In this section I will begin to examine what the Hardshells have affirmed in regard to the beliefs of that great Baptist theologian, Dr. John Gill. I have already cited much from Dr. Gill in previous chapters. I have shown clearly, as many others have also, both now and in previous years, that Dr. Gill clearly believed in regeneration and spiritual birth through the means of saving truth, through the gospel and by means of those who bring it to others.
There are really two separate issues involved, with regard to Gill, although they are intimately connected. The first involves whether the gospel is a means in regeneration and spiritual birth, and the second is whether that gospel is to be addressed to known unregenerate souls or, to all men indiscriminately.
I have dealt with Gill's views relative to whether the gospel was to be preached to all men and whether all men were to be commanded to repent of sin, to believe the gospel, and to come to Christ for salvation.
Many Hardshells have clearly argued that Dr. Gill was "one of them." It is admitted that the Hardshells have indeed followed Gill in his view that Christ died only for the elect. Thus, they rejected, like many other Baptists, the general atonement views of the great Baptist theologian, Dr. Andrew Fuller. That is not to say, however, that everything that the Hardshells have had to say about the great Dr. Fuller are correct, for they are not.
Andrew Fuller has been consistently maligned and slandered by the Hardshells since his death. I have already proven that to some degree already, particularly in that series of chapters on "Addresses to the Lost," and will perhaps deal with it further in a separate chapter to be titled "Andrew Fuller Slandered."
Many of them say he was an "Arminian," but he clearly was not. He did believe in eternal unconditional election, and he believed that the atonement had a special application to the elect, but he also argued that there were universal and general applications of the atonement.
I think Dr. Fuller was wrong to deny the "commercial view" of the atonement and I do believe that Christ died specially for the elect. I have always believed that the passage in I Timothy 4: 10 gave us the correct view of this and similar theological matters.
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
He is Lord of all, but specially Lord of the elect (believers). He is Master of all, but specially Master of the elect. He is Savior and Keeper of all, but specially of the elect. He died on the cross as a sacrifice for all, but specially for the elect.
Yes, there have been, even as Elder Leland stated, disagreements among Baptists as to the best or most scriptural way to address an audience of lost souls. He spoke of the Gillite versus the Fullerite method, rejecting, he said, aspects of each. In actual practice, however, Leland's method was much more akin to that of Fuller, though perhaps with less argumentation to the wicked as to why they should seek the salvation of their souls.
No one can doubt that Leland had a great desire to be, as he said, a "spiritual midwife" to bring to spirtual birth many lost souls, through his preaching the gospel.
In the early 1800's there were Baptists who rejected Fuller regarding the general nature of the atonement and yet remained true to the prevalent and historical view of the Particular Baptists, the view of Dr. Gill, that Christ died for the elect only and not in any way for the non-elect. Whether the view of Fuller can be called "Arminianism" is a matter of debate. Certainly it was a deviation from the historical view. Yet, it is also wrong to classify, as I said, Fuller with the Arminians.
I do not see Gill and Fuller (18th century) disagreeing that gravely on the matter. Surely both would reject Hardshellism were they alive today. Both these great men taught that the elect would all be called to life and salvation through the gospel and they both believed that this was the historic faith of their Baptist forefathers of the 17th century, the very view expressed in the confession they accepted, the London Confession of 1689.
Yes, Gill, it is said, had some objections to this confession, but none concerned the view that the elect were called and converted by the gospel.
The only major disagreement between Fuller and Gill seems to be, as I have said, on the nature of the atonement, and therefore, regarding its extent, and whether it can in any way be said to be general and universal, but also concerning the best and most scriptural method of addressing dead unregenerate sinners.
The Hardshells, as will be seen from the following citations, though they "claim" him as "one of them," will admit that Gill, at least in his commentaries, believed in and constantly advocated the "gospel means" position. One may ask then - how can they legitimately "claim" him as "one of their own"? The Hardshells must also admit, though reluctantly of course, that Gill also believed in addressing the unregenerate sinner with gospel invitations, at least, in his commentaries.
The remainder of this chapter will be mostly citations from the Hardshells on this matter. In the next chapter I will begin answering all these unfounded charges made about John Gill.
Present day Primitive Baptist apologist and historian, Elder Mark Green, wrote the following about Dr. Gill.
