For the Cause of God and Truth

Plato, Aristotle, and John Gill

Jerad File — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:54:12 +0000

Was John Gill a Hyper-Calvinist? It seems that most scholarship has tended to classify him as such. However, there has been dissent from this majority position. I’ve recently finished writing a master’s thesis on Gill, and though the main interest of my thesis did not pertain to Hyper-Calvinism, I could not totally overlook the issue. I read nearly all of the secondary literature that directly pertains to Gill, and I did briefly discuss the issue in a section of my introduction. Because my thesis was not about Hyper-Calvinism, I chose to leave the question unresolved. I did not want to have to defend either position because it would have been a distraction from my intended purpose. However, I did gain some insight on the question, and I would like to share my view in the form of this informal essay.
Was John Gill a Hyper-Calvinist? It depends on if you approach the question as a Platonist or an Aristotelian. What do I mean? It seems to me that Gill is often labeled a Hyper-Calvinist by those who approach the question as an Aristotelian. If you want to know what a chair is, you study chairs and you determine the shared characteristics that makes a chair a chair. Therefore, we can know what a Hyper-Calvinist is because we have observed them and deduced what it is that they all have in common. If a theologian fits this description, then he must be a Hyper-Calvinist? This of course may seem a little circular. Who do you study to come up with your definition? Curt Daniel studied John Gill. That seems to be Tom Nettles’ criticism of Daniel’s dissertation on John Gill and Hyper-Calvinism. Nettles says that Daniel assumes that Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist, and then builds a definition for Hyper-Calvinism based on Gill.1
On the other hand, attempts at defending Gill of the charge seem to approach the question as a Platonist. Platonists can know what a chair is because a perfect chair exists in the realm of the forms. Somewhere, out there, in the realm of the forms, there lives the perfect Hyper-Calvinist. We here in the real world can know what a Hyper-Calvinist is because there is some kind of objectively defined basis in the realm of the forms. It seems that the problem is that by this definition, usually the Hyper-Calvinist that lives in the realm of the forms is the only one that really exists. No person in the real world actually matches up to the standard set by that guy, so all the charges against Gill, and others, are dismissed because for one reason or another no one really fits our preconceived definition of a Hyper-Calvinist.
As I saw this kind of tendency played out while reading the source materials, I decided I’d rather just reject the use of the term Hyper-Calvinist as an unhelpful pejorative term describing doctrines held by straw men alone. I guess this probably makes me a Platonist. I find the term High-Calvinist equally unhelpful. It doesn’t have quite the same negative connotation, but it’s just as elusive to define. Stanely Fowler says that it’s synonymous with Hyper-Calvinism, while James Leo Garrett claims that High Calvinism is not significantly different than the five points held to at the synod of Dort.
I think that it would be a lot more helpful if instead of throwing around two words to describe a system—assuming everyone understands those two words the same as you do—is not a good way to gain much understanding about the issue. It would be a lot more helpful if each troubling tenant of Hyper-Calvinism was taken point by point and judged on its basis rather than its contribution to the system. I think Gill was in error when it comes to his doctrine of justification from eternity; however, it appears from my reading of Gill that he preached the Gospel to sinners believing that it is God’s instrument of conversion. Gill was certainly not an antinomian. And I still don’t understand why the belief in an eternal covenant between the persons of the Trinity to save the elect should belong in a definition of Hyper-Calvinism—maybe it is a necessary component, but I don’t see how by itself that should be troubling.
I don’t know if these insights will be helpful for anyone else, but it is the conclusion that I have come to after all the research that I’ve done on Gill. Maybe my opinion would be different if I had studied other supposed Hyper-Calvinists as well, but I haven’t. I’ve only studied Gill, so I admit my knowledge about the subject is limited.

1. Thomas Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life, rev. ed. (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006), 36.

New Papers on Gill, Fuller, and Hyper-Calvinism

allenmickle — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:28:37 +0000

Michael Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, and Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, recently presented at the True Church Conference two papers with interest to Gillite readers.

