A Gospel Unworthy of Any Acceptation - Fullerism

A Gospel Unworthy of Any Acceptation
(Fullerism)

The 18th century is often called the Century of Reason. This is because Newtonian scientists and philosophers such as Locke taught that the workings of the known world and the ways of the unknown God could all be demonstrated by logical deduction. Men of letters such as Beattie and Blair in Scotland and Lessing in Germany taught that following the paths of logic was akin to following in the footsteps of God. Lessing even went so far as to say that Christ had the right use of reason in mind when He promised that the Holy Spirit would come. In his Education of the Human Race, Lessing pointed out that by the aid of reason, man would go on to perfection and finally reach a state of being Christ-like. Many Christians accepted this philosophy, arguing that as it issued from the pens of practising Christians, it could not be wrong. Others, such as the poet William Cowper, saw through the faulty logic. If reason alone made gods out of men, he argued, then God was quite superfluous. Needless to say, Cowper denounced such a system. To him it was the logic of fallen man and not the reasoning of God as revealed in Scripture.

The 18th century also brought with it a strong desire to reform public manners. The so-called Restoration period, which raised a play-boy King to the throne and brought literature and language down to the bawdy-house floor was not to be tolerate long by Providence. Writers such as Addison and Young began to clean up the English language and the Church of England responded with a best-selling book called The Whole Duty of Man which taught the necessity of good conduct and respectability for right living. High moral principles were put forward as the mark of a Godly life but there was no Gospel in the book but rather a latent teaching of righteousness according to works. Now the moral law, not reason, was emphasised as the measure of all things. This emphasis on duty to the moral law as opposed to the Mosaic law, brought with it an upsurge in Neonomianism and Amyraldism. Sincere obedience to moral precepts became the new gospel.
Then God in His mercy poured out His Spirit on Europe, the British Isles and the American colonies and men were raised up such as Spener, Franke and Untereyck on the Continent, Hervey, Gill, Brine, Toplady, Romaine and Huntington in Britain and Frelinghusen and Whitefield in America commuted backwards and forwards across the Atlantic planting the Word of God wherever they came. These men, though men of learning , logic and highly moral lives, had found something greater. They believed in preaching the righteousness of Christ imputed to elect sinners through the free grace of God as the result of a Saviour's redemptive and vicarious death for His Church.

Church statistics show that between 1700 and 1785 Protestant churches had grown by well over four hundred percent in Germany. In England literally hundreds of clergymen and Dissenting pastors were now preaching Christ as the fulfilment of the Law for His elect. The American colonies were ablaze with the light of the Gospel. Nevertheless, there were still many human ostriches in the churches at this time. Men who could not accept the mainly Calvinistic beliefs of the pioneers of the Great Awakening. Men who had buried their heads in the sands of false doctrine and not noticed what a great work was going on. The date 1785 is a memorable one for these men. It is the publishing date of a book by a Baptist pastor named Andrew Fuller called The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. According to Fuller`s followers, there was no awakening in the 18th century amongst Baptists until this book was published and Fuller entered the scene to fill the same role in England that Luther had filled in Germany.

These human ostriches also argued that there was no sign of spiritual life outside of the Baptist churches either and looked upon such Anglican pioneers of the Revival as James Hervey as arch heretics because they taught that faith was a gift of God and not a dutiful response to a Gospel invitation . In spite of the huge spread of the Awakening in the 18th century, Fullerites boast that nothing had really happened of spiritual value before "the shot heard around the world in this spiritual offensive was fired from the pen of Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), an English Particular Baptist ." Up to then, Fuller`s biographers tell us, the system of doctrine which had prevailed amongst believers was ´to a considerable extent a caricature of Calvinism, exercising under some of its forms a peculiarly degrading and pernicious influence ." This was also the opinion of Fuller who stresses time and time again that before he emerged theology had been degraded to a ´dunghill` and the ´Christian profession had sunk into contempt.` Fuller was particularly keen on challenging the theological credentials of his Baptist fathers in the faith such as Gill and Brine whom he accused of being ´High Calvinists` or ´Hyper-Calvinists` and of having a false view of the Law, the Gospel and redemption. In fact, when Fuller is finished with firing his furious guns at his Baptist brethren, and aiming many a salvo at evangelical Anglicans and Presbyterians, he leaves no one standing in the evangelical field but his own trusty followers.

1785 was a bad year for truth, sound sense, moral integrity and Gospel theology. This paper seeks to show how Andrew Fuller sought to put the clock back on at least 80 years of true Biblical teaching and how he left the beaten track trod by saints who were justified and sanctified by free-grace. He chose to return to the rational doctrines of moral duties and works-righteousness of pre-revival days. It will be shown that Andrew Fuller had a faulty view of man, a faulty view of God, a faulty view of the Law, a faulty view of the Gospel, a faulty view of redemption and a faulty view of Christ`s Church. Pointing out Fuller`s theological follies is no easy task. This is because Fuller delights in using a meta-language of his own invention to describe traditional theological concepts. Anyone trying to follow Fuller`s use of words must invariable lose his meaning at some time or other.

Much of Fuller`s writings is taken up with his trying to clean himself of the miry clay he fell into through leaving the rock of Biblical Calvinism and the plain meaning of Scripture. He accuses his numerous critics of misunderstanding him and reading into his words concepts which were far from his mind. He believed, however, that this was proof that his critics were ´Hyper-Calvinists and Antinomians` as his arguments were as clear as day to himself. He never seems to have suspected that the presence of so much ´misunderstanding` amongst many saintly men was a clear sign that something was wrong with his own arguments.

Furthermore, Fuller is in his element when boiling down words to what he calls their ´proper meaning` which he believes is their secular ´dictionary` meaning. This often leaves him with theological concepts quite robbed of their theological content. This is nowhere more clear than when Fuller is dealing with sin and atonement.
Then there is Fuller`s frustrating habit of stating that certain words such as imputation, punishment, debt, sin or phrases such as ´being made sin` were ´improperly` or ´metaphorically` used in the Bible, only to use them himself a few sentences further on apparently with the meaning he denied they contained. He often condemns the arguments of his opponents and then appears to argue in the self same way. Often he redefines a term, giving it an entirely different meaning and yet uses that same term with its usual meaning elsewhere. Not content with this, Fuller would take a critic to task for using words wrongly and then he would use the words in just the same way himself . Never was there such an example of Humpty Dumpty saying that he made words mean what he wanted them to mean!

Fuller`s basic ´world view` is outlined in his highly controversial book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. This work is a treatise in paradoxical reasoning claiming that on the one hand, Christ died to atone for all men, providing they wished to benefit from it. On the other hand, as the Father saw in advance that no one would wish to accept Christ of their own free will, He changed his original intention of a universal atonement and merely guaranteed that certain sinners would follow their inner sense of duty and repent and believe. Notwithstanding the change in plans, Christ still died for all men though His Father had now restricted salvation to a select few. This strange confusion of ideas is hailed by Fullerites as being true ´evangelical Calvinism` and the teaching that Christ died to save His flock and thus secured their full salvation without losing a soul is termed ´False Calvinism` or ´Hyper-Calvinism. When Fuller, however, develops his theory, he tones down the fact that only a remnant will be saved and emphasises that every human being has an inner awareness of the Gospel and feels an inner duty to accept it, should he wish. Unlike Calvin, who believed in preaching election, Fuller maintains that election is an inner secret of the Church and should not be preached openly.

Nowadays Fullerites tread carefully when dealing with their leader`s view that sinful man knows he has a duty to accept the Gospel. They say that God obliges man to accept it, using an ambiguous word. ´Oblige` can mean merely ´ought to` from God`s point of view rather than ´can` from man`s point of view . Fuller, however, argues strongly that fallen man ´can` accept the Gospel . The problem is that he will not. This led Huntington to say that Fuller teaches that God, who has concluded all in unbelief, expects them, in spite of themselves, to believe.

Fuller ranks those who believe that fallen man cannot accept the Gospel of himself as false Calvinists with a false view of man. He argues that God would never require of man what he cannot do and as God invites man to repent and believe, man must be capable of it. This would seem to be a direct refutation of I Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." But Fuller does not look to Scripture for his view of man but to natural revelation. His argument is that natural man can discern God`s glory in creation. This creates a love for God in him. When God, however, displays Himself at any time and love to Him is engendered, He also becomes recognisable regarding His spiritual work . When one reads this, one has to rub one`s eyes and ask oneself if this is really the belief of a man that calls himself a Calvinist and not some quote from Thomas Paine`s The Age of Reason.

The Scriptures clearly state that Christ and his disciples commanded their hearers to repent and believe the Gospel otherwise they would perish . Paul, too, commanded his hearers to repent and warned them of the consequences awaiting them if they did not . There is, however, a difference in commanding an action, which, if disobeyed, will bring damnation and if obeyed salvation and inviting men to perform an action which all are fully capable of doing. The former case is in keeping with the Scriptural teaching that the bondservants are separated from the true sons by responding or not responding to the Father`s voice. Christ`s sheep hear his voice and respond, the others do not. The second puts all on the same level. Sons and bondservants, sheep and goats, have all been given the same duties to perform to their Heavenly Father. This is indeed Fuller`s teaching in The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. When Fuller`s book was read by faithful believers, they protested at once that Fuller did not distinguish between slaves and sons. In his defence Fuller accepted this criticism as proof of the truth of his ideas. Who has every heard, he asks his readers, of children who have no sense of duty to their parents? As all children have a sense of duty to their parents, so all sinners have a sense of duty to their Creator. This is a clear denial of Galatians 4 and its teaching that the Holy Spirit is put into the hearts of adopted sons to make them such and to make them aware of their relationship to their Father. Fuller argues in this way because he rejects Biblical teaching for his theory of natural religion and natural revelation. Elsewhere Fuller teaches that man is fallen. He cannot, however, according to Fuller, have fallen very far. This is hinted at in Fuller`s argument with Button concerning total depravity where he says that the term does not mean "totally unable to believe in Christ" in the sense of "unable in every respect" .

The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ was the red flag which always made of John Wesley an angry bull. It is ´imputed nonsense`, he railed, "For Christ`s sake, don`t mention it! " Wesley realised exactly what James Hervey was getting at when he used such language against him. Man has no righteousness of his own and only Christ`s perfect righteousness can save him. Christ thus becomes ´Our Righteousness` for us. Fuller has grave difficulties, too, with this doctrine. Instead of refuting it, he partly accepts Wesley`s view of it and partly changes it. For him, the righteousness which Abraham obtained by faith was righteousness which came as a result of Abraham`s own faith not Christ`s righteousness which is given to true sons with the gift of faith and justification . Arguing that ´impute` as used in Romans 4 is used ´improperly` and ´figuratively`. Fuller explains that in its derived meaning the word rules out any actual imputation either of sin to Christ or righteousness to the elect. The whole is one big metaphorical play on words and by the time Fuller is finished with explaining what ´imputed` means, it can mean anything - or nothing.

