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

[Rippon]

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.

Yeah,I too see no point of comparison between the two men. I have a ton of respect for John Macarthur,but he is not in the same league of the learning of John Gill.He would willing admit the same.

 

[Rippon]

I take it you don't study Baptist history?

It's a given that you haven't a clue. Try on Tom Nettles and Timothy George on for size before you make false claims about Gill.

 

[Rippon]

John Gill was a "super-hyper-Calvinist" to the extreme, if I can use that many superlatives.
It led him to antinomianism.

You don't know what you are talking about. It is all too evident.

James Wells from Spurgeon's time is a more fitting example of Hyper-Calvinism --certainly not John Gill.

And to charge John Gill with antinomianism is 100% bunk. Gill himself said that it was a very dangerous arror.

It also led him to a denial of the Great Commission.

Documentation please.

He was a Baptist, but the Baptists of his own generation disagreed with him.

So what? Many Baptists then and now are not orthodox --Gill was certainly orthodox in the Christian faith.

I feel very comfortable in saying that I disagree with many doctrinal views of many Baptists.

 

[Rippon]

DHK,I would like you to find anything remotely resembling hyper-Calvinism in The Goat Yard Declaration of Faith (from 1729). Surely if he smacked of superduper Hyper-Calvinism you would fin it in his creedal statement.

Why did his successor, John Rippon, (my namesake) use the same creedal statement? Do you think he was also a hyper-Calvinist?

If John Gill was so all-fired Hyper-Calvinistic then why did his church support the evangelistic efforts of George Whitefield?

Why did Charles Spurgeon give his sons copies of The Cause Of God And Truth? Do think C.H.S. was secret hyper-Calvinist or something?

Here is a nice Spurgeon quote:"Many sneer at Gill,but he is not to be dispensed with. In some respects, he has no superior. He is always well worth consulting."

 

[J.D.]

Yeah,I too see no point of comparison between the two men. I have a ton of respect for John Macarthur,but he is not in the same league of the learning of John Gill.He would willing admit the same.

No one should speak of Gill's stature unless they've read his biography. Fluent in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew by age 13; Graduated from University by age 16; preached a minimum of four time per week; authored numerous books and pamphlets and tracts; single-handedly composed a commentary on every verse of the Bible - to date the only human to ever accomplish such a feat. A Giant of the Faith, indeed!

 

[DHK]

You don't know what you are talking about. It is all too evident.

James Wells from Spurgeon's time is a more fitting example of Hyper-Calvinism --certainly not John Gill.

And to charge John Gill with antinomianism is 100% bunk. Gill himself said that it was a very dangerous arror.



Documentation please.



So what? Many Baptists then and now are not orthodox --Gill was certainly orthodox in the Christian faith.

I feel very comfortable in saying that I disagree with many doctrinal views of many Baptists.

I'll quote them again for your benefit:

From Vedder:

Though not eloquent as a preacher, he was an industrious writer of books highly esteemed in their day and very influential. His “Commentary” on the Bible is more learned than perspicuous, and Robert Hall once characterized it as

(Robert Hall) :

a continent of mud, sir.” If this be regarded as a hasty and unjust criticism, the praise of Toplady must be acknowledged to go to the other extreme: “If any man can be supposed to have trod the whole circle of human learning, it was Doctor Gill. . It would perhaps try the constitutions of half the literati in England, only to read with care and attention the whole of what he said. As deeply as human sagacity, enlightened by grace, could penetrate, he went to the bottom of everything he engaged in.”

(Vedder) --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? It must, however, in justice be said that this was a time of general decline in religion among Englishmen, which began with the Restoration, and became marked from the beginning of the Hanoverian period. Many causes combined to bring religion to this low estate. In the desire to avoid Romanism on the one hand and Puritanism on the other, the Established Church had fallen into a colorless, passionless, powerless style of teaching. The clergy were estranged from the House of Hanover, and the whole church system was disorganized. By successive withdrawals of its best men, the Church had been seriously weakened, while the Dissenting bodies had not been correspondingly strengthened. Deism had made great strides among people and clergy, and Christianity was but half believed and less than half practiced.

