Skip to content

John Gill’s Hypercalvinism Revisited: A Response to Turretinfan

March 15, 2010

Once again the claim has been put forward that John Gill was not a hypercalvinist. This time, though, this denial is embedded in the context of a another dispute regarding James White.

For the purposes of this post, I am not so much interested in the White aspect of the dispute, but in primarily in the import of Gill. My primary goal is to show the danger of hypercalvinism and the danger of embracing Gill’s exegesis, specifically as it relates to his general understanding of Acts 17:30.

I will set some of the context for this recent dispute, but then move straight to John Gill.  I should warn the honest reader, however: this post will require some reading.

The context.

As part of a broader exchange of ideas, this challenge (below) was put to a commenter on another blog. The reader can see the full context of all that here:  It is the comments that address part of today’s topic.

The challenge refers to Robert Reymond, in his polemic against John Murray, who offer’s Gill’s exegesis as a better alternative to Murray’s. You can find the context of that here:

Using Reymond’s advice, Tony Byrne asked the commenter on Lumpkins’ blog to apply Reymond’s advice to any exegesis James White may adduce to prove that God does desire the eternal salvation of the non-elect [by will revealed]:

Step 1: Ask White for specific biblical proof that God desires the eternal salvation of any of the non-elect.

Step 2: Follow Robert Reymond’s advice and consult John Gill’s explanation of the given passage.

Step 3: Use John Gill’s explanation against White’s proof-text.

Step 4: Repeat step 1, 2 then 3 ad infinitum :-)

…Frankly, I don’t think he will get past step 1.

[All emphasis removed.]

To all this our anonymous Turretinfan counters in at least 2 ways. 1) James White would have no problem with Gill’s exegesis, and 2) John Gill was not a hypercalvinist. Turretinfan offers as an example, Gill’s exegesis of Acts 17:30. He cites documentation from Gill to support both 1) and 2), as I read him. You can see the full context of Turretinfan’s rejoinder here.  All references to Turretinfan’s comments or citations will refer to this link.

The argument.

As noted, Turretinfan wants to say 1) White would have no problem with Gill’s exegesis, and 2) Gill was not a hypercalvinist. I will reverse my order and examine whether or not Gill was a hypercalvinist.  And then having shown that he was, from the evidence even Turretinfan cites, and more from Gill, it will be clear that White should indeed have a problem with Gill, should indeed, reject Gill’s exegesis.

Turretinfan’s intent is to falsify the Byrne’s challenge by arguing that on the given text of Acts 17:30, Gill does not contradict White.

I will show that Turretinfan having fundamentally misunderstood Gill, fails to even meet premise 1 of Tony Byrns’s challenge. We can say to Turretinfan, thanks for the post, but it fails the terms of the challenge completely.

I want to note, though, that Turretinfan takes 2 critical comments from Gill out of context. When the comments are placed back into their original context, Turretinfan’s case is overturned. Lastly, I should add that it is not intent to vindicate Byrne’s challenge with regard to every possible exegetical argument, or use of Gill, Turretinfan and co., might theoretically adduce to establish the idea, biblically, that God desires the salvation of the non-elect.

The motive.

Here I want to stress, I am not interested in getting bogged down in personal attacks. What interests me are the historical facts. I think all Christians should be interested in the truth of history, rather than perpetuate mythologies or errors. I will endeavor to speak to this topic as graciously and Christianly as I can. My aim is not to make personal or disparaging remarks. Hopefully my words are seasoned with respect.

My belief is that the evidence itself should be able to carry its own self-attesting witness. The evidence should be clear enough that honest minds consent to what they read with their own eyes.

The evidence.

There is a lot of material cited by Turretinfan. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only relevant sections which are the most explicit.

Turretinfan says this of Gill:

Let’s be clear about a few things up front: none of the folks that Tony has accused are hyper-Calvinists. John Gill is one of the most eminent Baptist theologians that has ever lived.”

And:

“We must also acknowledge that folks sometimes accuse Gill of either being a hyper-calvinist or having “hyper tendencies.” These accusations are unfounded, and folks who make such accusations (even if they are themselves scholars) should be called to task for this.