“Hyper-Calvinism and the Theology of John Gill”

Here Haykin looks at Gill and his theology and considers his relation to hyper-calvinism with regard to the pactum salutis, eternal justification, and the free offer of the gospel. Like many before, Haykin acknowledges that Gill is complex and here gives a fair and balanced look at Gill’s theology.

“‘A Dull Flint’: Andrew Fuller–Rope Holder, Critic of Hyper-Calvinism and Missionary Pioneer”

An overview of the life, ministry, and theology of Andrew Fuller.

More Gill Audio from Allen Mickle!

Jerad File — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:10:02 +0000

Allen Mickle, one of the contributors to this blog, recently presented a paper at the conference on Baptist Spirituality put on by the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. His paper was entitled “A Fountain of Gardens, a Well of Living Waters: A Survey of Christian Spirituality from John Gill’s Exposition of the Book of Solomon’s Song.” The audio of his presentation is available here.

UPDATE: Sorry I didn’t notice this until today, but one of the plenary sessions also pertained to Gill. Robert Strivens spoke on “Evangelical Spiritualities in Early 18th Century English Dissent: Philip Doddridge and John Gill”, and you can listen to that audio here as well.

New Audio on John Gill!!!!

Jerad File — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:04:47 +0000

Dr. George Ella

Dr. George Ella has been in Alabama and Tennessee this month, and included in his lecture tour are a couple of presentations on Gill. So far I’ve found the audio for one of his lectures on “John Gill (1697-1771): Pastor Scholar.” I’ll try to find audio for the other lecture on Gill, and when I find that it is available I will link to it. Also of interest is the conference that Ella was speaking at, the 2009 Gadsen Conference on the English Bible.

UPDATE:

Here’s a link to what I believe is the same presentation given at a different church. It was brought to my attention in the comments section below.

No Salvation Outside the Church

Jerad File — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:33:44 +0000

“No Salvation Outside the Church.” This quotation from Cyprian usually causes me to think of Roman Catholicism. In this sense, it would be interpreted to mean “no salvation outside of the institutional Roman Catholic Church.” Of course, any Protestant should have a problem with this understanding of the expression. However, there is something quite true about Cyprian’s statement that should be embraced by Baptists. John Gill is one who recognized that ecclesiology and soteriology are interrelated. Timothy George recognized fact about Gill when he stated, “John Gill was a theologian of the church and his theology of grace must be seen in the light of his ecclesiology.” (Timothy George, “The Ecclesiology of John Gill,” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation, Michael A. G. Haykin, ed. New York: Brill, 1997, 226.) This became clearer to me when I read the following quotation from his Body of Practical Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. Speaking of the “invisible church” Gill sates,

”As a general assembly, called, The general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, Heb. Xii. 23. and which include all the elect of God, that have been, are, or shall be in the world; and who will form the pure, holy and undefiled Jerusalem-church-state, in which none will be but those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life; and this consists of the redeemed of the Lamb, and is the church which Christ has purchased with his blood; and who make up his spouse, the church he has loved, and given himself for, to wash, and cleanse, and present to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle; this is the body, the church of which Christ is the head; and in which he is the sole officer, being Prophet, Priest, and King of it; it being, not the seat of human government, as a particular church is: and this church is but one, though particular churches are many: to this may be applied the words of Christ; My dove, my undefiled, is but one, Cant. Vi. 9. And this is what is sometimes called by divines, the invisible church.

It’s quite evident to me that from this quotation Gill’s doctrine of the church is directly related to election as well as particular redemption. The Church is all those who Christ died for and none but the elect.

Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies 3rd Annual Conference

allenmickle — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:36:48 +0000

The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies is hosting the 3rd Annual conference devoted to Baptist History. This year the conference is titled, “Baptist Spirituality: Historical Perspectives.” It is being held August 24-25, 2009 on the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The theme of the 2009 conference is, “Baptist Spirituality: Historical Perspectives” Featured speakers will include: Crawford Gribben, Michael Haykin , Robert Strivens, Greg Thornbury, Kevin Smith, Tom Nettles, Greg Wills, Gerald Priest, Jason Lee, and Malcolm Yarnell. Other established Baptist History scholars, as well as several Ph.D. students will be presenting papers on the conference theme during the parallel sessions.

Make sure you come to hear me present my paper on John Gill,

“A Fountain of Gardens, A Well of Living Waters”: A Survey of Christian Spirituality from John Gill’s (1697-1771) Exposition of the Book of Solomon’s Song.

To Register for this excellent conference, see here.

Peter Toon (1939-2009)

Jerad File — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:15:21 +0000

Over at Between Two Worlds, Justin Taylor paid tribute to Peter Toon who passed away April 25, 2009. I’m making note of this here because Taylor links to a site where most of Toon’s works are available online. The reason this is relevant to John Gill is that Toon’s first book, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity: 1689-1765, is referenced in nearly all recent secondary literature on Gill.

Even Right Doctrine Can Be Dangerous

Jerad File — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:56:24 +0000

I’m still working my way through George Ella’s biography of Gill and I stumbled across a quote worth mentioning. This was in Ella’s chapter defending Gill against those who have called him a Hyper-Calvinist. Ella is speaking of how it has been claimed that some of Gill’s doctrines may have lead to Hyper-Calvinism in the hands of lesser men, yet they were safe in the hands of Gill. Ella states, “any gospel truth which can be both a savour of death and a savour of life is ‘perilous’ in the wrong hands. This applies equally to all the Five Points.” This is ought to be no surprise though. Even Peter said that there are things which Paul said that were twisted in a way not consistent with the gospel. This is an important thing to remember both for understanding Gill, and for understanding the Bible. If only partially understood, even right things can be dangerous. I would venture to guess that the danger is present for both regenerate as well as the unregenerate.

Give Away Winner Selected!!!!

Jerad File — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:21:58 +0000

In the interest of assuring a “genuine free offer” I placed each name entry on a slip of paper and mixed them in a bowl. I then allowed my 4 year old daughter to pick one paper from the bowl. I’m pleased to announce that the winner is Bryan Walker from mark12ministries. Thank you to everyone who entered. It has been a fun chance to do something new and attract a lot of new traffic to the blog. Hopefully we have also stirred up an interest in John Gill.

Gill, the Enlightenment, and the Trinity

allenmickle — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:00:20 +0000

Gertrude Himmelfarb has shown that there was not some monolithic movement called the Enlightenment, but that different countries had their own Enlightenments. France had quite a different Enlightenment than England for example.[1] England’s Enlightenment was more moderate than France’s. Yet, it had its own particular challenges. While France moved toward atheism, England moved into areas of Arianism. This “Age of Reason” denied much of the supernatural from the Scriptures and believed that their embracing of logic and reason could eliminate that which was based upon “faith” which included much of what was distinctive to orthodox theology like the doctrine of the Trinity. And while Trinitarians were more learned than their anti-trinitarian enemies, the anti-trinitarians were better writers and thus lead to the continued denial of much of what was distinctively orthodox Christianity.[2]

In fact, both Socinianism and Arianism in England in the late 17^th and 18^th century began to dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity as an invention of the early church and an unnecessary adoption of Greek logical thinking to theology. In particular, Samuel Clarke was quite influential in the Arian controversy through his writing of Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712) which clearly had Arian tendencies. This particular controversy came to a head during the Salter’s Hall Synod (1719).[3] Here Presbyterians, Independents, Particular and General Baptist met to discuss whether ministers could be asked to subscribe to a Trinitarian creed. The Presbyterians and General Baptists voted no, and moved into areas of Unitarianism and other heretical doctrines. The Independents and Particular Baptists however voted yes and remained faithful to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Yet, these Trinitarian controversies created confusion amongst many individuals. Isaac Watts (1674–1748), the hymn-writer, near the end of his life, re-wrote a number of his works and never did seem to have a clear understanding of orthodox Trinitarianism.[4] Robert Robinson (1735–1790), the Baptist pastor and hymn-writer, seemed to deny Trinitarian theology near the end of his life as well.[5] The issue of the Trinity is incredibly important even today as many continue to deny this core theological doctrine.