"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect. We have claimed them as our own and have referred to them time and time again in our defense of the faith against Arminianism and Fullerism. They provided a very visible link for us with the “old country” and those brethren who were not only of our faith, but also of our own language and a similar culture." (http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/)
This is important testimony to include in this book. First, it is to be noted that Elder Green states the prevalent and historical view of the Hardshells regarding Dr. John Gill and regarding the London Confession of Faith. I will deal with the issue of the London Confession of Faith in separate chapters, however.
Yes, Dr. Gill was not discarded by the Hardshells, thanks to their misinterpretation of Gill, in some places in his "Body of Divinity," and in his "Cause of God and Truth." That will change, however, for many Hardshells who "just happens" to get their hands on this book and can read the information in these chapters on Dr. Gill and Hardshellism.
Second, Elder Green is correct when he states that the Hardshells, historically, and until modern times, at least, viewed their "link" with the "Old Baptists" of former years, prior to the 1800's, was with those who wrote the London and Philadelphia Confessions of Faith. But again, I will deal with that in a separate series.
I will show, in these chapters, on Dr. Gill and on the Old Baptist Confessions, that Elder Green's "link" is very "weak." That I will also show this further in chapters dealing with the "Hardshells and Church Succession."
Elder Green's view, though in agreement with his forefathers of the 19th century, will not be in agreement with a growing number of modern Hardshells, who reluctantly acknowledge that the Old Confessions do in fact support the gospel means position. But more on this also in chapters dealing with the infamous "Fulton Convention of Primitive Baptists."
Elder Green says further:
"We Primitive Baptists have been very vocal in our claims that the true churches of God in this generation are found under our name. We have been unflinching in our assertion that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and that God has not let that truth fall to the ground but has preserved it by a direct succession of churches found under different names through the ages. “Their faith was our faith,” has been our cry. Probably no other works have been so frequently alluded to by our ministers in their writings concerning the agreement of Primitive Baptist faith and that of our forefathers as those we will examine in this article."
Yes, and I have spoken, in the very earliest chapters of this book, how the Hardshells have traditionally been very "noisy" and "boisterous" in their "attacks" upon those who were attempting to take the gospel to the "utmost parts of the earth." I showed too just how "venemous" it has been. I showed also how this kind of preaching, even by the admission of the great Elder Sylvestor Hassell, produced in the Hardshell ministry and denomination a type of preaching that was simply "anti" and negative, where their preachers preached little about Jesus and the cross.
I also pointed this vocalness out, when responding to the Hardshells who came forward, in the early 1990's, when Brother Bob Ross and myself began to write and produce videos against the Hardshell cult, in order to defend our writing against the movement. I said then, and I repeat now, - "we are just responding to all this vehement vocal attack that the Hardshells have historically made against the Baptists who remained true to the Old Confessions."
We have no "axe to grind," so to speak. On a personal level, having been indoctrinated by this group for ten years or more, I can say that I am enjoying writing this rebuttal to all the misinformation that has been fed to the Hardshell cultic family. It is done with the hopes that some will be delivered from this cult and be used of God to save his elect and to bring them to repent of their "do-nothingism."
Missionary Baptists did not start this "war of words," nor have they sought to keep it going, but the history of the Hardshells show that they became obsessed with decrying the perceived evils of the Mission Baptists to the point of doing nothing else. Lots of Hardshell testimony will be cited, in upcoming chapters, to substantiate this assertion.
I will show that the Hardshells have no church or association who they can claim believed their views on regeneration and the new birth, and on perseverence and predestination, prior to the 1800's, for those views are rejected by 90% of today's "Primitive Baptists."
Elder Green continues:
"As the years flow by and one generation passes into another, the environment in which “the old paths” exist sometimes varies drastically. In the midst of these changing scenes, it is a matter of great comfort to the child of God to be able to read about his spiritual forefathers and their beliefs and practices, and rejoice that the gates of hell did not prevail against Truth and her pillar. Included in the contents of this article are numerous quotes from a number of leading Primitive Baptist ministers over the years concerning their affection for the London Confession and the writings of that fierce opponent of Arminianism, Dr. Gill. May their bold statements reconfirm our faith in God’s providential care for His eternal truths—those same principles to which we as Primitive Baptists hold.