The same word-juggling is shown when Fuller deals with the atonement. He rejects fully any ´commercial` or ´penal` sense in the atonement. There was no actual payment of a debt and no actual punishment for sin. After arguing that Christ`s been made sin is not to be taken literally he says, "Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense; properly speaking, it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles ." Here Fuller strikes at the heart of penal substitution. There is nothing unbiblical or even illogical in believing that Christ paid our debts on the cross. Fuller, however, de-theologises sin to make it a mere legal crime and argues that it is wrong to say that Christ took upon himself our crimes. But nobody but Fuller argues in this senseless way. If Fuller were able to accept the fact literally that we are bought with the high price of Jesu`s blood, he would have no difficulty but his silliness in wanting to be clever and redefine theologically loaded words in a non-theological way causes him great difficulties. It is no wonder that Booth and Greatheed accused Fuller of trying to explain Biblical concepts with language borrowed from pagans instead of using the plain language of the Bible.

Fuller argues that Christ was not punished for the sinner`s sake but merely suffered. His ´proof` is as interesting as it is unconvincing. If a soldier has his hand cut off for striking an officer, that is punishment. If the soldiers hand gets blown off in battle, that is suffering. He compares Christ`s substitutionary suffering with the latter example. Are we to believe that Christ merely suffered in a moral battle against sin? This would make Him a moralist and a martyr but not a Saviour . Surely there is more to the atonement than this? If another officer had volunteered to take the soldier`s penalty for him in Fuller`s illustration, he would have been nearer the Biblical mark. It seems odd that though there are so many stories in the Bible of the righteous dying for the unrighteous (i.e. the Suffering Servant), Fuller should resort to illustrations quite foreign to the subject.. To Fuller, of course, such an illustration is not foreign as he empties the doctrine of the atonement of its penal and substitutionary ´proper` meaning and gives it the ´improper` meaning of a victory merely in the realms of morals. This is why Fuller claims that the moral law, standing alone without the promises, contains all that is required of the sinner to believe the Gospel. His Gospel is not a theological matter but a mere matter of morals .

Going on to examine Fuller`s theories of the Law and Gospel more closely, it soon becomes obvious that Fuller exchanges their functions. The sinner is saved through accepting the offer of the Gospel and the believer lives by being directed by the Law. Strictly speaking, there is no Mosaic Law in Fuller`s system. This is why he refers nearly always to the moral law as opposed to the Mosaic Law. For him, the Mosaic Law never existed as a means of life. It was never part of a Covenant of Works which said "Do this and live: break this and die" . The "This do and thou shalt live" of Christ in Luke 10:28 seems to have been removed from Fuller`s memory if not his Bible. Fuller is uncertain about when the Covenant of Works was abolished but seems to believe that it ceased to be upheld by God when Adam sinned. There is thus no condemning or commanding Law in the Old Testament but merely a moral code which points the sinner to his duties to love God as much as he can. One wonders why God allowed Christ to die under the curse of the Law if the Law no longer held a curse .

Fuller sees very little difference in the work of the Law and the work of the Gospel. Both, of course, are parts of the whole Council of God and thus belong together but the fact that God has seen fit to divide His plan of salvation into two distinct parts, often escapes Fuller. It is also true to say that Fuller`s conception of the Gospel is very much Old Testament orientated. This is seen clearly in Fuller`s works against Deists where he stresses the need for holiness . His pattern of holiness is not Christian but Jewish and his arguments, though theistically Biblical, are not Christian in any sense. This is because Fuller`s faulty views of imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement do not allow for an indwelling of Christ in the believer. The ´holy` believer, in Fuller`s opinion, is one who is still invited to follow a modified law as if that were the only means of obtaining and keeping saving faith. William Huntington, Fuller`s contemporary, pointed out to Fullerites that if the Old Covenant had been all that was necessary for the believer`s walk with God, a New Covenant would not have been necessary. Fuller took no notice of Huntington, except to call him ugly names and claim there was nothing whatsoever of a Christian nature in his doctrine and teaching . Anyone familiar with Huntington`s works will know what an enormous amount of space he gives to the doctrines of Christ`s indwelling in the believer, of the New Man in Christ, of "Christ in us, our hope of glory", of being filled with the Holy Spirit and of the Law written on the believer`s heart. After painstakingly reading through hundreds and hundreds of pages of Fuller`s works, such doctrines are conspicuous by their absence. And yet such doctrines are at the heart of the Gospel. Fuller, however, denies time and time again that there is any partaking of Christ`s righteousness in the believer and any transference of Christ`s nature to the believer. What would Fuller say to Galatians 2:20 ff. "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."? This text is nowhere used in Fuller`s works. It is obvious, however, that he would claim that dying ´with Christ` and living ´in Christ` is merely a metaphorical way of saying that Christ gained a moral victory over our crimes .

Fuller`s adherence to the Old Testament and to God`s dealing with the Jews is apparently the reason for his ambiguous teaching on the atonement. He is convinced that, in the Old Testament the Jews as a nation were invited to believe in their capacity as sinners. Thus in The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation he quotes Psalm 2:12 "Kiss the son, lest he be angry" to prove that "unconverted sinners are commanded to believe in Christ for salvation; therefore believing in Christ for salvation is their duty". He then looks at Isaiah 55:1-7 "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat" etc. to back up his theory arguing that all this is the language of a general invitation. In arguing in this way Fuller forgets an important piece of theology. The Jews were in covenant with God as His chosen people and thus were a ´type` of the true Israel to come. Fuller, however, argues concerning fallen sinners of his age that "God is not in covenant with them, nor they with him." Furthermore Fuller argues that there is now no Covenant of Works. Nevertheless, Fuller always deals with sinners in the same way as God dealt with his chosen people in the Old Testament.

This is applicable also to Fuller`s stress on following the Law as the sole rule of faith. He emphasises the fact that the Old Testament heroes did this - and thus so should we. Again Fuller forgets a very important theological distinction. David loved a different law to the one taught by Fuller. David`s law was Moses` law which had a command - not an invitation - attached to it. It also brought with it a curse, death if disobeyed and a reward - life, if obeyed. Fuller denies this but it is the obvious teaching of Deut. 6:24-25. "and the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive as it is this day. And it shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us." This was put even stronger by Christ, as shown above. Fuller, however, has lowered God`s standards. The Mosaic Law is done away with in Fuller`s system and he has sifted out of its theological concepts a mere moral law without any commanding and cursing power. This puts Fuller`s theology on a par with the ancient Greeks who also taught allegiance to a moral law as a means of reaching ideals. Now, for Fuller, a breach of the law is not sin but merely a moral slip or a crime. This is in stark contrast to the words of Christ in Matthew 5:18 where He says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This fulfilling of the Law is in Christ`s righteousness which is eternal and unchangeable. Christ, however, indwells the believer and makes His holy and eternal standards the believer`s own. The old man is dead but the new man is raised in newness of life in Christ`s righteousness. This is the only way to true holiness. Fuller`s gospel of a sub-standard law as a sole means of living a life in Christ is a gospel unworthy of any acceptance. It can find no acceptance with God as it robs him of His holiness and justice and betrays His plan of salvation and it is unworthy of the believer as it does not show him ´a better way` but the way of the world.
Is then Fuller the arch-heretic which he appears to be? Over half of Fuller`s works are taken up with defending himself as been orthodox or attacking others for being unorthodox. Whatever he said or wrote, he believed, was misunderstood. He always claimed that his views were not such as came over to his readers. In brotherly charity, we should be open to believe him. That he actually taught heresy, whether he realised it or not, cannot be denied. There is a glint of light, however, which might raise some hope in us that Fuller was a Calvinist by belief though a heretic by profession. Some time after the publication of The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptance, there appeared in print a series of letters to Andrew Fuller signed Agnostos. In these letters, which were aimed against the Arminian Rev. Dan Taylor of Yorkshire. Agnostos writes, speaking of husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, "Did not I argue, particularly from Eph. v. 25,26, that the death of Christ is there represented as the result of his love to the church, in the character of a husband, and which must, therefore, be discriminating; - that the church could not here mean actual believers, because they are considered as unsanctified; he died that he might sanctify them; - that Christ did not die for believers as such; - he laid down his life for his enemies; - that, therefore it must mean all the elect of God - all those who are finally saved? " Over the page, Agnostos argues that Christ`s sacrifice was for the sins "of those, and those only, on whose behalf it was offered." indicating that the atonement was not for all mankind but for His Bride, the elect only.

What has this to do with Fuller? In his ´Advertisement` to the letters, Dr John Ryland informs his readers that Agnostos was no less than Fuller himself who had written the letters to himself! He explains that had Fuller used his own name, it would have complicated the issue at stake. This it would indeed have done as Fuller writes in the guise of a Calvinist and not in his usual Amyraldian and Neonomian way. Had Fuller as Agnostos, the unknown, a different faith to Fuller the public figure? Was Fuller thus orthodox at heart? Any hope is dampened by further information Ryland gives about the 13 letters. He tells us that `with the exception of one or two pages, they were written by Mr Fuller himself.` Are these ´one or two pages` from another hand the very pages which affirm belief in the Biblical doctrine of the atonement? We shall probably never know this side of Eternity.

John Gill and the Cause of God and Truth

John Gill and the Cause of God and Truth

by George Ella

So often when speaking about the work of the Holy Spirit which infused the churches with new life in the 18th century, mention is made of Anglican stalwarts such as Whitefield, Hervey, Toplady and Romaine. The works of these men through God's sovereign grace cannot be praised enough but the fact that recent biographers have highlighted their activities has tended to give the impression that other denominations, such as the Baptists, were quite inactive during this period. This is by no means the case as the testimony of John Gill shows.

John Gill was born in 1697 in the town of Kettering and became a member of the Particular Baptist church there before being called to the pastorate at Goat Yard Chapel, Horselydown, London. This church, now known as the Metropolitan Tabernacle, is famous in Baptist history for being pastored by such prominent men as Benjamin Keach, Benjamin Stinton, John Rippon and Charles H. Spurgeon besides Gill.

When Gill took over the Goat Yard church, its doctrines and methods of church government were far from Biblical. Too much emphasis was placed on the supervisory rights of extra-church affiliations which robbed local churches of their sovereignty. An association of ministers who met regularly at a Coffee House, of all places, had set themselves up as joint-elders of the Particular Baptist churches in London claiming the sole right to ordain pastors and deacons. Indeed, an influential minority in the churches maintained that they had no rights of their own regarding the choosing of deacons as this was entirely the task of the Coffee House fraternal. In effect, what came to be known as the Baptist Union was here in its infancy. Gill treated such a movement as a changeling child and no true offspring of the Gospel.

