Were John Gill/Adam Clarke regarded As being "reputable" theologians?

Yeah,I too see no point of comparison between the two men. I have a ton of respect for John Macarthur,but he is not in the same league of the learning of John Gill.He would willing admit the same.

 

It's a given that you haven't a clue. Try on Tom Nettles and Timothy George on for size before you make false claims about Gill.

 

You don't know what you are talking about. It is all too evident.

James Wells from Spurgeon's time is a more fitting example of Hyper-Calvinism --certainly not John Gill.

And to charge John Gill with antinomianism is 100% bunk. Gill himself said that it was a very dangerous arror.

Documentation please.

So what? Many Baptists then and now are not orthodox --Gill was certainly orthodox in the Christian faith.

I feel very comfortable in saying that I disagree with many doctrinal views of many Baptists.

 

DHK,I would like you to find anything remotely resembling hyper-Calvinism in The Goat Yard Declaration of Faith (from 1729). Surely if he smacked of superduper Hyper-Calvinism you would fin it in his creedal statement.

Why did his successor, John Rippon, (my namesake) use the same creedal statement? Do you think he was also a hyper-Calvinist?

If John Gill was so all-fired Hyper-Calvinistic then why did his church support the evangelistic efforts of George Whitefield?

Why did Charles Spurgeon give his sons copies of The Cause Of God And Truth? Do think C.H.S. was secret hyper-Calvinist or something?

Here is a nice Spurgeon quote:"Many sneer at Gill,but he is not to be dispensed with. In some respects, he has no superior. He is always well worth consulting."

 

No one should speak of Gill's stature unless they've read his biography. Fluent in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew by age 13; Graduated from University by age 16; preached a minimum of four time per week; authored numerous books and pamphlets and tracts; single-handedly composed a commentary on every verse of the Bible - to date the only human to ever accomplish such a feat. A Giant of the Faith, indeed!

 

I'll quote them again for your benefit:

 

From a charitable source (Spurgeon's Autobiography):

Gill began his pastorate with a church split—"the other party declined a scrutiny of the votes, and also raised the question of the women's voting, declaring, what was no doubt true, that apart from the female vote John Gill was in the minority."

[I knew you patriarchal types would just love that tidbit:laugh:]

 

Repeating some things from that last section:

...to deny that it is the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus ...Dr. Gill must not be altogether held responsible, for a candid reader of his Commentary will soon perceive in it expressions altogether out of accord with such a narrow system;and it is well known that when he was dealing with practical godliness,he was so bold in his utterances that the devotees of Hyper-Calvinism could not endure him.

 

DHK said earlier, with respect to Gill:"It also led him to a denial of the Great Commission."

That is patently false. You do doubt took Vedder's philosphical musings :"This is to deny the Great Commission." as a genuine statement from John Gill that he denied the G.C. One glance at his commentary on Matthew 28:18-20 would have disabused you of your error.

 

Regarding that "continent of mud" quote from the mouth of Robert Hall... Hall had made that remark to Christmas Evans. Evans was considered by Spurgeon to have been the greatest preacher of the early 19th century. Hall himself said that Evans was the tallest, the stoutest, and the greatest man he had ever seen.

Evans had remarked that he wished that John Gill's works were translated into his native Welsh, whereupon Hall made his intemperate remark.

 

Let me clarify:

MacArthur and Gill were not equals in terms of education to be sure, though it's hard to sneeze at Mac's. Gill was a giant, and time will tell us if Mac is or not (I have my opinion.)

That said, if you don't see the resonance, you aren't paying attention. MacArthur has cited Gill as a reason not to give invitations and in other areas homiletically. MacArthur provokes some of the same reactions Gill did and does. Some are eager to touch the hem of his garment for the most part, but there are compatible areas where orthodox brothers recoil.

Hope that helps. I'm not saying they are identical. I'm just saying the resonance far outweighs the dissonance.