It should be noted that Elders C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, and W. S. Craig in particular were well-known as experts in the history of our denomination. Others, including Elders J. Harvey Daily, S. N. Redford, R. H. Pittman, Jesse Cox, and Lee Hanks, published works in this field, and were serious students of the subject. Elder Lemuel Potter’s references to church history in his debates and lectures were so extensive that his knowledge in that field is unquestionable. When these men recommended these “two old friends” to their people, they knew whereof they spoke.
("Two Old and Honored Friends" by Elder Mark Green)
I next call to the "witness stand" Elder Crouse, a disciple of John R. Daily and Claud Cayce, yet a "Progressive," of the early 1900's. He wrote a lengthy treatise on the question of whether regeneration was accomplished through gospel means, attempting to show that the view of Gill and of the London and Philadelphia confessions were the same as that of the Hardshells. In the early 20th century there was another minor division over this question among several of the "Progressive" churches. I will discuss in greater detail some of these later divisions over the "means question" that occurred after 1832 and the "Black Rock Address."
Wrote Elder Crouse:
"Dr. John Gill, when he wrote his commentary of the Bible, held to the doctrine of gospel regeneration--that God regenerates His elect through the means or instrumentality of the preached word. After careful investigation we feel sure his interpretation of certain scriptures relative to the gospel and regeneration will admit of no other construction.
In every effort that has been made to reform our faith Dr. Gill’s Commentary has been used against us to prove that American Primitive Baptists have departed from old time Baptist faith and have therefore ceased to be the “original” Baptists. If it were necessary for us to accept all interpretations given by Dr. Gill in his commentary in order for us to be “original’ or Primitive Baptists, there might be some merit in the contention of our adversaries. But the faith of Primitive Baptists of America does not rest upon the belief of Dr. Gill. And the fact that our opponents are always driven to his commentary for proof is evidence that American Primitive Baptists have NOT held the idea of the gospel as a means, or that sinners are regenerated by, with, or through the preached word.
We should be very careful in writing about the dead. They are not here to defend or explain and we should not give their writings a strained interpretation in an effort to prove our position. We observe, however, that later, after years of careful study, and after observing the results and outgrowth of his former position, that he wrote quite differently and indicated that he had undergone a change. In his Body of divinity, which was his last work, written a number of years later than his commentary, he says:
“This instrumentality of the word in regeneration seems not so agreeable to the principle of grace implanted in the soul in regeneration and to be understood in respect to that, since it is done by immediate infusion and is represented as a creation; and now as God made no use of any instrument in the first and old creation, so neither does it seem so agreeable that he should use any in. the new creation; wherefore, this is rather to be understood of the EXTERIOR of the principle of grace and the drawing it forth into act and exercise, which is excited and encouraged by the ministry of the word by which it appears that a man is born again. So the three thousand first converts and the jailor were FIRST regenerated, or had the principle of grace wrought in their souls by the Spirit of God, and then were directed and encouraged by the ministry of the Apostles to repent and believe in Christ; whereby it becomes manifest that they were born again.” Volume 2, page 844.
In his Cause of God and Truth, page 180, Dr. Gill says: “There is want of spiritual consideration and attention in every man, until God opens his heart, by his powerful grace, as he did Lydia’s, to attend to the things which are spoken, or which regard his spiritual and eternal welfare. The parable of the seed sown shows that the hearts of unregenerate men are unfit and unprepared to receive the word, and therefore, it becomes unfruitful to them. And that it is only fruitful where it is received in an honest and good heart, made so by the Spirit and grace of God in regeneration; whence it follows, that regeneration is rather a preparation for the right hearing of the word than the hearing of the word is a preparation for regeneration."
"Dr. Gill here stated our position exactly. They indicate to my mind that discovering the legitimate results of his former position he forsook that position and took a stand for the faith expressed at Fulton, in the Cordele Statement, and in the Vidahia Resolution. The reader can form his own conclusions.
That some of our ministers in Georgia have given up the recognized faith of Primitive Baptists to embrace the doctrine Gill forsook cannot be successfully denied." (W.H Crouse on "Regeneration")
(http://www.upbuild.org/article57/page3.html)
Next, I "call to the stand" Elder R. A. Biggs, from his article "Regeneration Extremes Considered" with a sub-title of "BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH AND REGENERATION."
"Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3.