Once Gill was established in his new church, he denounced the assumed powers of the Coffee House clique and saw to it that his church chose and ordained its own deacons. Confronted with much anti-creed opposition, he bravely drew up a statement of faith which was thoroughly evangelical in its scope and thoroughly Calvinistic in its doctrine. This step was necessary as, along with lax ideas of church government, doctrine was being downgraded and heresies concerning the Trinity and the eternal sonship of Christ were being fostered in the churches. Once Gill put his church back on a Biblical footing, membership at Goat Yard grew by leaps and bounds and the church, which moved to Carter Lane for larger premises, became one of the most influential congregations in the country.

The brethren at Horselydown had been initially drawn to Gill because of his evangelistic gifts and now Gill began to systematically evangelise the Southwark area. His method was to divide the district into four parts and assign two brethren to each sub-area who were to visit and instruct the members. What started as a work amongst his own flock soon spread to a wider work and evangelical ministers of all denominations gave Gill their support. Soon Anglican pioneers of the Revival such as Hervey and Toplady were full of praise for the help they received through Gill's sermons and publications. Hervey was particularly fond of Gill as he taught the sinner's need of the imputed righteousness of Christ and Toplady loved Gill for the way he convicted Arminians of their faulty view of man. Hervey wrote of Gill who, "presents us with such rich and charming displays of the glory of Christ's person, the freeness of His grace to sinners, and the tenderness of His love to the church." What better report could be given of a Christian evangelist?

In order to give Gill more access to a wider field of hearers, denominational leaders begged him to give a weekly lecture at Great Eastcheap. This series, which was to last almost thirty years, was opened in 1729 by Gill preaching on Psalm 71:16, "I will go in the strength of the Lord God; I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine only." Many of these sermons formed the basis of Gill's fine book The Cause of God and Truth. The Great Eastcheap experiment proved a huge success and soon Baptists, Anglicans and Independents were subscribing to hire other halls so that Gill could give regular lectures there.

Contemporary evangelical authors looked on Gill's work with admiration writing how his message of joyful Christian experience spread far and wide amongst the Baptists and even influenced "all the evangelical denominations at home and abroad". This was to be expected as Gill had world-wide evangelism as his goal. Two of Gill's favourite texts were Isa. 24:16 "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth", and 2 Chron. 16:9 "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect towards him." Preaching at the induction of John Davis, Gill told him, "Souls sensible to sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree of life to them; and say, . . . . Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." He went on to say, "Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin, and in his name you are to preach the forgiveness of them." Perhaps having in mind those Arminians who told him mockingly that he could not believe in the need for repentance if men were predestined to believe, he told his hearers with Spirit-led power, "Be faithful, labour to shew the one and the other their wretched state by nature; the necessity of repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, in his blood, righteousness, and atoning sacrifice, for peace, pardon, justification, and salvation."

It was inevitable that John Wesley would clash with Gill and their debate on the question of the perseverance of the saints filled several books on both sides. Wesley claimed, "I believe a Saint may fall away; that one who is holy or righteous in the judgement of God himself, may nevertheless so fall from God, as to perish everlastingly." He further stated that "He who is a child of God today, may be a child of the devil tomorrow." Gill answered him by saying, "Those who are truly regenerated, effectually called, and really converted, and internally sanctified by the Spirit and grace of God, shall persevere in grace to the end, and shall be everlastingly saved; or shall never finally and totally fall, so as to perish everlastingly."

Wesley's mistake was that, as he did not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ, he could not accept that Christ was indwelling the believer and preparing him for eternity. Quoting Job 17:9 "The righteous also shall hold on his way; and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger!" Gill tells Wesley, "By the righteous man is meant one that is made truly righteous, by the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and which he receives by faith; in consequence of which he lives soberly and righteously: and by his way is meant, Christ the way; in which he walks as he has received him, as the Lord his Righteousness." Gill argues that as it is Christ who makes a man righteous by imputing His own righteousness to him, so it is Christ who keeps the righteous-one in that righteousness. It thus follows that even if the righteous-one slips, falls or stumbles because of the inner fight within all Christians, he cannot slip or fall or stumble out of fellowship with Christ as it is Christ who maintains that fellowship not the man himself. It is, after all, Christ who is our righteousness, not our own works.

Dr. Abraham Taylor argued that Gill could not possibly, as a Calvinist, believe in the holiness of the Law and in good works. Though the Principal of a theological college, he had no idea what Calvinism really was. Gill told him, "Though we say, that works are not necessary to salvation; do we say, that they are not necessary to anything else? Do we say, that they are not necessary to be done in obedience to the law of God? Do we say, that the commands of the law are not to be regarded by men? That they are things indifferent, that may be done, or not done? No; we say none of these things, but all the reverse. Do we make void the law through this doctrine? God forbid: Yea, we establish the law, as it is in the hands of Christ our Lawgiver; to which we desire to yield a cheerful obedience; to show our subjection to him as King of saints, and to testify our gratitude for the many blessings of every kind we receive from him."

Gill's emphasis on the insensitivity of the unsaved to his own state and his spiritual inability angered many an Arminian. One day Gill was preaching on the total depravity and spiritual inability of man when a hearer became deeply offended. The man decided to give Gill a piece of his mind. "You have degraded man and laid him much too low," he told the preacher. "Pray, sir, how much do you think men can contribute towards their own conversion and salvation?", Gill asked. This was the cue the man had been waiting for and he promptly gave Gill a long list of all that man could do to vouchsafe God's eternal favour. Gill listened patiently and then said, "Have you done all these things for yourself?" "No, I cannot say that I have," replied the man. Gill looked at him with some surprise and said, "If you really have all these things in your power and have not done them for yourself, you deserve to be doubly damned, and are but ill qualified to stand up for that imaginary free-will which, according to your own confession, has done you so little good. However, after you have made yourself spiritually whole (if ever you find yourself able to do it), be kind enough to come and let me know how you went about it; for at present I know but of one remedy for human depravation, namely, the efficacious grace of him who worketh in men both to will and do of his own good pleasure."

Great effort was made to silence Gill by a number of his free-will enemies and he was often cautioned by his own people to be less rigorous when preaching the truth. Spurgeon, who found a down-grade controversy on his own hands similar, though broader in scope, to the one Gill corrected, must have been greatly indebted to him Spurgeon says of his 'eminent predecessor', "Dr. Gill, was told, by a certain member of his congregation who ought to have known better, that, if he published his book, The Cause of God and Truth, he would lose some of his best friends, and that his income would fall off. The doctor said, "I can afford to be poor, but I cannot afford to injure my conscience." Spurgeon then added, " and he has left his mantle as well as his chair in our vestry."

Sadly the down-grading of doctrine amongst the Baptist Union churches during the time of Spurgeon got out of hand and Spurgeon's fight against it proved in vain. There is nothing new under the sun and the follies of Gill's times as those of Spurgeon's days are with us again, or rather with us still. This writer must confess that in reading Gill he has found a compendium of sound theology second to none which serves as a God-given armour against the down-grading going on in evangelicalism today.

A biblicist avoids simple questions!

 

A biblicist avoids biblical questions!

On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:37 AM, sing wrote:

Hello, Pastor We,

I am looking for a good church for my son who may be going to NUS soon, hopefully... I check the web for a conservative baptist church... and ended up with two choices of all that I checked and scrutinized.

I am glad X-BC uses KJV. Does your church has a fuller Doctrinal Statement? On the 'surface' I can agree with much of them. However, I do consider premillennialism as an error. The simple scheme of things from the Bible is that the second coming of Christ is accompanied by the general resurrection and the great judgment, and the eternal state of bliss and glory.

Could you please tell me a little more about X-BC?

I am not looking for a big church, Faithful biblical church does not usually attract true sheep - so I avoid a big church. I desire to look for a church where the Bible is preached FAITHFULLY, for that's the CHIEF cure appointed by God for all the evils both in the church and in the world - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." 2Tim 3:16-4:2.

There are many teachers of falsehood around, and they have many followers, 2Pet 2:1ff.

I don't mind a small church where the Bible is faithfully preached. I hope you don't mind me asking some simple questions to get an idea in my own mind about the matter. These are honest questions, needing simple answers. I would appreciate plain honest answers.

1. Does a person believe in order to get eternal life, or a person believes because he has been given eternal life (i.e. regenerated by the Spirit of God)?

2. Are repentance and faith the effects of eternal salvation by God's free grace, or the means to obtain eternal salvation from God?

3. Is "the just shall live by faith" a statement of fact about the just, i.e. the justified ones shall act in a certain way; OR is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the condemned must do in order to be justified?

4. Is "whoever believes has eternal life' a statement of fact about the believing one or is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the spiritually dead must do in order to have eternal life?

I would really appreciate your answers to the above question. They will give me an idea of how faithfully the Bible is preached.

Thank you.

In Christ Jesus,
Lau
-------

On Apr 23, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Pastor We wrote:

Dear Lau,

Thanks for your interest in having your son coming by to our church. No problem with those questions. We live in a day where falsehood is prevalent and it is always better to err on the safe side.

## I am glad X-BC uses KJV. Does your church has a fuller Doctrinal Statement? On the surface, I can agree with much of them. I do consider premillennialism as an error. The simple scheme of things from the Bible is that with the second of Christ, is accompanied by general resurrection and the great judgment, and the eternal state of bliss and glory.##
We believe there is a Christ coming for His saints ( the rapture and then the tribulation ); and a Christ coming with His saints ( after the tribulation, just before the Millennium ).

## Could you please tell me a little more about X-BC?
We are an Independent Baptist Church, not associated with any Mission Board; we believe in the local church, no universal church; believing in believer's baptism, no infant baptism; non-ecumenical; non-charismatics; presently support some 60 baptist missionaries; having 3 of our own out in the fields; believing in the succession of Christ's churches throughout all ages; believing that baptist churches are from this lineage of churches or Baptist churches have existed from the time of Christ; et al.

##I don't mind a small church where the Bible is faithfully preached. I hope you don't mind me asking some simple questions to get an idea in my own mind about the matter. These are honest questions, needing simple answers. I would appreciate plain honest answers.
The answer to your questions is that we are not Calvinists; nor Arminians; but biblicists, people who believe in the bible. We believe that there is the election of God as well as the free will of man. It is not our duty to reconcile them, and most of the problems came about when people tried to reconcile them. Only God knows of what criteria in which He 'elects'... perhaps, on the basis of the possibility or potential of the saved - like someone choosing football players to represent a school; he chooses the best. But the 'best' in the eyes of God may not be the 'best' in our eyes. God has His own 'criteria' and God sees the hearts.

