits,Jim.

Well,it's true.

Gill was an invaluable scholar for the ages. Whitefield had a different field of ministry.Dr.Gill preached and taught the whole counsel of the Word of God in an excellent manner. He was a boon to the Kingdom as was Whitefield --just different ministries.

I don't know where you are coming up with that stuff about Gill perhaps being opposed to the evangelism of Whitefield. You won't find evidence to substantiate that charge. Stick to historical facts.

It's hard to follow your form of English. Could you rephrase that please?

Gill believed in an indiscriminate proclamation of the Gospel. He didn't pick an audience of what he viewd as elect only --that would be real hyper-Calvinism.

For decades he held meetings in which he lectured on Bible truths. All were invited --from many different denominations. This was apart from the regular worship services at his church.

 

You need to remember that in the early 18th entury, it was actually illegal for Dissenters to preach in the open air. The Act of Toleration in 1688 only allowed non-Conformists to gather in their own buildings. That is why you only hear of Anglicans like Wesley and Whitefield doing open air preaching.

You can certainly find statements by Gill that seem to indicate that he did not believe in offering the Gospel to the unconverted, but in fact much of his life was spent preaching and teaching evangelical doctrines. He was absolutely a bulwark against the doctrines of Latitudinarianism, Deism and Unitarianism which were coming in like a flood in his day. That is why he was so much admired by the early Anglican evangelicals.

You can find more here:-

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/learning-the-lessons-of-history-1/

Steve

 

Hello Allan,

1st, I would like you to read this link and give me some feed back.

LINK

2nd...I have read most ALL of Gill's books, but not letters and addresses. In his books you will not find hyper-Calvinism. I have heard it can be found in his messages. That I cannot address, because I have not read any.

What I have read is this. There is ONE quote that some writers have past along to each other as proof of Gills hyperness. That quote I can tell you is pulled out of context.

3rd.......FROM THE LINK ABOVE.......Thomas J. Nettle’s By His Grace and for His Glory and Timothy George’s essay on Gill in Baptist Theologians show clearly that Gill was no Hyper-Calvinist.

 

It appears that the definition of Calvinism is as confusing as their doctrine.

 

It does appear to be very confusing both in doctrine and definition to non-Calvinist. Calvinist keep being asked about the same verses. We address the same logical fallacy to the same people over and over. We are said to be Hyper, when we are not. Most books against Calvinism, use arguments against hyper-Calvinism as if Calvinist believed it.

I have been on this board now many years, and the same people ask the same logical fallacy, which are addressed and one month later they ask them again.

I agree...there is a lot of confusion by non-Calvinist.

Calvinist understand it.

 

The subject in the last number of posts has been hyper-Calvinism.

 

Salter's Hall.Thanks Steve. That's the place Dr.Gill lectured for decades.

You have a very informative blog. A lot of work has gone into it I can tell.

 

Anyone can google it. Try it.
Why should go through the trouble of what SHOULD be common knowledge to you. You KNOW it is true because you referrence Nettles and others who, not speaking to non-cals but Cals, that Gill might not have been Hyper and are answering other REFORMED scholarship.

I didn't say Nettles 'put Gill in the Hyper Camp', stick with what I am saying, it helps.

The point I was stating is Nettles did find some aspects that, though Gill held theoretically, it did not necessarily come through in his practice. One such instiance of this is where Gill holds 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). But Nettles goes on to demonstrate (227) that what was theoretical did not bleed over into practice.

Yes, and it does. And apparently it is still a problem in the Reformed camp.
This is a well known quote and very true:
Gill's relationship with hyper-Calvinism is a matter of academic debate

Yes, Gill was quite good and he did teach a good portion of the counsel of God. He was used by God in many ways, no doubt.

I am speaking of those who are reformed and making their arguments.
If you are all a dither and silly enough to assume I am making up claims that there are those of the Reformed view and well know, who hold John Gill to by hyper - do some research.. it will take all of 5 minutes.