“The terms "born again," "born of God," "born of the Spirit," "begotten of God." "Quickened together with him," "washing of regeneration," according to the best Bible scholars, we have, all mean the same thing; are from the same root.”
“This is regeneration; this is to be born again; this is passing from death to life.”
“Being born again does not give ideas; it prepares us to hear; gives "ears to hear;" prepares us to discern the things of the Spirit; to see, and enter the kingdom of God. Dr. Gill says about this on the subject:
"Regeneration is God's act; conversion consists both of God's acts upon men in turning them and acts done by men; regeneration is the motion of God towards and upon the sinner; conversion is the motion of the sinner toward God."
"Regeneration then gives life, not ideas. Infants and idiots may be born again, regenerated, as the thief on the cross, who was not permitted to live to grow in grace and come to a knowledge of the truth. We should always distinguish between life and the motions of life; between a spiritual mind and the operations of that mind. We may conceive of natural life prior to any kind of actions, either physical or mental; so we may conceive of spiritual life prior to faith, repentance, love or any other spiritual action.”
(http://primitivebaptist.info/)
Next I will be citing the lengthy exchange between Elder W. P. Throgmorton and Elder John R. Daily, in their historic debate in 1887 on the question of "Who Are The Primitive Baptists?"
Elder Throgmorton
"Another preliminary remark I desire to give you. This remark is that in denying my proposition Brother Daily is out of harmony with the “Old Baptist Faith.” Do you get that? In denying my proposition Brother Daily is out of harmony with the Old Baptist Faith! He sets himself squarely against the Old Baptist Confession of Faith. If he shows that I am wrong in this discussion, he will show that the Old Confession of the Seven Churches in London, of 1644, was wrong. He will show that the “Somerset Confession” (of churches in West England), 1656, was wrong. He will show that the “Old London Confession” of 1689, of which his people have boasted so much, is wrong. He will show that the Philadelphia Confession is wrong. If he shows that my proposition is wrong, good bye to the doctrine of the old Baptists. I am here to defend the ‘Old Baptist Faith, as to what is involved in this proposition. Brother Daily is here to oppose it, and to over throw it, if he can! Will you “Old School” Baptists follow him in this?"
"In denying my proposition, I want to say further, that Brother Daily not only sets himself against the “Old Baptist Confessions,” but also against noted worthies whom he and his people have honored as leaders.
All who were in the assembly of 1689, who approved and sent out the London Confession; those in the old Philadelphia Association when it adopted its confession, the one known by its name; Dr. John Gill, Dr. R. W. Fain, Dr. John M. Watson, Morgan Edwards, John Gano. I just want to call your attention to this list of names. These all endorsed these words which I have read from the Confessions and which Brother Daily denies in denying this proposition." (Ibid)
"I want to show you about Dr. John Gill. I want to show what Dr. Gill affirms in his comment on James 1:18: “But he begets us of his, own free grace, and favor, and of his rich and abundant mercy, and of his sovereign will and pleasure, according to his counsels and purposes of old” - Well, what next? “And the means—that word “means over there in the proposition on the chart—”he makes use of—-“that signifies employs, or with which he does it—is the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word and truth itself, but the Gospel which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again.” That is Dr. Gill, Brother Daily. He refers to Eph. 1.13. Yes, sir; Brother Daily knows it, but is setting himself against him. I Peter 1:23. Dr. Gill also refers to, and this is what he says: “And hence ministers of it”—that is, ministers of the Gospel—”are accounted spiritual fathers.”
"So, Brother Daily, in denying my proposition, is off the old Baptist track and you are going to follow him, are you? He is out of line with the Old Baptist Confession! and will you follow him? He is out of line with the American Baptist Fathers before the great division of 1832, and is at cross purposes with some of the best of the “Old School” Baptists since the division. For instance, Watson and Fain."
"In this I am supported by Dr. John Gill on I Cor. 1:21, that passage I have just quoted. Listen to him:
“So the wise men of the world, with all their wisdom are left ignorant of God, an perish in their sins, whilst the Gospel which they despise is the power of God unto salvation, to all that believe in Christ; this, through efficacious grace, becomes the means of regenerating and quickening men, showing them their need of salvation, and where it is, and of working faith in them to look to Christ for it.”