## I would really appreciate your answers to the above question. They will give me an idea of how faithfully the Bible is preached.

We do our best to faithfully preach the Word of God.

God bless

Pastor We
=======

On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:48 PM, sing wrote:

Pastor We,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

## We are an Independent Baptist Church, not associated with any Mission Board; we believe in the local church, no universal church; believing in believer's baptism, no infant baptism; non-ecumenical; non-charismatics; presently support some 60 baptist missionaries; having 3 of our own out in the fields; believing in the succession of Christ's churches throughout all ages; believing that baptist churches are from this lineage of churches or Baptist churches have existed from the time of Christ; et al.

I am very pleased to read this paragraph.


## "The answer to your questions is that we are not Calvinists; nor Arminians; but biblicists, people who believe in the bible. We believe that there is the election of God as well as the free will of man. It is not our duty to reconcile them, and most of the problems came about when people tried to reconcile them. Only God knows of what criteria in which He 'elects'... perhaps, on the basis of the possibility or potential of the saved - like someone choosing football players to represent a school; he chooses the best. But the 'best' in the eyes of God may not be the 'best' in our eyes. God has His own 'criteria' and God sees the hearts."

I am not at all interested in whether X-BC is Calvinistic or Arminian. I am neither. I am very wary of Calvinists! Actually, labels are not helpful. Calvinists are such a mixed breed too. So also Arminians.

I believe the will of a man is determined by his nature.

I don't believe there is any contradiction in all that God has revealed. There is absolutely no need for reconciliation. To raise reconciliation presupposes contradiction, and that's a tacit admission that there are contradictions in God's inspired Scriptures. I know you don't mean that at all. I am indicating that words have implications.

I believe God has told us the basis of His electing sinner:
- "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
- It is most certainly not "on the basis of the possibility or potential of the saved. There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one....."

I would really appreciate it because the question deals with fundamental issues of salvation.

As a biblicist, a man who believes in the Bible, could you please tell me the Bible's answer to my simple questions? If you think the Bible has no answer to my questions, then also indicate so. I would be very grateful. If my questions are not clear, please indicate and I will elaborate. I just wish to know what is a biblicist's answers to these questions would be.

1. Does a person believe in order to get eternal life, or a person believes because he has been given eternal life (i.e. regenerated by the Spirit of God)?

2. Are repentance and faith the effects of eternal salvation by God's free grace, or the means to obtain eternal salvation from God?

3. Is "the just shall live by faith" a statement of fact about the just, i.e. the justified ones shall act in a certain way; OR is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the condemned must do in order to be justified?

4. Is "whoever believes has eternal life' a statement of fact about the believing one or is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the spiritually dead must do in order to have eternal life?

5. When Christ says, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." - is He saying that regeneration must precede the activities of 'seeing' and 'entering', OR is He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again?

Just indicate what you believe, so that I may know what you believe what the Bible teaches on these basic matters.

Thank you very much.

Lau
=======

On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Pastor We wrote:

Dear Lau,

## I believe God has told us the basis of His electing sinner:
- "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
- It is most certainly not "on the basis of the possibility or potential of the saved" - "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth... There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one....."

The election is not based on God's 'whims and fancies':
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
There are some criteria of God only known to Him in His electing process.

## As a biblicist, a man who believes in the Bible, could you please tell me the Bible's answer to my simple questions. If you think the Bible has no answer to my questions, then also indicate so. I would be very grateful. If my questions are not clear, please indicate and I will elaborate. I just wish to know what is a biblicist's answers to these questions would be.

## 1. Does a person believe in order to get eternal life, or a person believe because he has been given eternal life (i.e. regenerated by the Spirit of God)?

What you are asking is a Calvinistic question: does regeneration precede salvation or salvation precedes regeneration. I believe in the latter.

## 2. Are repentance and faith the effects of eternal salvation by God's free grace, or the means to obtain eternal salvation from God?

Same as above.

## 3. Is "the just shall live by faith" a statement of fact about the just, i.e. the justified ones shall act in a certain way; OR is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the condemned must do in order to be justified?

Same as above

## 4. Is "whoever believes has eternal life' a statement of fact about the believing one or is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the spiritually dead must do in order to have eternal life?

Same as above... I hold on to all the second statement.

## 5. When Christ says, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." - is He saying that regeneration must precede the activities of 'seeing' and 'entering', OR is He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again?

Same as above.

## Just indicate what you believe, so that I may know what you believe what the Bible teaches on these basic matters.

We are not Reformed Baptists.

pastor we
=======

On Apr 23, 2008, at 7:07 PM, sing wrote:

Pastor Wee,

Thank you. I want to be sure. Please affirm if I understand you correctly.
After this, I won't ask any more questions.
Then I will forward the mail to Josiah Lau.

1. Does a person believe in order to get eternal life, or a person believes because he has been given eternal life (i.e. regenerated by the Spirit of God)?

We: What you are asking is a Calvinistic question: does regeneration precedes salvation or salvation precedes regeneration. I believe in the latter.

- I asked whether regeneration precedes BELIEVING or believing precedes REGENERATION. I didn't mention a word about salvation. I think you misunderstand my question unless you equate believing as 'salvation.'
- There are two parts to the question. I wonder which part is Calvinistic, and which part is not? I am asking a very simple question based on John 3:3-6. I am not interested in Calvinism. I oppose some of its heretical tenets.
- You might have a preconceived idea of where I am coming from.
The latter of the above question is: a person believes because he has been given eternal life (i.e. regenerated by the Spirit of God). You believe this part? Is this part Calvinistic?

2. Are repentance and faith the effects of eternal salvation by God's free grace, or the means to obtain eternal salvation from God?

We: Same as above.
- The latter of the above question is: repentance and faith are means to obtain eternal salvation from God. You believe this latter part?

3. Is "the just shall live by faith" a statement of fact about the just, i.e. the justified ones shall act in a certain way; OR is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the condemned must do in order to be justified?

We: Same as above
- The latter of the above question is: "the just shall live by faith" is a statement of an offer, i.e. what the condemned must do in order to be justified.
- How would you understand a statement like, "the condemned who will believe shall be justified"? Do you believe this as the truth taught by the Bible?


4. Is "whoever believes has eternal life' a statement of fact about the believing one or is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the spiritually dead must do in order to have eternal life?

We: Same as above... I hold on to all the second statement.
- The latter of the above question is: 'whoever believes has eternal life' means what the spiritually dead must do in order to have eternal life.
- How would you understand a statement like, "the dead who will believe shall have eternal life"? Do you believe this as the truth taught by the Bible?

5. When Christ says, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." - is He saying that regeneration must precede the activities of 'seeing' and 'entering', OR is He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again?

We: Same as above.
- The latter of the above question is: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." means He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again.
- How would you understand a statement like: "Except a man sees and enters, he cannot be born again"? Do you believe this as the truth taught by the Bible?

We: We are not Reformed Baptists.

Hello, I am not looking for an RB church. The RB believes much like you do!
I am looking for a church that teaches the Bible faithfully.
I know what the RBs believe. The RB believes much like you do!

Thanks for your patience.
If you are irritated by my simple and genuine inquiry, I apologize.

In Christ,
Lau
=======


On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Pastor We wrote:

Dear Lau,

Sorry, if I sound impatient. I didn't mean it that way. But the questions you asked are the usual questions that the Calvinists will ask and the verses you quoted are the same as the Calvinists will quote to support the belief that God elects without merits and based on His whims and fancies. The problem with writing is that we often ended up reading too much into it. Please accept my apologies if I sound impatient with your questioning. I believe you asked in all sincerity. It might be better if you call me to talk; it will surely leave out a lot of 'reading too much, both ways, for you and for me.

[Biblicist We believes in election, but he believes in a conditional election, an election based on human's MERITS. He sees God's sovereign election according to His grace and mercy as an election based on His whims and fancies!]

- I asked whether regeneration precedes BELIEVING or believing precedes REGENERATION. I didn't mention a word about salvation. I think you misunderstand my question unless you equate believing as 'salvation.'
- There are two parts in the question. I wonder which part is Calvinistic, and which part is not? I am asking a very simple question based on John 3:3-6. I am not interested in Calvinism. I oppose some of its heretical tenets.
- You might have a preconceived idea of where I am coming from.
The latter of the above question is: a person believes because he has been given eternal life (i.e. regenerated by the Spirit of God). You believe this part? Is this part Calvinistic?

This part is Calvinistic - because the logic is that he has to be 'regenerated first' or 'saved first' or 'elected before the foundation of the world' before he can believe. If he is not regenerated or saved first, he can't possibly believe because he is 'dead in sins'. And 'believing' has to logically lead one to salvation.

If one is 'regenerated first', he is already saved; so why the need to 'believe and be saved'? Regeneration is the same as 'salvation', that is the usual definition.

Our position is that believing precedes regeneration or believing leads to regeneration and not the other way around - 'And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." ( Acts 16:30-31 )

2. Are repentance and faith the effects of eternal salvation by God's free grace, or the means to obtain eternal salvation from God?

Same as above.
- The latter of the above question is: repentance and faith are means to obtain eternal salvation from God. You believe this latter part?

Yes, repentance and faith are the means to obtain eternal salvation from God.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

3. Is "the just shall live by faith" a statement of fact about the just, i.e. the justified ones shall act in a certain way; OR is it a statement of an offer, i.e. what the condemned must do in order to be justified?

Same as above
- The latter of the above question is: "the just shall live by faith" is a statement of an offer, i.e. what the condemned must do in order to be justified.
- How would you understand a statement like, "the condemned who will believe shall be justified"? Do you believe this as the truth taught by the Bible?

Yes, we believe the condemned who believe shall be justified.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. - Rom 4:2-7

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The verse you quoted in context has to do with the way a sinner is to be saved, that is, by faith:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. - Rom 1:16-17

4. Is "whoever believes has eternal life' a statement of fact about the believing one or is it a statement of offer, i.e. what the spiritually dead must do in order to have eternal life?

- The latter of the above question is: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." means He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again.
- How would you understand a statement like: "Except a man sees and enters, he cannot be born again"? Do you believe this as the truth taught by the Bible?

5. When Christ says, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." - is He saying that regeneration must precede the activities of 'seeing' and 'entering', OR is He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again?

Same as above... I hold on to all the second statement.

- The latter of the above question is: 'whoever believes has eternal life' means what the spiritually dead must do in order to have eternal life.
- How would you understand a statement like, "the dead who will believe shall have eternal life"? Do you believe this as the truth taught by the Bible?

