A thread in Baptist Theology and Bible Study Forum. Or Fuller v. Gill

[ad finitum]

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 ).

And I see that as a misinterpretation of Hebrews 12:2. The sense of the Greek is that Jesus is the author of "The Faith", which is "our Faith", as it is to be practiced in the Age of the Church. That is the faith which is our faith in that verse. The Lord test-drove, as it were, the Christian way of life, pioneering our faith (i.e. what we call The Faith) by his exercise of that new way of life, in the power of the Spirit -- the Spirit which would be given to all people who put their faith in Christ from Pentecost onward.

This sense of the Greek was already explained elsewhere but the only responses that could be mustered to it were invariably the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam, i.e. repeating the original argument. One must realize that there is no persuasive power in fallacies. Ignoring well-reasoned and scholarly challenges actually reduces the persuasiveness of the original opinion. And so I see it being repeated here again. No doubt this will not be the last time.

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.

But you just said Peter didn't use the faith he'd been given. Now you contradict this and say if someone doesn't believe, it's because they were not given the privilege 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 ).

John 5:31-47 describes exactly how God draws men to Jesus and why men fail to be drawn. It is interesting that Jesus focuses on what witnesses are to be believed, one over and against another. He never mentions a single word about gifting faith. NEVER. It's all about the witnesses. Jesus says of himself that his witness is insufficient (v31). Well, all of this talk of proper witnesses is beside the point in Calvinism. Who cares about this witness or that witness. Where's the FAITH? God must first GIVE SOME FAITH. Then it won't matter if Jesus is the only witness (even though Jesus says it does not suffice).

If someone quotes John 6 one more time out of context with John 5, there is a heaping up of something for the day of judgment, which one would be adivsed to observe only through a powerful telescope.

Peas, be still, else they stay not on the plate.

 

[kyredneck]

Those person's are the Westborrow Baptist cult groups who ignore Mark 13:10 and Matthew 28:19-20

I find myself agreeing much more with Gill than I do with anything that Andrew Fuller wrote or taught.

Amen! Gill had nothing in common with Westboro Baptist!

 

[Dave G]

But you just said Peter didn't use the faith he'd been given. Now you contradict this and say if someone doesn't believe, it's because they were not given the privilege of the new birth.

I get the distinct impression that no matter what I say, you're going to disagree;
Especially with regard to God choosing someone to salvation through no effort of their own.

If someone quotes John 6 one more time out of context with John 5, there is a heaping up of something for the day of judgment, which one would be adivsed to observe only through a powerful telescope.

I believe that we are at an impasse, sir.
I see it one way, and you see it another.

While I respect your opinion, once again I think it's a good idea if we agree to disagree and leave it at that.
It's time I bowed out of this thread anyway, as I've said what I've wanted to say.

Good evening to you.

 

[ad finitum]

...Especially with regard to God choosing someone to salvation through no effort of their own.

If you don't mind clearing up one more point. We were talking about faith as a gift but now we are talking about being saved by some effort. What effort are we talking about?

 

[AustinC]

If you don't mind clearing up one more point. We were talking about faith as a gift but now we are talking about being saved by some effort. What effort are we talking about?

human effort

If faith is not a gift, it must come from the effort of man to build and grow his own faith, which comes from within himself.

 

[ad finitum]

human effort

If faith is not a gift, it must come from the effort of man to build and grow his own faith, which comes from within himself.

I'm not sure your wording is clear. I thought the argument is that faith is a gift (from God). Now you say it's not a gift.

But then you say faith is effort. Is that the same as saying faith is a work?

 

[AustinC]

I'm not sure your wording is clear. I thought the argument is that faith is a gift (from God). Now you say it's not a gift.

But then you say faith is effort. Is that the same as saying faith is a work?

Seems you are all twisted up inside.
You wrote:

If you don't mind clearing up one more point. We were talking about faith as a gift but now we are talking about being saved by some effort. What effort are we talking about?

I responded:

human effort

If faith is not a gift, it must come from the effort of man to build and grow his own faith, which comes from within himself.

What do you struggle with when I state: "If faith is not a gift..."
I am expressing that if we hold your position that faith is not a gift, then faith must come from human effort as a man builds and grows his own faith apart from God.

Do you disagree with the if/then statement. If so, why?

Does that clear things up or are you still struggling with comprehension?

 

[ad finitum]

Seems you are all twisted up inside.
You wrote:

I responded:


What do you struggle with when I state: "If faith is not a gift..."
I am expressing that if we hold your position that faith is not a gift, then faith must come from human effort as a man builds and grows his own faith apart from God.

