The Notable Dr. John Gill

Good words from Gill on elders:

"an unpreaching pastor, bishop, or elder, is a contradiction in terms"

"they, as the apostles of Christ, give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word; do not preach a sermon only now and then; but preach the word constantly"

(from his A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity; or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures)

 

RB : Who wrote the article which said : " There is no doubt that his followers so emphasized God's sovereignty that they forsook evangelism and missions." ?

 

1. I've not been exposed to Dr. Gill much. I guess it is because of that Hyper-Calvinism charge, but I'm glad you haven't come across that in his writing.

2. Good to know that he has impacted you so much.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

I have found that Gill wasn't so much a hyper as he was a definate unadulterated Supra

I have read him somewhat and enjoyed much of it and some disagreed with. But his passion is compelling I will say that much for sure.

 

Misinformation Alert

John Gill can not with certainty be tagged as a supralapsarian . ( Not that there's anything wrong with the position as such ) . Toplady and John Rippon ( the original -- not the BB Rip ) both insisted Gill was a sublapsarian -- which is the same as an infralapsarian . Gill lands on both sides of the issue . He can't be pegged with either position with unadulterated certitude .

I probably lean to the supra side of things -- but either view involves too much speculation and is a waste of time really . It can be spent on more constructive things .

 

No, I have not seen it either. What I found very interesting when doing a Google search was the following description of hypercalvinism, or "Hight Calvinism" as it is called here:

'High Calvinism' was a theological system which would appear to have co-ordinated two denials. First, there was the denial that God calls all who hear about Christ to believe in him; no man is obliged as a matter of duty to trust in Christ as a condition of salvation. This denial applied to both the reprobate and to the elect. The 'reprobate' are all those who were not originally chosen in Christ before the world began, for whom Christ did not die, who will be left in their sinful state by God, and who therefore will never repent and believe. The 'elect' are all those who were originally chosen by the Father to form the church of God, for whom Christ did die, and who will certainly come to a living faith in the Saviour. The reasoning was that if God alone can, and sometimes does, give repentance and faith, such should be demanded of no man, whoever he might be; sovereign grace is irresistible. Second, high Calvinism denied that it is the responsibility of the churches to call upon all men indiscriminately to repent and to believe in Christ for the salvation of their souls .​

That can be found at: http://www.evangelica.de/John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism.htm

Having read that, it made me wonder how many of the posts on this board that argue against calvinism are in fact arguing against hypercalvinism.

 

Gill a Sublaps? Come on, Rip?

I have not read volumes on Gill but what I have read of his own work and other of him that he couldn't be considered a Sub, maybe at the least a modified Supra.

But hey that is of course - IMO

 

Well , at least you're modifying your "definite unadulterated" view . You don't want to rescind your qualification now , do you ?

 

I modified it for YOUR benifit.

But what I have seen and heard, that shall I speak

If it is truly different, I will change it but have not seen anything that truly says I need to. So it was for your benifit it was modified but as I also stated "AT LEAST a modified Supra" but still at most a "definite unadulterated Supra". :thumbs:
Is that so bad?

 

This seems to be Gill's response to that idea (from The Cause of God and Truth):
"This author goes on to observe, that "hence it will follow, that neither the elect, nor non-elect, can rationally be exhorted to, believe; nor they who are not elected, because Christ died not for them; nor the, elect, for he that knows himself to be one of that number, hath believed and repented already; if he do not know this, he cannot know that Christ died for him, and so he cannot know it is his duty to believe in him for salvation."
I reply, that ministers, in exhorting men to believe in Christ, do not, and cannot consider them as elect or non elect, but as sinners, standing in need of Christ, and salvation by him; and that either as sensible, or as insensible of their state and condition; not as insensible of it; for I do not find that any such are exhorted to believe in Christ for salvation; but as sensible of it, as the jailer was, who trembling said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? When the apostle exhorted him, saying, Believe in the lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved (Acts 16:30, 31). Besides, such who have believed already, and do know that Christ has died for them, and that they are of the number of God’s elect may be rationally exhorted to walk on in Christ, as they have received him, and to go on believing to the saving of their souls."

 

Seems he believed in a "sorrow" over your sins before salvation? I guess I am not in too bad of company.

 

Gill is a master theologian.