Your rephrasing means the same thing, if you look at it carefully. But your previous question indicates 2 different thoughts: The 'saved ones' will believe or will by believing it will lead one to salvation. We believe in the latter.

5. When Christ says, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." - is He saying that regeneration must precede the activities of 'seeing' and 'entering', OR is He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again?

Same as above.
- The latter of the above question is: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see... he cannot enter..." means He saying that 'seeing' and 'entering' is in order to be born again.
- How would you understand a statement like: "Except a man sees and enters, he cannot be born again"? Do you believe this as the truth taught by the Bible?

We believe that it is through being 'born again', that is by repenting and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, that one can then 'see' and one can then 'enter into the kingdom of God.'

Objectively, all the questions you have asked me revolves around this one prevailing thought: The predestinated 'saved ones' will eventually believe, or one needs to believe in order to be saved.

This will eventually lead to the issue of 'total inablility' or 'total depravity'. One, where the sinner is so dead he is unable to repent and be saved; and the other, he is so depraved that no matter how much good he does, he cannot saved himself, or salvation by works won't work.

Once again, my brief reply was because I see the whole thing is constantly revolving around the one same thought and to allay your apprehension, I thought it good to let you know that we are not Reformed Baptists; no intention to sound offensive.

God bless

pastor we
=======


On Apr 24, 2008, at 3:02 PM, sing wrote:

Pastor We,

Thank you for your kind reply. I do appreciate it.

I read from the Bible that God elected to save justly condemned sinners without merits in the condemned sinners whatsoever. There is no merit in the justly condemned whatsoever. That is why I believe that eternal salvation is by the free grace of God.

He who would attribute whims and fancies to God in any of His actions is much worse than a fool.

I am in Penang, so I don't think I will call you.

Should the Lord bring me to Singapore, I might just drop by your church.

I am too logical to accept any contradiction, real or apparent or imagined, in the Holy Scriptures. My basic premise is that God's inspired Scripture is absolutely harmonious and free from inconsistencies and contradictions. Inconsistencies, real or apparent, are to be attributed to wrongly dividing the word of truth.

Lau.
====
p/s I didn't make any further comments to your reply. Thanks again for entertaining my inquiries.

Duty-Faith vs Saving-Faith

Duty - Faith

An Internet Chat on Duty Faith and the PRC

by George Ella

Dear Brother J.,

Thank you so much for your detailed analysis of my attempt to illustrate saving faith as opposed to duty-faith. You brought many coals to Newcastle for me and your Athens-bound ships were full of wise old owls, all of which were welcome. It is good to find that though you may disagrees with me on terms, we have so very much agreement on contents, though we are only at the beginning of a debate. It is very obvious that you Presbyterians use many words that I do, yet with different meanings. Thomas Scott used to say that all denominations tend to inject their own particular meaning into words and thus distinguish themselves from others. This is a true observation but it makes it difficult for outsiders to understand what the insiders are talking about. Thus the churches continue the history of Babel. As an experiment, I sent my views on duty-faith to a Symposium of brethren who are insiders to my vocabulary and, as I expected, they all understood my words, and replied either in full agreement or with neighbouring interpretations. None saw the remotest signs of Hyper-Calvinism in my words but a fervent desire to preach the full gospel to the whole man as the Spirit leads. As your letter illustrates, I have greater difficulty with Presbyterians or those tied up in post-Reformation doctrine-building.

You obviously use your views of Calvinism as a yard-stick to judge my views. This is a very unstable basis to work on as the various, so-called Reformed bodies (which are often most popish) interpret Calvin differently and, indeed, it is not always their fault. Calvin is very much like Spurgeon and my favourite poet Cowper: they find friends in all camps. But the trouble occurs when these ‘friends’ cease to be friendly amongst themselves and cross-denomination-wise over their private interpretations. I do not use the term Calvinist of myself as I am a most moderate one at best. I look upon my old tutors such as Jewel, Bishop Hall (not the Roberts Hall), Davenant, Whitaker, Perkins, Gill, Toplady, Hervey etc. as my mentors in Christ and find them greater all-rounders than Calvin and didactically and expositionally more skilled. All these men, of course, had great respect for Calvin, as I do, too. I believe we are in agreement that Scripture is a better yardstick than even Calvinism.


Permit me to deal with your balanced appraisal paragraph-wise:

"Dr. George Ella has given his well-known views on the issue of saving faith and duty-faith. The controversy of "common grace" and the "well-meant offer" bears very much upon that issue; and as it is also part of the whole debate on the classic Antinomian, Neonomian and legalism controversy of bygone years.

Dr. Ella's views are clear enough and like those in opposing camps, unequivocal and unabashed. The PRC disagrees with Dr. Ella, and takes its stand against the notion of which "faith" is defined as a condition in which the sinner is not duty or legally bound to perform against the just and righteous demands of God as He makes known in His commands."

My comment: I feel that the discussion concerning common grace and a well-meant offer is more a Presbyterian problem and those non-Presbyterians who have adopted such views have, I believe, almost ship-wrecked their faith in doing so. Not many can handle common grace as Kuyper or the offer as Huntington. I have never been able to understand what moderns mean by them. My views cannot be known at all, never mind ‘well-known’ if they are brought into contact with common grace and the well-meant offer which are, I strongly believe, mere red-herrings to the debate. However, I feel that I have a great deal of agreement with the PRC on these terms and I was not aware that they had confessed, unilaterally, disagreement with me. I have never had anything to do with the PRC and have only crossed Bibles with Prof. Engelsma because he denies that Gill preached repentance and faith to the unregenerate, which, of course he did. I must admit that I have only recently seen that Engelsma believes in duty-faith and find this incongruous as duty-faith is the basis of the free offer which he denies.


"I make no apologies for disagreeing with the esteemed Dr. Ella for the simple fact that the hyper-Calvinistic error that he espouses must be rejected. It must be rejected as unScriptural and unReformed. Orthodoxy has no place for the hyper-Calvinistic error of the denial of the duty of the sinner which is incumbent upon him to exercise in repose on God in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The PRC therefore must always disassociate itself from hyper-Calvinism."

My comment: As you have not shown me to be either in error or a Hyper-Calvinist, but merely postulated this myth, I cannot comment on this passage. However, since you bring the PRC into connection with Hyper-Calvinism, I must confess that, in this matter, I am far more a moderate Calvinist, being a Sublapsarian, than Prof. Engelsma, who, in my circles, has the reputation of being a most ardent Hyper-Calvinist. This shows how little the term is worth and perhaps we should be more careful in our use of such theological swear-words. I did not understand the English of your pen-ultimate sentence, so I cannot comment on it. Perhaps you would do me the favour of explaining its purport to my illiterate self.


"The notion that denies duty-faith to the sinner must of necessity also deny duty-repentance."

My comment: This does not follow. The Bible clearly speaks of duties to the law but faith cannot be gained by law-duties. I challenge you to find one Scripture passage that tells me that through obeying the call of a known duty which is within him, natural and fallen man can gain salvation through faith. Adam did not even succeed in natural salvation, so how can you think fallen man is better and is in a position to exercise saving, spiritual faith as if he had never apostatised? Faith shows a better and higher way of gaining a higher salvation than unfallen Adam’s. Romans 10:5-6 clearly distinguishes between Mosaic duty-righteousness and Christian faith-righteousness. Moses is the accuser, Christ the Redeemer. Gal. 3:12 shows us that the law is not of faith. Duties have to do with damning curses but grace with saving blessings. Acts 13:39, I believe, clearly shows the folly of duty-faith legalism.


"For what is faith but belief or trust on the Person of the Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the Word of God which is Holy Scripture and preached to men? How can a sinner believe on the Jesus Christ as the all-sufficient and trust-worthy Savior if he does not repent of his sins? For is it not that the word, "repentance" means to forsake one's wicked ways and walk the other way, i.e. in the opposite direction towards the God Who in old and present dispensation is always calling the human race in general and His people in particular?"

My comment: I am in full agreement.


"In fact, God's calling to repentance which in times ancient were confined mainly to the nation of Israel and the blood descendants of Abraham is now extended to embrace all the world without exception. Acts 17:30 records for us this truth, that "God...now commandeth all men everywhere to repent". This is a sober fact for humanity and represents all the more the clarion demand of God."

My comment: I am in full agreement.


"The revelation of God in Christ reached its apex in Christ's crucifixion. The Gospel or good tidings or good news can now be proclaimed with clarity and simplicity. Christ has empowered the Church to enable it to carry out the great commission to preach the Gospel to every creature wherever the Gospel is sent."

My comment: I am in full agreement. Well put!


"How then can the Church fulfil its mandate if the preaching of the Gospel is limited only to "sensible" sinners?"

My comment: How indeed? It was ever Bunyan’s, Gill’s and Hervey’s aim (and mine), to make people sensible to the gospel by preaching it. Andrew Fuller also used the term in this sense. However, the word ‘sensible’ has become another modern theological swear-word to be thrown at suspected Hypers. Anyone familiar with the writings of the 17th and 18th century knows that this word was used by preachers of all persuasions. It is a pity to make such a good word bad by negative historical revisionism. Notice, however, that those who are quick to cry "Hyper" of others, so often leave out the full gospel to the whole man everywhere themselves. Fullerites will only preach the full gospel to believers and Engelsmanians will only preach the law to believers. Between them, they thus leave the unregenerate with nothing! I believe in preaching the whole counsel of God to all men everywhere – especially to the unregenerate. I was rather surprised how little Prof. Engelsma preached the new birth, which is a major component of my witness, though I am no preacher. I was told, be it right or wrong, that he always addressed his congregation as being saved and treated them as believers only. I reserve judgement in his case, though his friends tell me this is correct. I know, however, many of those close to Engelsma who treat their mixed congregations as ‘pure churches’ and are not famed for their evangelistic outreach. Note, on the other hand, that those great men of the past who denied duty-faith, packed their churches with thousands. Ryland Sen, alone added to his church seven-fold. Gill built up and maintained the largest Baptist Church in England for at least forty-odd years, Hawker’s Anglican church burst its seams, as did Gadsby’s Strict Baptist and Huntington’s Independent Calvinist Church.


"The Gospel - if it is to be preached to *every* creature - must contain the same news or information for all indiscriminately. And that news that Christ died for sinners whom God from eternity had elected to eternal life is accompanied by the call to repentance and faith."

My comment: On the surface, and I believe this is all you intended, I agree whole-heartedly. Of course, the gospel does not reach all men equally, as Calvin puts it, i.e. not with the same outcome, but with this you would agree. Also, if you mean by ‘indiscriminately’ as the Spirit leads and in His good time, I accept the word, though I would not use it as the Spirit’s work in salvation, as in judgement, is always discriminate.