While there is continued interest in the doctrine of the Trinity, there has been a failure to really understand the English Enlightenment denial of the Trinity and the continued orthodox affirmation and defence of the Trinity during this time. For instance, in his recent detailed work on the Trinity, Robert Letham argues that conservative Reformed theologians have contributed little to the doctrine of the Trinity since the time of John Calvin (1509–1564) until the twentieth century.[6] Yet, the defence of the Trinity in the seventeenth and eighteenth century is a crucial part of the story of the church’s teaching on this crucial doctrine.

John Gill’s (1697–1771) vigorous defence of the Trinity as it had been held since the early church is important in the discussion of the Trinity in the eighteenth century. Muller writes, “Among the British writers of the late orthodox era, the Particular Baptist John Gill stands out as a defender of the doctrine of the Trinity as ‘a doctrine of pure revelation’ to the setting aside of all but biblical argumentation and patristic usage.”[7] With the rise of interest in Enlightenment studies and Enlightenment thinking on religious issues and doctrine, it is important to look at the orthodox response to English Enlightenment thinking, especially on an issue as important as the Trinity. Gill is such a person that must be studied. Not only did he study the Scriptures and the early church in his defence of the Trinity, he lived out his ministry with a complete commitment to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. His biographer John Rippon (1751–1836) and the pastor who followed him at his Carter Lane Church wrote of him regarding the influence his thinking on the Trinity had on his ministry. He writes,

The Doctor not only watched over his people, “with great affection, fidelity, and love;” but he also watched his pulpit also. He would not, if he knew it, admit any one to preach for him, who was either cold-hearted to the doctrine of the Trinity; or who denied the divine filiation of the Son of God; or who objected to conclude his prayers with the usual doxology to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as three equal Persons in the one Jehovah. Sabellians, Arians, and Socinians, he considered as real enemies of the cross of Christ. They dared not ask him to preach, nor could he in conscience, permit them to officiate for him. He conceived that, by this uniformity of conduct, he adorned the pastoral office.[8]

Further posts will seek to highlight aspects of Gill’s trinitarian theology.

—–

[1] Getrude Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments (Essex, England: Vintage Books, 2005).

[2] See Philip Dixon, ‘Nice and Hot Disputes’: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth Century (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2003), p. 215.

[3] For more on this see Roger Thomas, “The Non-Subscription Controversy amongst Dissenters in 1719: the Salter’s Hall Debate,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 4 (1953): 162–186.

[4] See Arthur Paul Davis, Isaac Watts: His Life and Works (Published PhD Dissertation, Columbia University, 1943), pp. 109–126.

[5] See Two Original Letters by the Late Mr. Robert Robinson (London: J. Marsom, 1802). For the whole story of Robinson’s life see Graham W. Hughes, With Freedom Fired: The Story of Robert Robinson, Cambridge Nonconformist (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1955).

[6] Robert Letham, The Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), pp. ix–x.

[7] Richard A. Muller, The Triunity of God in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), IV, 140. Despite the lack of scholarly study in the Baptist stream of historical theology, Gill can rightly be included in the stream of other Post-Reformation Reformed theologians and thus is important to be studied in and of himself (see Richard A. Muller, “John Gill and the Reformed Tradition: A Study in the Reception of Protestant Orthodoxy in the Eighteenth Century,” in Michael A. G. Haykin, ed., The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2007): 51–68. See especially pp. 55–56.

[8] John Rippon, A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Late Rev. John Gill (Reprint ed., Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1992), 127–128. Emphasis in original.