of interest. "Lessons from the polemical writings of Andrew Fuller." Fuller was the mentor of William Carey.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A thread in Baptist Theology and Bible Study Forum. Or Fuller v. Gill
- Thread starter Squire Robertsson
- Start date
To understand why many of us spell Calvininsm with a small 'c', one needs to takes a look at Fuller.
Last edited:
Fuller sought to answer the (then) "modern question".
Should the Gospel be preached to the unconverted whether or not they are the elect?
Check out the videos for the exact verbiage of the question.Preach to all. Rest in the assurance that God has chosen who will hear and they will not escape his hand.
That's pretty much Fuller's position. However, the Hyper-Calvinists of his day took another position.
Those person's are the Westborrow Baptist cult groups who ignore Mark 13:10 and Matthew 28:19-20
Thanks for sharing these helpful thought provoking links
Great links! 
I will just say that the original 17th Century Particular Baptists, from Kiffin and Knollys down to Nehemiah Coxe and John Bunyan, would all have supported Fuller's position on the free preaching of the Gospel. Both the 1644/46 and the 1689 Confessions do likewise.
It was some of those who followed after who became more Hyper. Fuller wrote of his first pastor, John Eve (d.1784) that he was "tinged with false Calvinism [and] had little or nothing to say to the unconverted."
I will just say that the original 17th Century Particular Baptists, from Kiffin and Knollys down to Nehemiah Coxe and John Bunyan, would all have supported Fuller's position on the free preaching of the Gospel. Both the 1644/46 and the 1689 Confessions do likewise.
It was some of those who followed after who became more Hyper. Fuller wrote of his first pastor, John Eve (d.1784) that he was "tinged with false Calvinism [and] had little or nothing to say to the unconverted."
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Personally,
I find myself agreeing much more with Gill than I do with anything that Andrew Fuller wrote or taught.
For example, Fuller taught something called "duty-faith" in that all men have the duty under God to exercise faith in Jesus Christ.
He also seemed to believe in something called "saving faith"...
A faith that men have that actually does the saving ( or that people who have it are granted eternal life because of it ) instead of it being the evidence of it.
While I agree that we as men are condemned as sinners for not believing ( John 16:8-11 ), it is because of our hard hearts that we are completely unwilling to approach Christ ( Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-20 and many others ) for any reason.
In addition,
I see that faith, at least faith of the Biblical kind, is a gift from God ( Ephesians 2:8 ) and not something that all men have ( 2 Thessalonians 3:2 ).
It is authored and finished by Christ ( Hebrews 12:2 ) and is the evidence of God's miraculous gift of both the new birth and of eternal life ( Hebrews 11:1, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ) in a person.
Also, it is clearly said in the Scriptures, to be "of" Christ ( Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16-20 ), and that Paul lived by it.
This same faith that believers have been miraculously given and live by ( Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38 ), is the same thing that Andrew Fuller ( and Jonathan Edwards appeared to advocate before him ) argued that we as unconverted sinners have the duty to "exercise" towards God and His Son.
In other words, he denied that true faith, the kind of faith that continues on trusting in the Lord through all of life's trials and tribulations, is not something that all men have per 2 Thessalonians 3:2.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
To me,
Fuller's teachings essentially deny the reality that God chooses sinners to salvation apart from anything that we as men do ( Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, Psalms 65:4 ), bestows upon them the work of His Spirit, and that their belief of His Son, from the heart, is His work...start to finish.
Instead, unlike many of his fellow "Calvinists", Andrew Fuller seemed to advocate a "gray area" and in effect, taught a form of "Prevenient Grace" and did not really believe in "Irresistible Grace".
Stated differently:
Contrary to what I see in the Scriptures,
That God's calling of chosen individuals through the preaching of His word and the power of His Spirit is strictly His work,
Fuller taught a "fuzzy" or middle ground wherein dead sinners who actually have no desire to approach the Lord because of our innate hatred of Him ( John 3:19-20 ), can and do have the duty and responsibility to call upon the name of the Lord and to place their faith and trust in Him for their salvation.
A faith that, unless God gives a person to His Son ( John 6:37-39, John 6:64-65 ), has foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified them ( Romans 8:29-30 ), they will never come to Him...
"Duty or no duty".
Unless He is the agent of change and actually changes the heart so that we will listen intently to His words ( Acts of the Apostles 16:14 ), no amount of duty or responsibility to place one's faith in Christ will ever cause a person to truly desire to repent and to walk away from that which the Lord finds contemptible:
Our rebellious and hard-hearted refusal to abandon our sinful ways and to come to Him, "hat in hand".