"Repentance means too "a change of mind". To repent is to change one's mind and agree with or assent to the judgment of God passed upon sinners in the Gospel. Repentance then entails - by logical necessity - belief or assent to the truths revealed in the Gospel."

My comment: I must be cautious here as this smacks of Sandemanism, which I know you would reject as I. May I reserve comment until you fill this out and qualify it a little more? Please forgive my caution but the Hypers I have to deal with, who claim allegiance to Prof. Engelsma (perhaps only from their point of view) seem to be Sandemanians to a man and their theology is, as the name suggests, built on sand. Allow me merely to say that repentance is necessary for all as all are law-breakers, but one cannot repent of breaking a faith in Jesus that one never had. Duty-repentance has nothing to do with duty-faith. We obey faith dutifully (or ought to) when it is given us but we cannot perform duties in order to become faithful. Duty-faith can only mean salvation by works.


"True repentance is accompanied by true belief, just as true belief presupposes true repentance. Before the sinner can belief or exercise faith, he must first disagree with, hate and oppose his sins. True repentance then is the condition whereby true faith can take root and bear fruit. Since faith is a continuous activity, the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord's Day 33 describes true repentance as a daily activity. Daily repentance leads to daily faith."

My comment: Again, I agree on the surface, but digging a little deeper, I would suggest that Christ’s saving love is so great that He does not begrudge me my lack of repentance in His saving process as He grants me what I require, whatever my natural, fallen state. Daily repentance is from daily faith and not a means of appropriating it. This is just like good works. We Christians do them from faith and not so that we might acquire faith. If a Christian is not always sorry for his sins, we are in keeping with the gospel to doubt his sincerity and status.


"The specific issue that needs to be addressed is this, namely: Does "faith" as a condition of instrumentality and legal demand negates or compromises the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity and sovereign particular and irresistible grace?"

My comment: The question is valid.


"The answer is no. The legal demand of God is made known in the Ten Commandments. The sum total of the Law as epitomised by the Ten Commandments is a) Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your heart and strength; and b) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

My comment: I am only half in agreement because faith, though an instrument of righteousness and justification, is not a legal demand on God’s part so much as a gift of love. When the law book is opened on the Day of Judgement, it is the law that will damn us or save us, not faith in Christ through duty works. We will be pronounced worthy of eternity because of fulfilling the Law in Christ. Because we have this status even now, God freely gives us the faith of His Son, not as legally gained but by being freely and undeservedly given.


"The sum total of the Law is the essence of the Covenant which is fellowship between persons who are in a relationship. Therefore, the Law is encompassed by the Covenant as it is part of the Covenant of Grace. Since by nature all men are Covenant-breakers, the human race are included in the Covenant of Grace and are legally bound to it with threats of punishments and curses for non-performance. And the standard is that of perfection."

My comment: Here is the difference between the pre-Rebellion Reformed Church of England and the break-away Presbyterians who put the Reformation clock back. The Church of England demands (or demanded then, at least) the New Birth of its people who have been placed under Covenant promises. The Presbyterians look on their congregations as being within the Covenant itself. You go even further and say "the human race are included in the Covenant of Grace." It is not! You speak as if one is in grace by nature and can be then thrown out of it if duty faith is not practised. I need not ask you as a Calvinist to justify this as you will reject what you have written knowing your doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The early Anglican Reformers condemned the Presbyterian view of the covenant as old Rome with a new name as it equates ‘congregation’ with ‘covenant church’. This, I believe, is also the mistake of many Baptists who link their external denomination ‘organically’ as they say, with the Church of the New Covenant.


"But Christ performed God's righteous demands on our behalf. What God rightly demanded from sinners, Christ performed on behalf of sinners."

My comment: You must explain who you mean by ‘our’ and ‘sinners’. I take it that you are not saying that Christ died for and thus redeemed all men or that Christ’s death makes the salvation of all men possible should they be willing to accept it.


"It means that repentance as practised and faith as exercised by regenerate sinners are not the cause, but rather the effect of their salvation."

My comment: I agree wholeheartedly.


"That is why duty-repentance and duty-faith does not compromise Calvinistic doctrines of grace, but on the contrary, is true Calvinism."

My comment: This is begging the question and you are back at peg one. You have just hung this on without any proof whatsoever. Actually, this contradicts much of what you have said and can be in no way deduced from it. From what I gather from the above and below, you cannot possibly believe in duty faith. I suspect that you are merely hanging on to a shibboleth which you have heard is orthodox, without having examined it in the light of Scripture and conscience. I grew up accepting what some wrongly call ‘believer’s baptism’ and was very hard on those who did not agree with me. Believer’s baptism was my shibboleth. I mean here the teaching that baptism is something that we do for God. When I examined this idea, however, in the light of Scripture and conscience, it became unacceptable. Baptism is something that God does for us as there are no conditions which God has not met in Christ to bring us into full church membership with Him. We all have our shibboleths and I am certainly not saying that I am rid of mine.


"In summary, God demands from all men what they owe to Him. But since salvation is by grace alone and nothing else, Christ performed on behalf of elected sinners. Therefore, there is nothing "legalistic" about demanding from sinners repentance and faith for their repenting and believing does not in any way contribute to their salvation. It is the consequence of the application of the Spirit's regenerating work in them."

My comment: I cannot understand you here. Since when does God demand from all men saving faith? What you are saying is perhaps that God demands from all men that they accept saving faith which is offered to them and which they are duty bound to appropriate for themselves. This is, however, further from the Scriptures than Geneva is form Rome! God gave man legal duties to perform which he failed to do. Man does not owe saving faith to God unless he has it. If he has it, it is given to him by God without regard to duties, though he must dutifully use it.

I have striven to answer questions arising here on your side more fully in the essay on the Full Gospel and the Free Offer which I sent recently. I will be delighted to answer further questions and receive further instruction but cannot always promise a speedy reply or one of this length as it is a painful business for me to type and I have many other duties to faithfully perform.

Yours in Grace,

George Ella

John Gill and his Successors

John Gill and his Successors

by George Ella

The witness and teaching of Dr John Gill (1697-1771) so impressed his friends Augustus Toplady and James Hervey that they maintained his work would still be of great importance to future generations. This also became the conviction of John Rippon (1750-1836) and Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), Gill's more well-known successors to his pastorate, but it was also the testimony of those who served for shorter periods at Carter Lane such as John Martin, Benjamin Francis and John Fawcett. The witness of these faithful men of God has helped point generations to Gill's works which have subsequently enriched their lives.

The present evangelical establishment is apparently striving to unite Calvinism with Arminianism, Baxterism and worse in an effort to promote an ecumenical doctrinal mish-mash which will suit all sides. Symptomatic of this is the new fashion of stressing the universality of the atonement, the belief that Christ died in vain for certain lost sinners, the myth that the covenant of works has been annulled for sinners, a rejection of preaching the law as a preparation for the work of grace and the idea that salvation comes through repentance and faith as human agencies in regeneration1. This is all backed up by the nonsensical theory that the Father and Son represent paradoxical modes in the unity of the Godhead2. Such a deviation from the witness of the Bible has resulted in the clear teaching of Particular Baptist John Gill being rejected for the syncretism of Andrew Fuller who succeeded in combining Arminianism Baxterism, Latitudinarianism and Socinianism and presenting it as the Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation3.

A by-product of this U-turn in modern evangelical thinking is a critical reassessment of the writings of John Gill and a re-interpretation of the works of those who have referred to them in an apparently positive way in the past. Typical of such revisionism, and following on a series of similar re-constructions concerning the life and writings of William Huntington, is the article entitled John Gill and C. H. Spurgeon in Issue 386 of the Banner of Truth magazine authored by the Rev. Iain Murray. In this essay, an ominous foretaste of a larger work on Hyper-Calvinism to follow, Iain Murray suggests that Spurgeon is 'over generous to Gill' and that Rippon is too 'peace-loving' and 'moderate' in his references to Gill's doctrine. In other words, we are now to believe that these men have presented their readers with a too positive picture of their subject. Obviously Mr. Murray neither shares the peace-loving approach of Gill's successors, nor their moderation in accessing Gill's views. Thus, in order to demonstrate his general antipathy to Gill's doctrines, though admiring his learning and character, Mr Murray has developed methods of producing evidence which are truly immoderate and highly controversial. He quotes, for instance, a general criticism of 18th century Particular Baptists which Spurgeon did not write and deduces from this sparse information that Spurgeon not only shared the criticism but applied it specifically to Gill. All without the least display of evidence! Murray then gives actual words of Spurgeon in criticism of Gill's imitators, to imply that they also refer to Gill himself, though, in the context, Spurgeon does not maintain this position. Turning to Gill's work The Cause of God and Truth which is a treatise against the anti-Calvinistic teaching of Arminian-Arian Dr Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) and a rejection of the universal atonement theory, Mr Murray picks out the words 'coming to him, or believing in him to the saving of their souls,' and 'without the special grace of God', which convey little meaning as they stand, and, without giving their context, fits them into an argument of his own making to 'prove' that Gill did not believe in human responsibility. The whole reconstruction is presented as Gill's express argument, even though moderate Rippon argues at length from this very book to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Gill emphasised human responsibility. Mr Murray's method is reminiscent of the mock-scientific work of the palaeontologists who discover part of a tooth and reconstruct a skeleton from it, claiming that it is the real thing.

Judging by the fractions of quotes Mr Murray gives, he appears to be referring to Gill's exposition of John 5:40 where Christ says, "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." This is a decisive text in separating false Calvinists of the Fullerite school from the genuine Reformed Faith as Gill argued that the words must be taken literally, whereas Fuller argued that its doctrine, as that of sin, the atonement, imputed righteousness, satisfaction and substitution were to be understood figuratively according to what he termed 'the nature and fitness of things4.' Andrew Fuller, however, on viewing this text, admitted that Gill clearly taught human responsibility in expounding it5! In all matters, it will be found that Fuller is fairer than his modern Hyper-Fullerite imitators.

When Gill takes up this text in Part I, Section XXX of The Cause of God and Truth, he is arguing completely contrary to the way Mr Murray presents his views. Furthermore, John Rippon's account of Gill's teaching on the subject is taken verbatim from this passage and in no way implies an up-valuing of it. After explaining the disabilities that sinners lie under in not coming to Christ, Rippon quotes Gill correctly as saying, "Though man lies under such a disability and has neither power6 nor will of himself to come to Christ for life; yet his not coming to Christ, when revealed in the external ministry of the Gospel, as God's way of salvation , is criminal and blameworthy; since the disability and perverseness of his will are not owing to any decree of God, but to the corruption and vitiosity of his nature through sin. And therefore, since this vitiosity of nature is blameworthy, that which follows upon it, and is the effect of it must be so too7." How Mr Murray can possibly interpret this central doctrine of Gill's which he anchored in the 1729 Declaration of Faith as being the very opposite of what Gill actually affirmed shows either acute negative prejudice or a total neglect of sources.