Do you disagree with the if/then statement. If so, why?

Does that clear things up or are you still struggling with comprehension?

I'm sorry. I do apologize for misreading what you wrote. I find that a sans serif font does not hit my scanning eye rightly sometimes, especially as I get older. Again, sorry about that.

Also, thanks for explaining the idea that faith is "efforting".

 

[Dave G]

If you don't mind clearing up one more point. We were talking about faith as a gift but now we are talking about being saved by some effort. What effort are we talking about?

I'll make one more set of replies to answer your question, ad.
I speak of the "effort" of placing one's faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross in order to obligate the Lord to save someone.

I'll break it down into two distinct points so as to help you to understand my point of view:

1) Some view faith ( the faith that sees the believer through all their trials in this life...something that they use to trust in the Lord ) as something that all men can exercise, provided the circumstances are right.
Many call it "saving faith", and see the Scriptures declaring that when a person hears the Gospel through the word of God, that person then believes on Christ and is saved at that moment.

They see salvation as working basically according to what I've outlined below:

Gospel ( word of God detailing Christ crucified for sinners ) preached -------> listener believes ----------> God saves at that point.
Gospel ( same as above ) preached -------> listener rejects ---------> God ultimately casts person into Lake of Fire for their sins.

This is something that involves "Prevenient Grace", in which God's grace is extended to the sinner at the time of the Gospel message being preached, and if that message is rejected, then God retracts His grace and that person is then "left to themselves".
If it is accepted, then He saves them and keeps them to the day of redemption.

Election takes a back seat to the sinner's choice, and after they believe, they become part of the elect.
This has come to be called "Conditional Election" in recent times.

Thusly stated, a person is saved because they have believed on Christ.
Their faith is, ultimately, what saved them...their effort at making the right choice at the right time was rewarded with God granting them eternal life.

 

[Dave G]

2) Some view faith ( same as in item # 1 ) as something that no man has apart from the grace of God ( as can be said above ), and it is only given to His elect, not to all men.
God saves a portion of mankind, writes their names in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, and then, during the preaching of His word at some point during their lifetimes, "calls" them by the power of His Spirit and the gift of the new birth.

Their faith is given to them by an act of God through that new birth, and was never something that they could have used to "get saved"...
"Saving faith" is expressed as the faith that accompanies God's act of saving someone and calling them to Himself..
The evidence ( Hebrews 11:1 ) of His having begun a work in them, not the determiner.

They see salvation as working basically according to what I've outlined below:

God writes names in His Son's Book of Life from foundation of the world -----------> God sends a preacher / Gospel preached -------------> His children ( given to His Son by the Father ), believe on Christ who saves them ------------> God keeps them through faith ----------> His children are raised again at the last day.

Gospel preached ----------> those whose names were not written in Book of Life never truly believe / reject His words ----------> God casts unrepentant sinners into the Lake of Fire.

This is something that I call "Electing Grace", and is aimed at only those that the Lord has chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4 ).
God's grace, in the eternal sense, is extended to the sinner whom He has chosen ( and only to the sinner that He has chosen ), and at a particular time He causes them to be in the right place and at the right time to hear the message of their salvation through the preaching of His word.

Election takes the front seat and everything follows from that.
This has come to be called "Unconditional Election" in recent times.

Thusly stated, a person is saved independently of their belief in the Gospel, even though they must later believe it and be sealed with the Holy Ghost at the time of their belief ( Ephesians 1:13 ).
But their faith had absolutely nothing to do with God's decision to save them...
His purposes according to election is what did.

No effort was required on the part of the believer to "get saved", as their faith was never what caused the Lord to decide to save them.

 

[Dave G]

Therefore, in item # 1 faith is the determiner of who God saves and who He does not.
A person's willful choice, or "effort" at believing on His Son, is then rewarded with the co-operative gift of the new birth and the gift of eternal life in a one-for-one exchange, similar to a market deal.

Salvation is said to have been merited, because a person's belief of the Gospel is what led to God deciding to save them.


In item # 2, faith is but one gift in a multitude of them that accompanies God's gift of eternal life...
Election is the determiner of who God saves and who He does not, not our faith.
A person's belief on His Son would not have been possible outside of the new birth, because of the hardness of our hearts and the darkened state of our minds.

There is no one-for-one exchange, as salvation cannot be merited in any way, shape or form.


To put it another way...
In #1, man's effort, or choice, is ultimately rewarded by the Lord and results in Him saving them. This person is a "free agent" or a volunteer.
In #2, man's effort, or choice, is ultimately ignored by the Lord and is, instead, a result of Him saving them. This person is "drafted" or a conscript.