.
Again, I did say he would 'pick an audiance of what he viewed as elect only'.

But in looking at his some of his statements we must deal with what he actaully states in someplaces. Like - "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)
-This denies duty-faith

"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)
- this denies duty-faith

While yes, he speaks of the regenerate person responding to the call of God excersizing evangelical repentance and faith. He states unequivically that the reprobate or non-elect are NOT under ANY obligation to do so.

"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)
- This as well denies duty-faith

For those who don't know Duty-faith can be basically defined as follows:
That the call of the gospel to "repent and believe" is directed to every single person and that it is the duty of every person to trust in Christ for salvation.

If you can, please find me some primary evidence where Gill held it to be the duty of all who heard the gospel to savingly repent (evangelical repentance) and believe in Christ for salvation.

This for me would bring him primarily out of the hyper camp, at least as far as I have read.

 

Read it actaully
Ella never really deals with Gills direct quotes like the one I gave previously amounst a few others

The denial of duty faith is directly linked with Hyper-ism.. Now again, I'm no expert and my new jump into the foray on whether or not he IS hyper by my own study, I admit lacking much, though not entirely. From what I see is 'some' of his stuff, doesn't lead me necessarily to conclude he was Hyper but with what I have presently, I would say he had some tendencies.. but the aspect of his denial of Duty-Faith.. leads me to place him in the hyper camp at presentl

I know the one you speak of .. and though the initial part is out of context, but does not the very next line state .. nay, no not the elect (as well as the precedeing universal aspect?)

But Nettles did find some aspects that, though Gill held theoretically, it did not necessarily come through in his practice. One such instiance of this is where Gill holds 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). But Nettles goes on to demonstrate (227) that what was theoretical did not bleed over into practice.

 

I deny duty-faith, the well meant offer and common grace but that in no way makes me hyper. The charge of those things being Hyper-Calvinism has come from a long running dispute between Ian Murray of Banner of Truth and George Ella. I believe it started over a contoversy about William Huntington and has progressed over the years and spread into Reformed blogs. One thing you can be sure of, I do know what a Hyper-Calvinist is because I was actually raised as one.

 

Thanks Allan for your reply.

So you do not believe he gives the full story? Can you give me those quotes?

By tendencies, are you saying he says little about evangelism?

This I will agree with. There are times he could have said more, on passages that most will, because the text demands it. But I think you must agree that this is close to "argumentum ex silentio". But I know of quotes that are very very strong. Not many of them, but still he made them.

So, why was he so silent? So why did he not say more? I don't know. But it is my guess that it is culture. As you study church history you will find reactions to the errors of the last generation often come at the expensive to lack the teaching of other truths.

This however does not mean they reject those truths, it just shows where their battle was fought.

Now maybe its something else other than evangelism. If so, please share your concern.

I can understand this Allan. I do disagree.

I do agree as strange as it is to think about, (because I don't understand why it's so), that Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism (which comes from denial of Duty faith) are often linked together. But this is not always the case.

Like easy-believism and Finneyism is built on Antinomianism. But no one is going to call Finney a Hyper-Calvinist.

I'll pull it and see. Give me a week.

Nettles was in town last year and someone asked him flat out about Gill. He does not believe Gill was Hyper.

Now, I cannot say 100% he is not hyper. I have heard he is hyper for years, but have yet to find it. I use to quote Gill in my messages and someone didn't like it. I aksed him to give me quotes that proves he was Hyper and he said quickly, as if he knew, that is found in his messages.

I don't know. Maybe it is. All I can say is that its not in his books, that I can find.

 

They are linked together because Ian Murray leveled the charge of both against William Huntington.

 

Do you think Hyper-Calvinism is orthodox? Would you consider it heresy? It appears to me like there is a lot of difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

 

But you know "hyper-Calvinism" and Calvinism are the same thing!