Fuller taught man's responsibility combined with God's sovereignty as a form of "compatibilism";
Instead of sinners being completely dead in sins and trespasses, staunchly unwilling to be reconciled to the Lord and to repent and abandon their sinful ways, and that desperate condition being such that for anyone to have a heart to heart relationship with Him, God must do all the work...
He basically taught that we as sinners have a "back door" to God;
A way to cooperate with God and to save ourselves that isn't completely reliant upon the Lord and His miraculous power for everything pertaining to life and godliness.
Thus, election became a sort of "rail" that ran alongside man's responsibility, and that "rail" was described as being " not able to be fully understood"...
Mainly because Fuller didn't seem to fully understand or believe in "Unconditional Election", from my perspective.
If anyone knows of where I've misrepresented Fuller's teachings, please tell me and I will adjust my understanding about it accordingly.
But so far as I know, that is what he taught,
and that is why many "Particular Baptists" stood against those teachings when they began to be accepted in the early 1800's.
Fuller's teachings essentially deny the reality that God chooses sinners to salvation apart from anything that we as men do ( Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, Psalms 65:4 ), bestows upon them the work of His Spirit, and that their belief of His Son, from the heart, is His work...start to finish.
Instead, unlike many of his fellow "Calvinists", Andrew Fuller seemed to advocate a "gray area" and in effect, taught a form of "Prevenient Grace" and did not really believe in "Irresistible Grace".
Stated differently:
Contrary to what I see in the Scriptures,
That God's calling of chosen individuals through the preaching of His word and the power of His Spirit is strictly His work,
Fuller taught a "fuzzy" or middle ground wherein dead sinners who actually have no desire to approach the Lord because of our innate hatred of Him ( John 3:19-20 ), can and do have the duty and responsibility to call upon the name of the Lord and to place their faith and trust in Him for their salvation.
A faith that, unless God gives a person to His Son ( John 6:37-39, John 6:64-65 ), has foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified them ( Romans 8:29-30 ), they will never come to Him...
"Duty or no duty".
Unless He is the agent of change and actually changes the heart so that we will listen intently to His words ( Acts of the Apostles 16:14 ), no amount of duty or responsibility to place one's faith in Christ will ever cause a person to truly desire to repent and to walk away from that which the Lord finds contemptible:
Our rebellious and hard-hearted refusal to abandon our sinful ways and to come to Him, "hat in hand".
Fuller taught man's responsibility combined with God's sovereignty as a form of "compatibilism";
Instead of sinners being completely dead in sins and trespasses, staunchly unwilling to be reconciled to the Lord and to repent and abandon their sinful ways, and that desperate condition being such that for anyone to have a heart to heart relationship with Him, God must do all the work...
He basically taught that we as sinners have a "back door" to God;
A way to cooperate with God and to save ourselves that isn't completely reliant upon the Lord and His miraculous power for everything pertaining to life and godliness.
Thus, election became a sort of "rail" that ran alongside man's responsibility, and that "rail" was described as being " not able to be fully understood"...
Mainly because Fuller didn't seem to fully understand or believe in "Unconditional Election", from my perspective.
If anyone knows of where I've misrepresented Fuller's teachings, please tell me and I will adjust my understanding about it accordingly.
But so far as I know, that is what he taught,
and that is why many "Particular Baptists" stood against those teachings when they began to be accepted in the early 1800's.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I believe so.
In fact, I would advocate Christ being crucified for sinners ( exactly as Paul preached it ) being preached to whoever will listen to it.
Since nobody runs around with a light bulb above their head stating, in effect, "hey, I'm one of the elect", I would say that the Gospel should be preached to all, and that those who believe, from the heart, are God's elect.
However, I also concede that the Scriptures show, in several places, that it is the Lord who sends His preachers to wherever his elect are.
Paul, for example, was told to go to certain places by the Lord, and he was expressly forbidden from going into Asia ( Minor ) on at least two occasions by the Holy Spirit;
If there were any "chance" to the whole process, then Paul would not have been told not to go.
Also, we as believers have the unique privilege for God to work in us, both to will, and to do, of His good pleasure ( Philippians 2:13 ).
Therefore, His preachers are sent by Him ( Romans 10:15 )...
They don't just will themselves to go, taking the "chance" that His elect will be out there somewhere.
Basically stated, not one of His sheep will perish, and they shall all come to repentance ( 2 Peter 3:8-9 ).
To me, there is no danger or "what if" then it comes to the Lord and His purposes.
He does all of it.