Mr. Murray produces a red herring in his references to the 1689 Particular Baptist Declaration of Faith. He infers that Rippon's 1790 reprint implies a rejection of Gill's (and Rippon's church's) 1729 statement of faith. He omits to add that Rippon reprinted Gill's confession in 1800! Rippon was a historian and theologian of note and rescued many a worthy Particular Baptist document from oblivion. This does not mean that he rejected his own church's creed every time he printed another. Contrary to what Murray postulates, Rippon was still using Gill's declaration of faith in his own church well into the 19th century8. Writing in 1800, Rippon states that his new members were only accepted into fellowship on giving their full assent to the 1729 declaration. Indeed, the 1729 Goat Yard confession of faith became the standard orthodox confession of many Particular Baptist churches for over a hundred years and it is still used almost verbatim by a good number of Baptist churches of various associations in Britain and the USA. Rippon stresses that Gill's Declaration is a positive testimony of how he united faith with practice. This statement by Rippon is of great importance in the face of modern Hyper-Fullerite criticism that Gill's theology taught passive rather than active faith. Rippon thus affirms, "few are the formulas which have at any time been more closely united with duty. The term and the thing are remarkable, in this confession - and no man was more fond of either in their proper place, and fairly understood."

Mr Murray gives the impression that the old Particular Baptist confessions contained articles on a universal offer of salvation. This would, of course, mean that they believed as Fuller later argued, that there is a universal offer of salvation based on a universally applicable atonement which warrants, i.e. guarantees, salvation to those who are prepared, in Fullerite terminology, to partake of the feast freely provided9. Murray even states that Gill drew up his own declaration of faith in order to provide a creed without such a 'free offer' article. This is a great distortion of the facts. There are no such articles in the great 18th century Particular Baptist declarations of faith including the two major London confessions. In many ways, the Second London Confession is less Calvinistic than the 1644 version as it took into account the compromise between traditional Calvinists and Free Offer men which produced the Westminster Confession. However, the Second London Particular Baptist Confession of 1677, which followed the Westminster Confession closely, wisely altered Article X Of the Gospel, omitting the words "God . . . doth freely offer this salvation to all men in the gospel", and placing the term 'offer' under Chapter VII Of God's Covenant. Here salvation is offered within the covenant of grace with reference to "all those that are ordained unto eternal life." Chapter X thus became Of Effectual Calling. Of the Gospel is placed in Chapter 20 and refers to the revelation of the gospel to the elect and not to a general offer to all sinners.

Furthermore there are no such 'free offer' articles as Murray sees them even in the bulk of Arminian Baptist creeds, the Orthodox Creed of 1679 being no exception. Article IX Of Predestination and Election, speaks of predestination to life in the eternal purpose of God of those whom he elected in the mystical body of Christ before the foundations of the world and placed in an eternal covenant.10 In this creed, although the authors speak dangerously of the sinner's 'improving on common grace`, there is no talk of a 'universal offer' as such. Article XXI speaks of a vocational and effectual calling, a distinction Gill himself makes in Part I, Article X of The Cause of God and Truth and in his Doctrine of Predestination Stated and Set in the Scriptural Light which he wrote against Wesley's Predestination Calmly Considered. Gill shows here that the gospel must be preached to all as the Spirit leads but it comes as a savour of life unto life to some and a savour of death unto death to others. The former is the effectual call, outlined carefully in the old Baptist creeds, which is the 'powerful operation of the Spirit of God on the soul' which cannot be resisted and the latter is the external call by the ministry of the Word which puts a man under his obligations but 'may be resisted, rejected, and despised, and become useless.' This teaching echoes that of Calvin's in his Institutes, Book III, chapter 21 where he explains that it is God's good pleasure that the gospel does not come equally to all and receives the same reception and "it is plain how greatly ignorance of this principle detracts from the glory of God, and impairs true humility." Anyone taking care to compare the 1729 Goat Yard Declaration of faith with its forerunners, good as they are, will notice that the confession stresses the sinner's responsibility before God and Christian duties to uphold and spread the Faith. This causes Timothy George to argue convincingly that Spurgeon himself would have fully accepted Gill's confession11. Until Mr Murray produces solid evidence for his apparently prejudiced opinion to the contrary, this author will stick to Timothy George's opinion and the known facts.

In mentioning that the Puritan creeds included a free offer clause, Mr Murray is no doubt thinking of the Council of Dort and the Westminster confession. These understood the free offer to mean Christ should be preached to all as the Spirit leads. The novelty which Alvery Jackson brought into Particular Baptist church history in 1752 and which influenced Fuller so much was to change the meaning of the free offer of grace to a universal offer of salvation wrought out in the teamwork of God's purpose and human agency.12 This is not a Puritan doctrine. It is not even an Arminian doctrine as, though it is based on a legal view of grace which would please many an Arminian, it also shows a disbelief in the total depravity of man, a doctrine which Arminian leaders such as Wesley held dear. As the 'free offer' is used to mean a universal atonement by the modern evangelical Establishment, it is best avoided, especially as it is not a Scriptural term. Mr Murray shows on which side of the Puritans he stands by attaching a eulogy of Fuller to his denunciation of Gill. He also fails to see how much the Goat Yard confession was a product of the whole church membership. The church book states that it was the members who asked Gill to draw up the confession and Rippon tells us explicitly how 'cordially one' they were with their pastor.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon is glowing in his praise of Gill. Of his ordination, Spurgeon says, 'Little did the friends dream what sort of man they had thus chosen to be their teacher; but had they known it they would have rejoiced that a man of such vast erudition, such indefatigable industry, such sound judgement, and such sterling honesty, had come among them13.' Spurgeon loved reading Gill's sermons and wrote, for instance in his copy of Gill's preaching on the Song of Solomon, "This priceless work of my learned predecessor has always been helpful to me." In his Commenting and Commentaries, he says of this work, "Those who despise it, have never read it, or are incapable of elevated spiritual feelings." This sums up much of present day second-hand criticism of Gill which is rarely based on a first hand knowledge of his works. Gill's commentaries, which were merely his sermons in writing, were regularly and eagerly consulted by the Prince of Preachers who marked them all with three stars which was Spurgeon's way of saying, "The very best!". In 1886 he jotted in his copy of Ezekiel to Malachi the words, "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." In a letter dated February 1855, Spurgeon pays tribute to Gill's influence on him by stating "My position, as Pastor of one of the most influential churches, enables me to make myself heard and my daily labour is to revive the old doctrines of Gill, Owen, Calvin, Augustine and Christ." It would seem here that Spurgeon was so taken up by the testimony of Gill that he mixed up his priorities and put Gill first and Christ last. It is such utterances as Spurgeon's exuberant praise of Gill that have obviously coloured Mr Murray's views of the scholar-pastor. So great was Gill's influence throughout the 18th and 19th centuries that thousands of would-be preachers aped him. This was rightly deplored by Gill's successors in his pastorate. This led John Fawcett, for instance, whilst considering a call to Carter Lane, to make his own position clear concerning the man he admired:

To be brief, my dear friends, you may say what you will,
I'll ne'er be confined to read nothing but Gill'.

If anyone can be viewed as a spiritual successor of John Gill, it must be J. C. Philpot who nevertheless wrote concerning his contemporaries' tendency to imitate great men:

"Unless a man comes nowadays with a Shibboleth, he is almost set aside as a man of truth. He must use certain words, whether Scripture or not, must preach in a prescribed manner, as well as with prescribed matter. He must not vary from a certain mould, and if he dares to use his own way of setting forth truth, in his own simple language, and as he simply feels and has felt, many can hardly tell whether he is right or wrong, and the majority perhaps set him down as wrong altogether. I dislike, amazingly, the artificial mode of setting forth truth by which, when you hear a text given out, you know all the divisions and mode of handling it before they are mentioned, and can tell the end of every sentence nearly as soon as you hear the beginning. It smells too strongly of Dr. Gill and premeditation to suit me, but some cannot eat the dish unless served up every day in a plate of the same pattern; and, like children, when a different shaped or different painted cup comes on the table, cannot drink, as being so occupied with the novelty. But God will bless His own truth and His own servants, and when He thrusts forth His own stewards, will not send them forth as apes and imitators either of Huntington, Gadsby, or Warburton. They shall have their own line of truth and their own method of setting it forth, and they shall be commended, sooner or later, to spiritual consciences as men taught of Him14."

Such words, of course, ought never to be so construed that they are taken for a criticism of Gill himself. Elsewhere, Philpot says of the pastor who under God influenced his own denomination so much:
"For a sound, consistent, scriptural exposition of the word of God, no commentary, we believe, in any language can be compared with Dr. Gill's. There may be commentaries on individual books of Scripture, such as Vitringa on Isaiah, Venema on the Psalms, Alting on Jeremiah, Caryll on Job, Lampe on John, Luther on the Galatians, Owen on the Hebrews, Mede on the Revelation, which may surpass Gr. Gill's in depth of research and fullness of exposition; and the great work from which Poole compiled his Synopsis may be more suitable to scholars and divines, as bringing together into one focus all the learning of those eminent men who in the 16th century devoted days and nights to the study and interpretation of the word of God. But for English readers there is no commentary equal to Dr. Gill's. His alone of all we have seen is based upon consistent, harmonious views of divine truth, without turning aside to the right hand or the left. It is said of the late Mr Simeon, of Cambridge, that his plan of preaching was, if he had what is called an Arminian text, to preach from it Arminianism, and if he took a Calvinistic text, to preach from it Calvinism. Not so Dr. Gill. He knew nothing about Arminian texts, or Arminian interpretations. He believed that the Scriptures, as an inspired revelation from God, must be harmonious and consistent with itself, and that no two passages could so contradict each other as the doctrines of free-will contradict the doctrines of grace. The exhortation of the Apostle is, "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith." (Rom. 12:6.) This apostolic rule was followed closely by Dr. Gill. "The proportion," or as the word literally means, "analogy of faith," was his rule and guide in interpreting the Scripture; and therefore, as all his explanations were modelled according to the beautiful proportions of divine truth as received by faith, so every view disproportionate to the same harmonious plan was rejected by him as God-dishonouring, inconsistent, and contradictory. It is this sound, consistent, harmonious interpretation of divine truth which has stamped a peculiar weight and value on Dr. Gill's Commentary, such as no other exposition of the whole Scripture possesses15."