"But perhaps I had better show you how the Old Baptists far back regarded Dr. Gill. You have all heard of the Old Philadelphia Association. In 1807 that body adopted this: “This Association resolves to support the Publishing of the work to the utmost.” That was Dr. Gills Commentary which I have been quoting. To support the work to the utmost; they also recommended “to each church to subscribe for a COPY of this incomparable work for the use of their minister.” And yet Dr. Gill’s incomparable work conforms to my proposition.
Hassell’s Church History, a work, I am informed, which is held in high esteem by “Old School” Baptists, says on page 655: “John Gill of London was the soundest, the most learned and most able Baptist theologian since the death of the Apostle John—the author of a complete critical commentary of the old and new Testaments, and of a complete body of divinity—the only man that ever hunted and drove out Arminianism from the explanation of every verse in the Bible, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations.”
These “Old School” preachers here were glad that Arminianism was put out and John Gill, in running Arminianism out completely from the Bible, is complimented by them."
"I desire to give you what Dr. John Gill says commenting on Rom. 10:17. Possibly some of you may have made eyes at my interpretation of this passage. “So then, faith cometh by hearing—that is, by preaching; for the word hearing is used in the same sense as in the preceding verse; and designs the report of the Gospel, or the preaching of the word, which is the means God makes use of to convey faith into the hearts of his people; for preachers are ministers, or instruments, by whom others believe.” Dr. Gill’s commentary on Romans 10:17."
Elder Daily's response:
"He says I am out of harmony with the Old Baptist faith, London, Somerset, etc., and I have already answered that by calling your attention to the London Confession. But he calls up John Gill. Now I have John Gill’s works. I couldn’t bring my library, it is too big. I have a great many Commentaries. Indeed I do not know how many. I will not take the time to count, and I prize all those Commentaries for what they are worth, but they are only worth what is true in them, and I accept what is true. How about John Gill in his Commentary? It did seem that John Gill favored the heresy that I am now opposing and that I expect to successfully oppose in this debate. But John Gill has contradicted himself very much, and if a witness comes into court and testifies concerning a case, and then in addition testifies contradictory to that testimony, his testimony as a witness is set aside. So I shall set John Gill aside."
Page 180, Cause of God and Truth—“There is want of spiritual consideration and attention in every man, until God opens his heart, by his powerful grace, as he did Lydia’s, to attend to the things which are spoken, or which regard his spiritual welfare. The parable of the seed sown, instanced it, shows that the hearts of unregenerated men are unfit and unprepared to receive the word, and therefore it becomes unfruitful to them.”
"Bless my life, he is against my brother on the parable of the sower! I am discovering something!
“And that it is only fruitful where it is received in an honest and good heart, made so by the Spirit and grace of God in regeneration.” You see? Well, I just declare!
“whence it follows, that regeneration is rather a preparation for the right hearing of the word than the hearing of the word is a preparation for regeneration.” Dr. John Gill, page 180.
Cause of Regeneration, pages 114 and 115, Body of Divinity, Volume 2:
“The instrumental cause of regeneration, if it may be so called, are the word of God and the ministers of it; hence regenerate persons are said to be born again by the word of God. 1st Peter 1:23, and again: Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth, James 1:18, unless by the word in these passages should be meant the eternal logos, or essential word of God, Jesus Christ, since logos is used in both places. Though ministers of the Gospel are not only represented as ministers and instruments by whom others believe, but as spiritual fathers.”" (Daily's 1st Negative)
"Seems like John Gill put his studying cap on here. Seems like he wanted to get it right. Though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, says the Apostle to the Corinthians, yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel. So he speaks of his Son Onesimus, whom he had begotten in his bonds. Philemon 10. Yet this instrumentality of the word in regeneration seems not so agreeable to the principle of grace implanted in the soul in regeneration and to be under stood in respect to that, since it is done by immediate infusion and is represented as a creation; and now as God made no use of any instrument in the first and old creation, so neither does it seem so agreeable that he should use any in the new creation; wherefore, this is rather to be understood of the exterior of the principle of grace as the drawing it forth into act and exercise, which is excited and encouraged by the ministry of the word by which it appears that a man is born again. So the three thousand first converts and the jailor were first regenerated, or had the principle of grace wrought in their souls by the Spirit of God, and then were directed and encouraged by the ministry of the Apostles to repent and believe in Christ; where by it becomes manifest that they were born again.”" (Body of Divinity, page 535.)
