Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, May 31, 2011.
Curious about them, as both have been referenced here on BB, but never really heard of either one?
Sorry but Who?:smilewinkgrin:
I can't figure out if you are just lazy and don't want to study or if you are paid by the Baptist Board to just throw things out to generate traffic. I think the latter.
Do you consider them to be credible sources then?
It depends how you use them and what you use them for.
Do they Accurately represent calvinism/Arminianism?
I don't know how you define Arminianism. Anything but a Calvinist??
John Gill was a "super-hyper-Calvinist" to the extreme, if I can use that many superlatives.
It led him to antinomianism.
It also led him to a denial of the Great Commission. Salvation was all of God, so get out of the way and let God do his work. Man would just interrupt what God was doing in the souls of mankind. That was his basic theology. Thus there was no need to witness. He was a Baptist, but the Baptists of his own generation disagreed with him.
he sounds like someone who "out calvined John Calvin"
Any current day baptist teachers/Theologians comparable to him ?
I very much respect Adam Clarke and use his commentaries on a regular basis. You will be hard pressed to find a more qualified linguist and scholar. I've taken issue with a few of his conclusions, but I can't even remember them now.
This is a gross libel on Gill.
John Gill was one of the most important theologians and Pastors of the 18th Century. He was a great champion of Trinitarianism and was particularly important in keeping the Particular baptists out of Unitarianism which destroyed the General Baptists and Presbyterians in the early 1700s. He was probably the most able Hebraist of his day and his commentaries may still be read with great profit.
Anglicans such as Augustus Toplady and James Hervey, who were much used in the great Methodist Revival, studied at his feet. His Calvinism was admittedly high, but not as hyper in practice as people make out.
You can find out more on Gill and Unitarianism in the 18th Century here:-
No doubt he was a great theologian. I won't debate that. J.T. Christian, in his "A History of the Baptists," chapter 20, quotes Toplady, who gives a rather balanced view of Gill:
In the past I have quoted from other Baptist historians who have been much harsher in their condemnation of Gill than Christian's quote of Toplady.
Vedder, in his "A Short History of the Baptists," chapter 16, says:
The common consensus was that Gill promoted false doctrine.
There's no excuse for this type of railing against a true giant of baptist theology.
And Clark certainly was reputable to whom I give due recognition; if not for the selection and tone of his words, then for the systematic approach he at least attempts to take within the confines of his methodist/arminian theology.
I think that's a bit extreme and imprecise. Gill's Body of Divinity and his commentaries are gems. I won't argue that I think he crossed the line in terms of his zeal to maintain a rigorous Calvinism. I see him as being John MacArthur before John MacArthur was cool. But I think it would be harsh to call him a peddler of false doctrine unless you have a specific example I'm not aware of.
Clarke and Gill can be used with great profit though both are on polar opposite ends of the soteriological spectrum
read some gill here
arminians do not understand calvinism much less hyper calvinism to make any judgement with accuracy
Well said except I don't see any comparison between MacArther and Gill. Even though MacArthur is one of the great preachers of God in our time, I don't think he matches up to Gill in many ways.
The last paragraph was not written by Toplady,but J.T.Christian.You have to keep your quotes straight.
Make sure you correctly cite who is being quoted.
I use his commentaries occasionally.
I am only quoting Baptist historians. I have quoted Christian, Christian quoting Toplady, and Vedder. I consider them reliable sources. They are not my opinions but the opinions of these historians, one of whom was Gill's contemporary.
He was a theologian, a brilliant man, sometimes very difficult for the average theologian of his time (and ours) to understand--as his Body of Divinity indicates.
The common consensus is that you have besmirched a godly man with your anti-Calvinistic bias firmly in hand.
I take it you don't study Baptist history?