-
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!
How Can Man Be Just With God? God Found a Ransom!
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
Ken, what do you think Mr. Gill was suggesting when he said, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself?"
I agree with Mr. Gill, but what do you think he means by that statement?
KenH
Well-Known Member
Glad to hear that you agree with John Gill. I do, too. Here is what he wrote on that verse:
"To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,.... This expresses and explains the subject matter of the ministration of the Gospel, especially that part of it which concerns our reconciliation with God; and declares the scheme, the author, the subjects, the way, and means, and consequence of it. The phrase, "in Christ", may be either joined with the word "God", as in our version, "God was in Christ reconciling"; that is, he was in Christ drawing the scheme, fixing the method of reconciliation; his thoughts were employed about it, which were thoughts of peace; he called a council of peace, and entered into a covenant of peace with Christ, who was appointed and agreed to, to be the peacemaker. Or with the word "reconciling", thus, God "was reconciling in Christ"; that is, by Christ; and so it denotes, as before, actual reconciliation by Christ. God, in pursuance of his purposes, council, and covenant, sent his Son to make peace; and laid our sins, and the chastisement of our peace upon him; this is the punishment of sin, whereby satisfaction was made for it, and so peace with God: or with the word "world", thus, "God was reconciling the world in Christ"; by whom are meant, not all the individuals of mankind, for these are not all in Christ, nor all reconciled to God, multitudes dying in enmity to him, nor all interested in the blessing of non-imputation of sin; whereas each of these is said of the world: but the elect of God, who are chosen in Christ, whose peace Christ is, whose sins are not imputed to them, and against whom no charge of any avail can be laid; and particularly the people of God among the Gentiles are here designed, who are frequently called "the world" in Scripture; being the world which God loved, for whose sins Christ is the propitiation, and of the reconciling of which mention is particularly made, John 3:16. And this sense well agrees with the context, which signifies, that no man is regarded for his natural descent; it is no matter whether he is a Jew or a Gentile, provided he is but a new creature: for Gospel reconciliation, and the ministry of it, concern one as well as another. Moreover, this reconciliation must be considered, either as intentional, or actual, or as a publication of it in the ministry of the word; and taken either way it cannot be thought to extend to every individual person in the world: if it is to be understood intentionally, that God intended the reconciliation of the world to himself by Christ, and drew the scheme of it in him, his intentions cannot be frustrated; his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure; a scheme so wisely laid by him in his Son, cannot come to nothing, or only in part be executed; and yet this must be the case, if it was his design to reconcile every individual of mankind to himself, since a large number of them are not reconciled to him: and if the words are to be understood of an actual reconciliation of the world unto God by Christ, which sense agrees with the preceding verse, then it is out of all question, that the word "world" cannot be taken in so large a sense as to take in every man and woman in the world; since it is certain that there are many who are not reconciled to God, who die in their sins, whose peace is not made with him, nor are they reconciled to the way of salvation by Christ: and should it be admitted that the ministry of reconciliation is here designed, which is not an offer of reconciliation to the world, but a proclamation or declaration of peace and reconciliation made by the death of Christ; this is not sent to all men; multitudes were dead before the word of reconciliation was committed to the apostles; and since, there have been great numbers who have never so much as heard of it; and even in the times of the apostles it did not reach to everyone then living: besides, the text does not speak of what God did by the ministry of his apostles, but of what he himself had been doing in his Son, and which was antecedent, and gave rise unto and was the foundation of their ministry. There was a scheme of reconciliation drawn in the counsels of God before the world began, and an actual reconciliation by the death of Christ, which is published in the Gospel, which these words contain the sum and substance of: and this reconciliation, as before, is said to be "unto himself"; to his offended justice, and for the glory of his perfections, and the reconciling of them together in the affair of salvation."
- excerpt from John Gill's Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:19
Yes, I agree with Mr. Gill at face value in the OP, where you would never know that he's a Calvinist.
