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

[JesusFan]

Curious about them, as both have been referenced here on BB, but never really heard of either one?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sorry but Who?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Grasshopper]

http://www.ccel.org/g/gill/

http://www.ccel.org/c/clarke/

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.

 

[JesusFan]

http://www.ccel.org/g/gill/

http://www.ccel.org/c/clarke/

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.

thanks!

Do you consider them to be credible sources then?

 

[DHK]

thanks!

Do you consider them to be credible sources then?

It depends how you use them and what you use them for.

 

[JesusFan]

It depends how you use them and what you use them for.

Do they Accurately represent calvinism/Arminianism?

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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 ?

 

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

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:-
http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/learning-the-lessons-of-history-1/

Steve

 

[DHK]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

Vedder, in his "A Short History of the Baptists," chapter 16, says:

Hyper-Calvinism was developed in one section of the Particular churches, and everywhere proved a blighting doctrine. The London Association, formed in 1704 by delegates from thirteen churches, deemed it necessary to condemn the Antinomian perversion of Calvinism—regarding its action, however, not a judicial decision, but the deliberate opinion of a representative body of Baptists. The ablest and most learned of the Baptists of this time, John Gill, cannot be absolved from responsibility for much of this false doctrine.

Doctor Gill’s “Body of Divinity,” published in 1769, was a great treatise of the rigid supralapsarian type of Calvinism, and long held its place as a theological textbook. This type of Calvinism can with difficulty be distinguished from fatalism and antinomianism. If Gill did not hold, as his opponents charged, that the elect live in a constant state of sanctification (because of the imputed righteousness of Christ), even while they commit much sin, he did hold that because of God’s election Christians must not presume to interfere with his purposes by inviting sinners to the Saviour, for he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and on no others. This is practically to nullify the Great Commission; and, in consequence of this belief, Calvinistic Baptist preachers largely ceased to warn, exhort, and invite sinners; holding that, as God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, when he willed he would effectually call an elect person, and that for anybody else to invite people to believe was useless, if not an impertinent interference with the prerogatives of God. What wonder that a spiritual dry-rot spread among the English churches where such doctrines obtained! Could any other result be reasonably expected as the fruits of such a theology?

The common consensus was that Gill promoted false doctrine.

 

[J.D.]

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.

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.

 

[TomVols]

The common consensus was that Gill promoted false doctrine.

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

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm

read some gill here

arminians do not understand calvinism much less hyper calvinism to make any judgement with accuracy

 

[J.D.]

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

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.

 

[Rippon]

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:

The last paragraph was not written by Toplady,but J.T.Christian.You have to keep your quotes straight.

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.

Make sure you correctly cite who is being quoted.

 

[DHK]

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

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.

 

[Rippon]

The common consensus was that Gill promoted false doctrine.

The common consensus is that you have besmirched a godly man with your anti-Calvinistic bias firmly in hand.

 

[DHK]

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?