In a similar way to Philpot, Spurgeon warned continually against those who imitated Gill but he always emphasised that he did not include Gill in his criticism of those who claimed to be Gill's followers. Thus Mr Murray is being unfair to both Spurgeon and Gill when he allows Spurgeon's words concerning Gill's imitators to cast a shadow over Gill himself. This kind of journalese spoilt Murray's otherwise excellent book on The Forgotten Spurgeon16 and seems all set to damage his coming book on Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism. Murray's own quotes from Spurgeon confute him, however such as when he quotes Spurgeon as saying, "Gill is the Coryhaeus of Hyper-Calvinism, but if his followers never went beyond their master, the would not go very far astray." Here in Commentating and Commentaries, Spurgeon is not criticising Gill's theology but his way of sermon construction and systematising doctrine. Here, again, Spurgeon refers to Gill's imitators but stresses that if they really stuck to Gill's teaching, "they would not go very far astray." Murray claims that this is 'over generous', but this is Spurgeon's honest opinion which obviously differs from Mr Murray's which is 'over-critical' and lacks objectivity.

A more serious misuse of sources is seen in Murray's references to Ivimey. He takes the Baptist historian's remarks about a few words said in private to a group of mourners after preaching on Job 30 and uses Ivimey's comments as if they were a general and absolute condemnation of Gill's preaching. Even if they were, this would not reflect negatively on Gill as Ivimey was to a certain extent, caught up in the Grotian-New Divinity theology propagated by Fuller which looked upon preaching the moral 'fitness of things' as that which distinguished the New Testament Church from the Old. This doctrine reduced Biblical theology to a matter of morals. Thus Gill's manly preaching to the whole man was not understood. In spite of this background, Ivimey is far more balanced than Murray and emphasises time and time again the great usefulness of Gill in the pulpit. Whilst writing of Gill's prowess as a preacher, he quotes John Rippon as saying that Gill, "came into the pulpit, at times, with an heavenly lustre on his countenance, in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ; enriched, and generally enriching." Ivimey's positive criticism of Gill is culled from Rippon but his negative criticism is taken from Crosby. It must be remembered that the latter was excommunicated from two different churches on matters of faith and practice and had a personal grievance against Gill which Gill's successors did not share.

Mr. Murray does not give due regard to the language of Ivimey which he quotes. Fullerite jargon is flooded with the language of Zion though it is drenched with a completely different sense content than traditional Biblical theology would permit. Fullerites, when using Biblical terms such as sin, unbelief, pardon, wrath and righteousness re-interpret these in accordance with their Grotian theology. This is made quite clear in Fuller's dialogues and letters against Button and Booth where he constantly redefines concrete terms to give them a figurative and highly speculative sense content more worthy of the Neo-Platonists than Peter and Paul. Thus Fullerites deny that orthodox men preach on the wrath of God because they themselves mean something quite different by it. If we take Ivimey's words, however, in their true Biblical semantic context, we find that Mr. Murray has really made a blunder in quoting them as evidence against Gill. All the points concerning the terrors of the Lord, actual reconciliation, warnings of doom and the wrath of God are very much evident in Gill's preaching. On the other hand, these, in their true sense, are conspicuous by their absence in the preaching of such wolves in sheep's clothing as Andrew Fuller and Robert Hall. They believe that all God's displays of wrath are amiable, that there is no actual reconciliation accomplished in the atonement and even Hell is a positive place as its inhabitants have plenty of time to constructively recollect over what went wrong in their lives. In stark contrast to this, one only has to read Gill's sermons on the subjects Murray quotes to find much that will make the sinner shake and the redeemed praise God17. Here modern criticism of Gill's preaching is truly unbalanced. For instance, Erroll Hulse in his Arminian-like work entitled The Free Offer, which leaves the vital parts of the gospel out, compares what he feels is Gill's worst exposition of one passage of Scripture with what he feels is the very best of Spurgeon on quite different texts. What can be gained from such selective evidence? Had he compared Gill with Spurgeon on the same texts, he would have been amazed to find with what care Gill led souls to Christ.

Finally a word must be said concerning Murray's claim that churches of Gill's Biblical persuasions died and Fuller's brand of so-called 'Evangelical Calvinism' flourished. Gill had about the largest Baptist churches in Britain for almost half a century. John Ryland Sen. increased his own Northampton church seven-fold. Hervey, Maddock's and Hawker's large (Anglican) churches were too small to hold the hundreds to a thousand that flocked in. This was at a time when the duty-faith, free-offer Modern Question theology was being preached by Jackson, Taylor and Stennett. The churches of these men never rivalled Gill's in any way. When Gill died, there was no rapid growth of Fullerite churches. In spite of the Northampton Baptist churches (i.e. those who came most under Fuller's influence) receiving many hundreds of new members after Hervey died and Maddock left the district, the churches in the central area of what Murray calls 'the Evangelical Revival on Nonconformist churches' averaged around 50 baptised adults. Seen on a wider basis, successful Particular Baptist preachers such as Ryland Sen., Rippon, Beddome, Kinghorn, Button and Booth refused to be tainted by Fuller's figurative interpretations of Scripture. Booth, indeed, said Fuller was lost. Many of these churches refused to accept Fuller's view of para-church missionary work and fund-raising. Fuller admitted in his old age that his cause was waning but that of the Evangelicals in the Church of England was growing18. Meanwhile preachers of righteousness such as William Huntington were pastoring thousands. These were followed by such men as William Gadsby who founded some forty to fifty churches in a matter of no time and filled them with converts through his own ministry. They were treading in the footsteps of Richard Davis who evangelised the 80 miles radius around his Rothwell church and instructed some hundreds of evangelists to go out into the highways and byways in Christ's name. All these, according to modern Fullerites are Hyper-Calvinists who do not believe in preaching to sinners. How ridiculous can such criticism get?

Rather than reject Gill's teaching concerning the pastorate and practical divinity, Spurgeon testified regularly to having not only inherited Gill's pulpit but also his mantle. He and Rippon knew that Gill's value as a preacher was because those under his ministry knew he was a man who practised what he preached. His hearers trusted him with full and thankful hearts, knowing that his great aim was to lead his flock into green pastures and protect them from the snares and wolves of the world. Referring to the fact that all who knew him from his childhood on were deeply impressed by the sanctity of Gill's life, Rippon says,

"Those who had the honour and happiness of being admitted into the number of his friends can go still further in their testimony. They know, that his moral demeanour was more than blameless: it was, from first to last, consistently exemplary. And, indeed, an undeviating consistency, both in his views of evangelical truths, and in his obedience, as a servant of God, was one of those qualities, by which his cast of character was eminently marked. He was, in every respect, a burning and a shining light - Burning with love to God, to Truth, and to Souls - Shining, as "an ensample to believers, in word, in faith, in purity;" a pattern of good works, and a model of all holy conversation and godliness19."

Almost 30 years after Gill died, John Rippon recorded that such were the number of remembrance sermons preached and published at his death that never before and never since had such a lamentation gone up in the English speaking world because a great man had fallen in Israel. Both Rippon and Spurgeon would have been deeply saddened if any contemporary of theirs, in a leading evangelical position, would have refused to join in this lamentation and bemoan the fact that such a saint was with them no more. They would have thought that such a refusal to honour Gill's name and testimony was to dishonour the Gospel for which Gill stood. It was in conjunction with the down-grade controversy that Spurgeon affirmed he had taken up Gill's mantle. He wished to be for his age what Gill had been in the century before. Mr Murray has other wishes and he is respectfully entitled to them. He has no business, however, to besmirch the memory of a true saint and replace it with an artificial gospel based on a distortion of the truth. This is not preaching the gospel properly as Mr Murray and his faithful band of followers pretend. It is the world, the flesh and the devil striving to prevent the growth of Christ's Kingdom. All true evangelicals must rally around the real Standard as revealed in Scripture to demonstrate the artificiality of this Hyper-Fullerite faked and faded picture of the true 'army with banners20.'

Courtesy of Focus
1 See the Evangelical Times, July issue, p. 11 for Geoffrey Thomas' report on one of Iain Murray's anti-Hyper-Calvinistic lectures. Thomas argues that salvation is all of God but also all of man.
2 See also BOT magazine, Issue 371-372, for a typical example of this heresy taught by David Gay.
3 See my book Law and Gospel in the Theology of Andrew Fuller.
4 See Fuller's Passages Apparently Contradictory, Principle of Church Discipline and On Moral and Positive Obedience.
5 Works, Vol. II, p. 356.
6 Fuller argues that fallen man still possesses this power. See Works, vol. II, pp. 546-547.
7 Life and Writings of the Rev. John Gill, DD, Gano Books, 1992, pp. 46-47 and The Cause of God and Truth, Baker, 1980, p. 33.
8 See Rippon's biography of Gill, p. 14.
9 Works, vol. II, p. 338.
10 I am in no way endorsing all that the Orthodox Creed maintains but must point out that this Arminian Creed was in a number of doctrines more Reformed than the so-called Calvinistic creeds. Indeed, Ivimey, in his History of the Baptists, confessed that he thought the Orthodox Creed was a Calvinist creed.
11 Baptist Theologians, p. 9.
12 This was obviously the opinion of Calamy who argued that a universal redemption is requisite to give verity to the universal offer when discussing the matter at the Westminster Conference.
13 The Metropolitan Tabernacle: Its History and Work, p. 40.
14 The Seceders, vol. II, pp. 207-208 (letter to Fanny Philpot).
15 Reviews, vol. ii, pp. 299-300.
16 See pp. 46-47.
17 See Gill's sermons on Acts 20:28, Psalm 42:5-6, 2 Timothy 1:2, Matt. 11:28 and especially 2 Sam. 23:6-7.
18 Works, vol. III, pp. 481-489.
19 From the short biography appended to Rippon's Life and Writings of Dr. John Gill, pp. 138-139.
20 Song of Solomon 6:2.

Books available from the pen of George Ella
1. Paradise and Poetry: An In-depth Study of William Cowper's Poetic Mind, 1989, The Cowper and Newon Museum, Olney, Bucks, England (xxvi + 377 pages)
2. William Cowper: Poet of Paradise, 1993, EP, Darlington, England, (688 pages)
3. William Huntington: Pastor of Providence, 1994, EP, Darlington, England. (367 pages)
4. John Gill and the Cause of God and Truth, 1995, Go-Publications, Eggleston, England. (365 pages)
5. Law and Gospel in the Theology of Andrew Fuller, 1996, Go-Publications, Eggleston, England (235 pages)
6. James Hervey: Preacher of Righteousness, 1997, Go-Publications, Eggleston, England. (approx. 380 pages)
7. John Gill and Justification from Eternity, 1997, Go-Publications, Eggleston England. (approx 300 pages)