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.
Were John Gill/Adam Clarke regarded As being "reputable" theologians?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, May 31, 2011.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
-
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.
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." -
-
Toplady, who was his intimate friend, gives the following just estimate of him:
If any man can be supposed to have trod the whole circle of human learning, it was Dr. Gill. . . It would, perhaps, try the constitutions of half the literati in England, only to read with care and attention the whole of what he said. As deeply as human sagacity enlightened by grace could penetrate, he went to the bottom of every thing he engaged in.. . . Perhaps no man, since the days of St. Austin, has written so largely in defense of the system of grace, and, certainly, no man has treated that momentous subject, in all its branches, more closely, judiciously and successfully.
On this subject Toplady adds:
What was said of Edward the Black Prince, that he never fought a battle that he did not win; what has been remarked of the great Duke of Marlborough, that he never undertook a siege which he did not carry, may be justly accommodated to our great philosopher and divine.
Toplady further says:
So far as the doctrines of the gospel are concerned, Gill never besieged an error which he did not force from its strongholds; nor did he ever encounter an adversary to truth whom he did not baffle and subdue. His doctrinal and practical writings will live and be admired, and be a standing blessing to posterity, when their opposers are forgotten, or only remembered by the refutations he has given them. While true religion and sound learning have a single friend remaining in the British Empire, the works and name of John Gill will be precious and revered.Click to expand...Christian says:
With all of his learning, while he did not intend it, he fell little short of supralapsarianism. He did not invite sinners to the Saviour, while preaching condemnation, and asserted that he ought not to interfere with the elective grace of God. When his towering influence and learning are taken into account, some estimate may be formed of the withering effect of such a system of theology.
There were forces at work, already which meant a revolution in Baptist affairs. These forces were finally to culminate in the great foreign mission work of Carey. The preaching of Wesley and Whitefield had profoundly stirred the nation. The Arminian theology of Wesley was opposed by Toplady and Gill, nevertheless the people felt a great quickening power. It may properly be said that while the Arminian theology could not withstand the sledge-hammer blows of Gill, the result was that practical religion resolved itself into a matter of holy living rather than into a system of divinity.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
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:]
he was by far the greatest scholar the church had yet chosen; but he cannot be regarded as so great a soul-winner as Keach had been, neither was the church at any time so numerous under his ministry as under that of Keach. His method of address to sinners, in which for many years a large class of preachers followed him, was not likely to be largely useful. He cramped himself, and was therefore straitened where there was no Scriptural reason for being so.Click to expand...the old gentleman held the reins of power till the age of seventy-four, although the young people gradually dropped off, and the church barely numbered 150 membersClick to expand...The system of theology with which many identify his name has chilled many churches to their very soul, for it has led them to omit the free invitations of the gospel, and to deny that it is the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus: but for this, 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 HyperCalvinism could not endure him. "Well, sir," said one of these, "if I had not been told that it was the great Dr. Gill who preached, I should have said I had heard an Arminian."Click to expand... -
Jerome said: ↑From a charitable source (Spurgeon's Autobiography):Click to expand...
...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.
Page 2 of 2