Fair enough: the claim is that Gill was not a hypercalvinist. The question is, What is hypercalvinism? For our purposes, one marker for hypercalvinist theology, which all scholars agree on is the denial of duty-faith. That is, it is not the duty of sinners to spiritually believe upon Christ for their salvation. Even the Hoeksemians agree, even Thomas Nettles agrees. Another marker is the denial of the well-meant offer. Here the Hoeksemians and most hypercalvinists dissent. Most evangelical scholars, however, accept this second marker (Toon, John Murray, Iain Murray, Spurgeon, Phil Johnson, Curt Daniel, et al).

I will focus primarily on the first marker. And I will lead-off using some of the very material Turretinfan cites in his post.

My basic contention is that Turretinfan fails to understand Gill’s own careful distinctions and nuances. Turretinfan cites Gill:

It is of no great moment whether the he, who is said to blind and harden, be God or Christ, or whether the words be rendered, it hath blinded, etc. that is, malice or wickedness hath blinded, or be read impersonally, their eyes are blinded, etc. Since God, or Christ, blind and harden, not by any positive act, or putting in blindness or hardness, but by leaving and giving men up to the blindness and hardness of their hearts, and denying them grace; which was the cause of these Jews; so as never to be converted, or turned even by external repentance and reformation, that they might be healed in a national way, or be preserved front national ruin. All which is consistent with God’s command, and Christ’s exhortations to them to believe, which were antecedent to the judicial blindness and hardness of their hearts…

[Underlining mine.]

When reading this comment from Gill, the questions come to mind should be, what does Gill mean by external repentance, and national ruin, etc, as well as what does he mean exactly that they are to believe, believe what exactly?

Before we answer this, let is move to the second quotation Turretinfan offers from Gill:

Besides, as has been observed, the exhortation to repent here made, is not made unto all men, but to the Jews, on a very remarkable occasion, and was blessed to many of them, to the turning them away from their iniquities; for many of them which heard the word, believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand (Acts 4:4). If it should be replied, that though the exhortation to repentance is not here made to all men; yet it is elsewhere expressly said, that God commandeth all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Let it be observed, that as this command to repentance does not suppose it to be in the power of man; nor contradicts its being a free-grace gift of God; nor its being a blessing in the covenant of grace, and in the hands of Christ to bestow; so neither does it extend, as here expressed, to every individual of mankind; but only regards the men of the then present age, in distinction from those who lived in the former times of ignorance: for so the words are expressed: and the times of this ignorance God winked at; overlooked, took no notice of, sent them no messages, enjoined them no commands of faith in Christ, or repentance towards God; but now, since the coming and death of Christ, commandeth all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, everywhere to repent; it being his will, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached among all nations (Luke 24:47): but admitting that it has been God’s command in all ages, and to all men that they repent; as all men are indeed bound, by the law of nature, to a natural repentance, though all men are not called by the gospel to an evangelical one; yet I see not what conclusions can be formed from hence against either absolute election or particular redemption.

[Underlining mine.]

Here we see a hint of what Gill is getting at. He admits that had it been true that God had commanded all men to repent, in all ages, this command only commands from them a natural repentance, not an evangelical repentance.

Turretinfan would have served his readers better, had he gone on to cite the very next paragraph from Gill.