So, when I take the time to really think about it,
if God isn't sending preachers somewhere, then He doesn't have any people in that city ( or country, or town, or area ).
Plus, if someone is called of God to preach, it will be His words in His timing...
...and they will know that it is the right thing to do and the right place to go.
Last edited:
Scott Downey
Well-Known Member
Works of the flesh, versus fruits of the flesh??? No
fruits of the spirit??? No
fruits of the SPIRIT as in Holy Spirit, Yes.
Faithfulness is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, The Spirit of God births inside us our faithfulness to the Spirit.
So then that faith to be faithful and true comes from God at work in us.
Not all men have faith. Why they have none is God is not working in them by His Spirit.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
fruits of the spirit??? No
fruits of the SPIRIT as in Holy Spirit, Yes.
Faithfulness is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, The Spirit of God births inside us our faithfulness to the Spirit.
So then that faith to be faithful and true comes from God at work in us.
Not all men have faith. Why they have none is God is not working in them by His Spirit.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
How might we understand this verse?
Matthew 7:6
“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
If dogs and pigs refers to openly antagonistic non-believers, does this comment from Jesus express that there are times to be silent regarding sharing the gospel?
Matthew 7:6
“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
If dogs and pigs refers to openly antagonistic non-believers, does this comment from Jesus express that there are times to be silent regarding sharing the gospel?
Scott Downey
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, Jesus tells us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Last edited:
Has anyone watched any of the videos yet?
ad finitum
Active Member
Jesus walked on the water, then Peter walked on water...
Matthew 14:31 "And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
What's with the "little faith"? Why would Jesus criticize Peter's doubt and the smallness of his faith? Did God not "gift" Peter with enough?
How are the gifts of God insufficient?
Perhaps this sheds more light on 2 Thessalonians 3:2 (translation by Wuest):
"Finally, be praying, brethren, for us, to the end that the word of the Lord might be spreading reapidly and be continually glorified, even as it is doing in your case, and that we may be delivered from the men who are in active opposition to that which is good; for all do not possess the Faith [the Christian system of belief].
If one thinks that a translation may be dubious, it's helpful to check out the gloss in an interlinear:
2 Thessalonians 3:2 Interlinear: and that we may be delivered from the unreasonable and evil men, for the faith is not of all;
So it's he pistis, "the faith".
Hope that helps.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Little faith grows into great faith, my friend.
The Lord Jesus may have been rebuking Peter for his little faith, but at the same time He told us that if we have even faith as small as a grain of a mustard seed, that we as God's children can ask Him, and He would do great things for us.
What does that "system of belief" contain, for doctrines ( the faith, as in Jude 1:3 )?
I hold that it contains many important truths...
Some of which include election, calling, reprobation, justification ( and when that occurred for the child of God ), man's deadness in sins, etc...
and God's work of redemption in the objects of His grace and mercy.
Yes, it does.
Thank you.
But I still believe that, per Philippians 1:29, it was given to me to not only believe on Christ, but to suffer for His sake.
Therefore, my faith is a gift... it isn't something that I "worked up" in order to gain His favor upon me and to get Him to save me.
Many today seem to believe that, but I do not.
Good evening to you, sir.
ad finitum
Active Member
My friend, this is having it both ways. If faith can be so tiny as to be ineffective, then claiming that faith came from God could be deleterious to one's health. It is precisely because the faith is so little that responsibility for it's origination is laid at Peter's feet.
Regarding the Philippians citation, it is given to us to believe (present active infinitive). In other words, in the same way it is given to the police to search, to apprehend, to serve and to protect. That is the sense of it.
I hope that helps and thank you for the kind replies.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I see that the responsibility for believing the Lord was laid at Peter's feet, because the Lord authored and finished his faith ( Hebrews 12:2 ).
It was up to Peter to believe, having been given the gift to do so ( Ephesians 2:8, Philippians 1:29 ).
So, the Lord was rebuking Peter for not using what was given to him.
That is a principle that I find throughout His word.
While I appreciate your desire to help, I've studied this matter for most of the past 20 years.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree.
I clearly see that it is given to believers to believe.
Therefore, if anyone does not believe, it's because they were not given the privilege of doing so by the Lord's bestowing upon them the gift of the new birth.
If anyone does not come to Christ, it is because it was not given to them by the Father to do so ( John 6:64-65 ).
Andrew Fuller taught that it was the duty of all men to place their faith in Christ.
I disagree because I see true faith as coming from the Lord;
Therefore, one cannot "exercise" what one does not have, and one cannot break out of the self-imposed chains that we have bound ourselves with, outside of the Lord breaking them for us.