"So much for John Gill. How about this work from which I am quoting? Was it written when he was a boy and didn’t know? By no means. In the Memoirs of John Gill, found in his “Body of Divinity,” it is said: “This was his last work, and contains the substance of what he delivered to his people in the space of five or six years.” So much for Dr. John Gill. Yes, I stand where Dr. John Gill did in his mature age, when he had thought the matter over studiously. So, as I follow Brother John Gill, my brethren can follow mc along."
From Throgmorton's Second Speech:
"Now, as to Dr. John Gill. Those of you who are at all informed know how the “Old School Baptists regard Dr. John Gill. Brother Daily says Gill’s Commentary is only worth what it is worth for what truth is in it. That is right. I show, however, that my opponent is out of line with Gill’s Commentary and I show that the old Baptists away back endorsed that Commentary. Of course we might not to follow any body who is out of line with truth. I would rather be right than to be a Baptist—if there is any difference between them. Sure."
"He says that Dr. Gill wrote that “Body of Divinity” in his old age. Maybe he had gotten into his dotage. That great Commentary is what makes John Gill a giant among the Baptists of that age and that giant in that great Commentary: written in the prime of his manhood, and not when in his dotage agrees with my Proposition, Brother Daily; but when he came to write a doctrinal book, as I understand in his old age, so to speak. He said some things somewhat at variance possibly with his Commentary. Brother Daily said when a witness contradicts himself that forces him out of Court. You ought not to quote Brother Todd then. You know Brother Todd had come over to us and contradicted himself. What did you bring him up for? It seems that my friend will say almost anything in order to make it appear that my arguments are not what they ought to be; and then he finds fault with me for quoting such a man as Dr. John Gill."
Elder Daily's second reply:
"He has agree to affirm that the Scriptures teach that God employs the preaching of the gospel in the regeneration of sinners, but in his very first speech he tried to prove by Dr. Gill that that was the truth. So I went after him, and left the proposition far enough to turn Gill against him in what is recorded in the Memoirs in the “Body of Divinity” as he crowning work of Gill’s life. He went into the London Confession of Faith. I went into that to follow him, and called him to state if he really believes the statement in the 2d Sec. of the 10th Chapter, and he didn’t say in his last speech whether he did or not."
"He says I am out of line with Gill’s Commentary. He is out of line with Gill’s Body of Divinity."
"The voice of the preacher will never he heard by the dead in sins, in a spiritual sense. The voice of Jesus by the Divine Spirit must give life before such can hear the preaching of the gospel. Even the voice of Jesus himself, in preaching his gospel, was not heard by those who were dead. Jesus said to this class, “Why do ye not understand my speech; even because ye cannot hear my words. 8:43. It was necessary that he speak to them in regeneration in order that they might he able to hear his voice in preaching. Why? It is not in the regeneration of sinners that the gospel is employed as a means. I argue from all these unanswerable facts that God does not employ the preaching of the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners."
In the next chapter I will show what Elder Throgmorton failed to show in his debate with Daily.
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/907/36/
(As a note: this debate is posted on Elder Montgomery's web site, a very good source for material about the Primitive Baptist, but the last three chapters of the Daily-Throgmorton debate have not been transcribed, so I do not have how this disccusion about Gill and the old confessions ended. When I am able to finish reading this debate again, I hope to be able to add some material then to these chapters on Gill)
I will do the following in the remaining writings on Gill and the Hardshells.
1) I will show that Gill did in fact teach the gospel means position clearly and unequivocably in both his "Body of Divinity" and in his "Cause of God and Truth," and
2) That the citations given by Daily (and other Hardshells too) from those two above-named books, have not been properly interpreted by the Hardshells. They have twisted Gill's words, which do, on the surface, seem to support Hardshellism and Hyper-Calvinism. And, to that extent, Elder Throgmorton was right to conclude that Dr. Gill was guilty of "doting" theologically in his old age.
Did Gill in fact contradict himself? Was he guilty, as Daily affirmed, of contradicting himself frequently, even in his Commentaries? Is it not obvious that Gill was losing esteem among the Hardshells as they got further away from 1832? Is it not also true relative to their views and estimation of the old Confessions?
No comments:
Post a Comment