He doesn't believe the "world" is actually the world, but the Calvinist has no choice but to believe that, the theory falls apart if they don't see it that way.
John said that Christ is not only the satisfaction for the sins of the saved, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Mr. Gill has avoid this at all costs to keep the theory alive. If Christ is the satisfaction for the sins of the whole word as John says, then Christ died for everyone. If Christ died for everyone, which He did, then the theory is dead in the water.
He changes the word "reconciliation" to mean what fits his theory, since the "world" is not in reality the world, "reconciliation" cannot be reconciliation for the entire world. He does it with mastery.
What I like about Mr. Gill is his skill and artistry in writing, he is one the best I've seen. He dances around the issues with grace and majesty. I can only say that I wish I had just a small amount of his skills.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Regardless of whether John Gill ever referred to himself as a "Calvinist"(I don't know if he did, doesn't really matter since he proclaimed the gospel of Christ's finished work on behalf of God's elect), I myself, as has been discussed on this board in the past, am not a Calvinist. As far as I can recall, I have not read anything written by John Calvin, except for quotes that others have shared. If I am to be called anything to identify myself, it would be a Sovereign Grace Baptist. The article on Wikipedia on "Reformed Baptists", even makes this distinction, especially in pointing out that Sovereign Grace Baptists are more influenced by the writings of John Gill than John Calvin. Which my personal experience during the past four years has borne out.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
If Gill had stayed with what the bible actually says rather than run off into the woods of calvinism then with his writing skills he could have cleared up many of the errors of that view. But that was not to be, he had to attempt to support that false view and we end up with just a jumble of misdirection.
The 5 points are the 5 points regardless if they came from Mr. Calvin or Mr. Gill.
But I can understand why some don't want to be associated with the Calvin brand.
I'm a Baptist and I don't appreciate being associated with the Reformed brand.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The Baptists are a mixed bag, shake up the bag and there's no telling what may fall out.
That has been disputed for 500 years.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
It has been disputed for 2000 years, since the founding of the Church people have tried to discredit what has clearly been taught by God in His Word.
That is why Paul spent so much time writing letters. He was attempting to make very clear many core doctrines that are now referred to as the doctrines of grace, among other doctrine.
I don’t expect you to agree with me
Peace to you
We're talking about Calvinism, it evolved over time from paganism. Augustine took a thought from Plato, and Calvin finished what Augustine started. The result is what we know today as Calvinism.
Actually taken out from the Bible authors themselves
I suppose when history is convenient, it's more favorable.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
And as has been pointed out more than once the greatest dispute came about because augustine brought pagan philosophy into the church in the 4 th century.
The TULIP/DoG are not biblical teachings but rather wrong headed teachings of calvinists used to support their errant philosophy.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Well, I can only speak for myself. Long before I heard of “Calvinism” I gleaned from scripture the truths that I found out later were referred to as the doctrines of grace
I do understand that Luther, Calvin, Knox, Gill and many others throughout the centuries also came to the conclusion these truths are clearly taught in God’s word.
To claim these doctrines were never taught prior to the reformation and “evolved” out of paganism demonstrates a misunderstanding of God’s Word and of church history.
Peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I don’t need a lecture in theology from someone who believes many are saved having never heard the gospel.
Peace to you
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Actually they do not. Prior to augustine and even augustine prior to his fight with Pelagius the ECF's held to mans free will.
The TULIP/DoG are a gross misrepresentation of the love of God for His creation.
Those views were taught prior to the reformation but prior to augustine they were found in pagan philosophy.
It's a shame we're divided over these things, seeing that all of us claim Christ as our Savior.
I suppose Christ spoke a mouthful when He said He came not to bring peace, but a sword.
The Church should be a family of believers in one accord, but we are far from that.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you do as you do not seem to be able to understand the basics of salvation as found in scripture.
Your problem is that you have to low a view of the sovereignty of God and of His love for His creation.
You are trusting a man-made religion rather than the word of God.