I hope that helps to explain how I see this subject and its two opposing viewpoints...
To me, #1 is works plus grace ( where God reaches out in grace, but then leaves the choice to be saved up to us ), and #2 is grace alone ( where God reaches out in grace, and makes the choice for us ).

To answer the OP one final time, I see that Fuller's teachings essentially resulted in a nod to "free agency",
while Gill's teachings proclaimed the Lord's right and sovereign privilege to "draft" His people into His kingdom.

This is my final reply in this thread.


May God bless you all with many good and perfect gifts in the days to come.

 

[ad finitum]

Dave G, thank you for the detailed explanations. That's the first time I've seen the whole gist (more or less) of Calvinist understandings explained all in one place. Very informative. It explains a lot.

Thanks again for the patient replies.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'm trying to figure out what the last ten or so posts have to do with the OP.

 

[AustinC]

I'm trying to figure out what the last ten or so posts have to do with the OP.

...just trust the providence of God...[emoji57]

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm trying to figure out what the last ten or so posts have to do with the OP.

Predestination on display!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I understand and accept thread drift. However, the Fuller v Gill debate is important to understanding how many of us look at our "Calvinism".

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand and accept thread drift. However, the Fuller v Gill debate is important to understanding how many of us look at our "Calvinism".

Fuller seems to be placing the emphasis on us placing faith in the Lord Jesus, while Gill seems to be stating that God Himself placed us in Christ!@

 

[Scott Downey]

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.

I will look at a video later

Yes it should. Preachers are preaching a message and they have no clue where the seeds are falling, like what kind of ground it lands on.
Refer to the parable of the sower of the seeds
However we should have no expectations or show favoritisms as God is the one adding to the Church and also not worry we messed up somehow and will understand some will be enabled to hear and believe the message, like Acts 17 says, some after hearing Paul preach believed and followed Paul.
And also Paul in 2 Corinthians 4 mentions every man's conscience

1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[Scott Downey]

Fuller The Non-Calvinist?

Fuller is Calvinist in his theology as far I have read about him. The videos are pretty long and complex to follow and likely influenced by the presenter's bias.
He seems not to be Arminian at all.

In the second edition of Fuller’s The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, he defined his discussion by affirming that “there is no dispute about the doctrine of election, or any of the discriminating doctrines of grace. . . it is granted that none ever did or ever will believe in Christ but those who are chosen of God from eternity.”

Fuller reasoned very closely concerning the certain efficacy of the death of Christ for some and not for others. One part of his argument he proposed as a prodosis and apodosis: “If the doctrine of eternal, personal, and unconditional election be a truth, that of a special design in the death of Christ must necessarily follow.” He then placed before Taylor a small part of the Scriptures and arguments which “appear to me [Fuller] to prove the doctrine of election.” He then concluded that that part of mankind spoken of in these Scriptures and denominated as chosen of God and given of the Father were so “because God eternally purposed in himself, that they should believe and be saved.”

Paul’s interaction with his theoretical objector in Romans 9 demonstrates that “the doctrine maintained by the apostle was that of the absolute sovereignty of God, in having mercy on whom he would, and giving up whom he would to hardness of heart.” The third point of connection with election is to “show the certain success of Christ’s undertaking, as it were in defiance of unbelievers, who set at naught his gracious invitations.” Without election of sovereign grace the universal call would be universally unsuccessful. For this reason, the stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, for all that the Father has given to the Son will come to him.

Fuller died on May 7, 1815. Nine days before, he dictated a letter stating, “I have preached and written much against the abuse of the doctrine of grace; but that doctrine is all my salvation and all my desire. I have no other hope, than from salvation by mere sovereign, efficacious grace, through the atonement of my Lord and Saviour.” On that same afternoon he said to a deacon visiting him, “If I am saved, it will be by great and sovereign grace—by great and sovereign grace.” The next day he observed, “I have done a little for God; but all that I have done needs forgiveness. I trust alone in sovereign grace and mercy.”

 

[Scott Downey]

Did Andrew Fuller modify Calvinism? - Credo Magazine
But my concern is not so much there right now as with regard to some recent statements circulating about Andrew Fuller made by Dr W R Estep. Contrary to Dr Estep’s “Calvinizing Southern Baptists” (was that his title? And has not this piece made the rounds before?), there was no modification of Calvinism by Andrew Fuller. He was a full-blown Calvinist: in fact, he called himself a “strict Calvinist” in opposition to the confused views of Richard Baxter, on the one hand, and the hyper-Calvinism in certain quarters, on the other.