3. Though there is a close connection between evangelical repentance, true conversion, and pardon of sin; that is to say, that such who are really converted and truly repent, have their sins pardoned; yet not repentance and conversion, but the free grace of God and blood of Christ are the causes of pardon. Forgiveness of sin is indeed only manifested to converted penitent sinners, who are encouraged and influenced to repent of sin, and turn to the Lord from the promise of pardoning grace; hence the most that can be made of such an exhortation is only this; that it is both the duty and interest of men to repent and turn to God, that they may have a discovery of the remission of their sins through the blood of Christ, and not that they shall hereby procure and obtain the thing itself: though, after all, neither evangelical repentance and internal conversion, nor the grace of pardon are here intended; not evangelical repentance and internal conversion, as has been before observed, nor the spiritual blessing and grace of pardon; for, though pardon of sin is signified by blotting it out, Psalm 51:1,9; Isaiah 43:25, and Isaiah 44:22; yet forgiveness of sin sometimes means no more than the removing a present calamity, or the averting of a threatened judgment, Exodus 32:32; 1 Kings 8:33 to 39; and is the sense of the phrase here. These Jews had crucified the Lord of glory, and for this sin were threatened with miserable destruction; the apostle therefore exhorts them to repent of it, and acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah; that so when wrath should come upon their nation to the uttermost, they might be delivered and saved from the general calamity; which, though these would be terrible times to the unbelieving Jews, yet would be times of refreshing to the people of God from troubles and persecutions. Though the last clause may be considered, not as expressing the time when their iniquities should be blotted out, but as a distinct additional promise made to penitents, and be read with the other thus: that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing may come; as they are by the Syriac and Arabic versions, and to which the Ethiopic agrees, and is the reading preferred by Lightfoot; and the sense is this, “Repent of your sin of crucifying Christ, acknowledge Jesus as the true Messiah, and you shall not only be saved from the general destruction of your nation, but shall have the gospel and the consolation of Israel with you. Jesus Christ, who was first preached unto, you, shall be sent down unto you in the refreshing consolatory ministry of the word, though he in person must refrain in heaven, until the times of restitution of all things.” John Gill, Cause of God and Truth, 35-36.

[Underlining and bold mine.]

From Gill we can see that in his explications of Acts 3:19, which corresponds to Acts 17:30, the unbelievers are only exhorted to perform a natural external repentance, not an inward internal repentance. Here we have the answer, then, sinners are only called to a natural repentance, not to a spiritual repentance and trust in Christ. This distinction is ignored by Turretinfan.

For Gill, the natural man is not duty-bound to savingly or internally repent. Even in one section cited by Turretinfan this point is clear from Gill:

It is man’s duty to believe the word of the Lord, and obey his will, though he has not a power, yea, even though God has decreed to withhold that grace without which he cannot believe and obey. So it was Pharaoh’s duty to believe and obey the Lord, and let Israel go; though God had determined to harden his heart, that he should not let them go. However there are many things which may be believed and done by reprobates, and therefore they may be justly required to believe and obey; it is true, they are not able to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, or to perform spiritual and evangelical obedience, but then it will be difficult to prove that God requires these things of them, and should that appear, yet the impossibility of doing them, arises from the corruption of their hearts, being destitute of the grace of God, and not from the decree of reprobation, which though it denies them that grace and strength, without which they cannot believe and obey in this sense, yet it takes none from them, and therefore does them no injustice.

[Underlining and bold mine.]

Note what Gill says. The reprobate are can “believe” many things, though they cannot believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but then it will be hard to prove that such a thing is even required of them. In other words, it is not their duty to believe on Christ to the saving of their souls.

For more conclusive proof for Gill’s adherence to “natural repentance” and “national repentance, see his Body of Divinity, pp 716ff, where he juxtaposes natural and national repentance with evangelical repentance.

More from Gill:

Do that which can no more be done without it, than men can make bricks without straw; and thy servants are beaten, but the fault is in him who denies us straw, and yet requires bricks; yea, who requires that faith, and that repentance, which he never would afford us sufficient means to perform. This is a bold charge, an insolent way of treating the Almighty, to compare him with Pharaoh’s officers, and say the fault is in him who requires faith and repentance, and affords no special grace, no divine energy to perform. Moreover the case is not parallel; the impotence of the Israelites to make bricks, arose from straw being denied them, and withheld from them, which they formerly had; but the impotence of men to believe and repent, does not arise from special grace and a divine energy being denied or withheld from them, which they never had: but from the corruption and vitiosity of their nature, their enmity to God, alienation from him, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness or hardness of their hearts. Besides, God never calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent. God does not require all men to believe in Christ, and where he does, it is according to the revelation he makes of him. He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; and those who only Save the outward ministry of the word, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than that external revelation they enjoy reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc., not to believe these things is the sin of all that are under the gospel dispensation, as it was of the Jews; who though they saw his miracles, and heard its doctrines, yet, through the corruption and prejudices of their minds, did not believe the to be the Messiah, and therefore died in their sins; nor had they a just excuse, or sufficient plea, why they should not be punished or condemned, for their infidelity an a unbelief respecting the Messiah, even though: they could not come to him, or believe him to the saving of their souls, without the special grace of God; they were not condemned for the want of that they had not and which was not bestowed upon them; but for that which was really in them, the sin of unbelief; nor were they, nor are any, condemned for not believing that Christ died for them, but for the transgressions of the law of God, and the disbelief or contempt of his gospel. And as for those, who besides the external, have also an internal revelation of Christ, as they are called to the exercise of evangelical repentance, and to faith in Christ as their Savior and Redeemer, who loved them, and gave himself for them; they have that grace bestowed upon them, and that power put forth in them, which enables them to believe and repent. Gill, Cause of God, 166.

Gill on the Call of God:

1. First, This may be considered either as a call to saints, to such who have a work of grace already begun in them; and to such it is a call, not only to the means of grace, but to partake of the blessings of grace; to come as thirsty persons, eagerly desirous of spiritual things, “to the waters”, the ordinances, and drink at them; to “buy wine and milk”, spiritual blessings, signified hereby, without “money, and without price”, these being to be had freely: and these are also called as labouring under a sense of sin, and under a spirit of bondage, to “come” to Christ for “rest”, peace, pardon, life, and salvation, Isaiah 55:1 Matthew 11:28 and these in and by the ministry of the word, are called, excited, and encouraged to the exercise of evangelical graces, wrought in them, and bestowed upon them; as repentance, faith, hope, love, and every other; such were the three thousand converts under Peter’s sermon, and the jailor, who were under a previous work of the Spirit of God, when they were called and encouraged to repent and believe in Christ, Acts 2:37,38 16:29-31 and these are also called, and urged, and pressed, in and by the ministry of the word, to a constant attendance on ordinances, and not to forsake the assembly of the saints, and to a diligent performance of every religious duty, and to be ready to every good work in general: or this external call may be considered, as a call of sinners in a state of nature and unregeneracy; but then it is not a call to them to regenerate and convert themselves, of which there is no instance; and which is the pure work of the Spirit of God: nor to make their peace with God, which they cannot make by anything they can do; and which is only made by the blood of Christ: nor to get an interest in Christ, which is not got, but given: nor to the exercise of evangelical grace, which they have not, and therefore can never exercise: nor to any spiritual vital acts, which they are incapable of, being natural men, and dead in trespasses and sins. Nor is the gospel ministry an offer of Christ, and of his grace and salvation by him, which are not in the power of the ministers of it to give, nor of carnal men to receive; the gospel is not an offer, but a preaching of Christ crucified, a proclamation of the unsearchable riches of his grace, of peace, pardon, righteousness, and life, and salvation by him. Yet there is something in which the ministry of the word, and the call by it, have to do with unregenerate sinners: they may be, and should be called upon, to perform the natural duties of religion; to a natural faith, to give credit to divine revelation, to believe the external report of the gospel, which not to do, is the sin of the deists; to repent of sin committed, which even the light of nature dictates; and God, in his word, commands all men everywhere to repent: to pray to God for forgiveness, as Simon Magus was directed by the apostle: and to pray to God for daily mercies that are needed, is a natural and moral duty; as well as to give him praise, and return thanks for mercies received, which all men that have breath are under obligation to do. They may, and should be called upon to attend the outward means of grace, and to make use of them; to read the Holy Scriptures, which have been the means of the conversion of some; to hear the word, and wait on the ministry of it, which may be blessed unto them, for the effectual calling of them. And it is a part of the ministry of the word to lay before men their fallen, miserable, lost, and undone estate by nature; to open to them the nature of sin, its pollution and guilt, and the sad consequences of it; to inform them of their incapacity to make atonement for it; and of their impotence and inability to do what is spiritually good; and of the insufficiency of their own righteousness to justify them in the sight of God: and they are to be made acquainted, that salvation is alone by Christ, and not other ways; and the fullness, freeness, and suitableness of this salvation, are to be preached before them; and the whole to be left to the Spirit of God, to make application of it as he shall think fit. John Gill, Body of Divinity, 539.