Toplady, who was his intimate friend, gives the following just estimate of him:

If any man can be supposed to have trod the whole circle of human learning, it was Dr. Gill. . . It would, perhaps, try the constitutions of half the literati in England, only to read with care and attention the whole of what he said. As deeply as human sagacity enlightened by grace could penetrate, he went to the bottom of every thing he engaged in.. . . Perhaps no man, since the days of St. Austin, has written so largely in defense of the system of grace, and, certainly, no man has treated that momentous subject, in all its branches, more closely, judiciously and successfully.

On this subject Toplady adds:

What was said of Edward the Black Prince, that he never fought a battle that he did not win; what has been remarked of the great Duke of Marlborough, that he never undertook a siege which he did not carry, may be justly accommodated to our great philosopher and divine.

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.

Christian says:
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.

There were forces at work, already which meant a revolution in Baptist affairs. These forces were finally to culminate in the great foreign mission work of Carey. The preaching of Wesley and Whitefield had profoundly stirred the nation. The Arminian theology of Wesley was opposed by Toplady and Gill, nevertheless the people felt a great quickening power. It may properly be said that while the Arminian theology could not withstand the sledge-hammer blows of Gill, the result was that practical religion resolved itself into a matter of holy living rather than into a system of divinity.

 

[Jerome]

From a charitable source (Spurgeon's Autobiography):

Gill began his pastorate with a church split—"the other party declined a scrutiny of the votes, and also raised the question of the women's voting, declaring, what was no doubt true, that apart from the female vote John Gill was in the minority."

[I knew you patriarchal types would just love that tidbit:laugh:]

he was by far the greatest scholar the church had yet chosen; but he cannot be regarded as so great a soul-winner as Keach had been, neither was the church at any time so numerous under his ministry as under that of Keach. His method of address to sinners, in which for many years a large class of preachers followed him, was not likely to be largely useful. He cramped himself, and was therefore straitened where there was no Scriptural reason for being so.

the old gentleman held the reins of power till the age of seventy-four, although the young people gradually dropped off, and the church barely numbered 150 members

The system of theology with which many identify his name has chilled many churches to their very soul, for it has led them to omit the free invitations of the gospel, and to deny that it is the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus: but for this, Dr. Gill must not be altogether held responsible, for a candid reader of his Commentary will soon perceive in it expressions altogether out of accord with such a narrow system; and it is well known that, when he was dealing with practical godliness, he was so bold in his utterances that the devotees of HyperCalvinism could not endure him. "Well, sir," said one of these, "if I had not been told that it was the great Dr. Gill who preached, I should have said I had heard an Arminian."

 

[Rippon]

From a charitable source (Spurgeon's Autobiography):

Repeating some things from that last section:

...to deny that it is the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus ...Dr. Gill must not be altogether held responsible, for a candid reader of his Commentary will soon perceive in it expressions altogether out of accord with such a narrow system;and it is well known that when he was dealing with practical godliness,he was so bold in his utterances that the devotees of Hyper-Calvinism could not endure him.

 

[Rippon]

DHK said earlier, with respect to Gill:"It also led him to a denial of the Great Commission."

That is patently false. You do doubt took Vedder's philosphical musings :"This is to deny the Great Commission." as a genuine statement from John Gill that he denied the G.C. One glance at his commentary on Matthew 28:18-20 would have disabused you of your error.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding that "continent of mud" quote from the mouth of Robert Hall... Hall had made that remark to Christmas Evans. Evans was considered by Spurgeon to have been the greatest preacher of the early 19th century. Hall himself said that Evans was the tallest, the stoutest, and the greatest man he had ever seen.

Evans had remarked that he wished that John Gill's works were translated into his native Welsh, whereupon Hall made his intemperate remark.

 

[TomVols]

Let me clarify:

MacArthur and Gill were not equals in terms of education to be sure, though it's hard to sneeze at Mac's. Gill was a giant, and time will tell us if Mac is or not (I have my opinion.)

That said, if you don't see the resonance, you aren't paying attention. MacArthur has cited Gill as a reason not to give invitations and in other areas homiletically. MacArthur provokes some of the same reactions Gill did and does. Some are eager to touch the hem of his garment for the most part, but there are compatible areas where orthodox brothers recoil.

Hope that helps. I'm not saying they are identical. I'm just saying the resonance far outweighs the dissonance.