[Underlining and bold mine.]

Again, for Gill, 1) it is not the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual duty. The sinner’s duty is only to externally reform and repent. And 2) there are no offers to any.

Note the reference to Acts 17:30, and his clear denial that it speaks to a command to spiritual repentance.

The reader should note that when Turretinfan quotes part of Gill in the quotation immediately above, he leaves out the crucial opening remarks:

or this external call may be considered, as a call of sinners in a state of nature and unregeneracy; but then it is not a call to them to regenerate and convert themselves, of which there is no instance; and which is the pure work of the Spirit of God: nor to make their peace with God, which they cannot make by anything they can do; and which is only made by the blood of Christ: nor to get an interest in Christ, which is not got, but given: nor to the exercise of evangelical grace, which they have not, and therefore can never exercise: nor to any spiritual vital acts, which they are incapable of, being natural men, and dead in trespasses and sins

[Underlining mine.]

As you read Gill, the evangelical call is only to the ones sensible of their sin, the regenerate. But to sinners, there is no such call, no call to make peace with God, or to get an interest in Christ.

Lastly to “offers” contrary to Turretinfan’s comments, Gill expressly denied any offer to anyone:

The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes; but as yet, it has never been brought to all the individuals of human nature; there have been multitudes in all ages that have not heard it. And that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men I utterly deny; nay, I deny they are made to any; no, not to God’s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit; much less are they made to others wherefore this doctrine is not chargeable with insincerity on that account. Let the patrons of universal offers defend themselves from this objection; I have nothing to do with it; till it is proved there are such universal offers, then Dr. Watts’s reasoning on that head, will require some attention; but not till then. Sermon 7: THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION STATED, AND SET IN THE SCRIPTURE LIGHT.

[Underlining mine.]

Again, Gill:

This author owns, that hereby we are consistent, in preaching and writing, with ourselves and scheme, and so not chargeable with self-contradiction; and since it is of a piece with the rest of our tenets, and is likely to share the same fate with them, we need not be in much pain about the consequences of it. But this tenet, that there is no offer of salvation to men in the ministry of the gospel, is said to be inconsistent with all the dictates of reason, our ideas of God, and the whole system of the gospel: not surely with all the dictates of reason; for how irrational is it, for minister to stand offering Christ, and salvation by him to man, when, on the one hand, they have neither power nor right to give; and, on the other hand, the persons they offer to, have neither power nor will to receive? What this author’s ideas of God are, I know not, but this I say, it is not consistent with our ideas of God, that he should send ministers to offer salvation to man, to whom he himself never intended to give it, which the ministers have not power to bestow, nor the men to receive: but, it seems, denying offers of salvation, is inconsistent with the whole system of the gospel; the Bible is hereby knocked down at once, and made to be the most delusive, and cheating book in the world; when the whole Bible is one standing offer of mercy to a guilty world. What! the whole Bible? the Bible maybe distinguished into these two parts, historical and doctrinal; the historical part of the Bible is surely no offer of mercy to a guilty world; the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the first verse of it, can hardly be thought to be so. The doctrinal part of it may be distinguished into law and gospel; the law, which is the killing letter, and the ministration of condemnation and death to a guilty world, can be no standing offer of mercy to it: if any part of the Bible is so, it must be the gospel; but the gospel is a declaration of salvation already wrought out by Christ, and not an offer of it on conditions to be performed by man. The ministers of the gospel are sent to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15.) that is, not to offer, but to preach Christ, and salvation by him; to publish peace, and pardon as things already obtained by him. The ministers are kerukav, criers or heralds; their business is khrussein, to proclaim aloud, to publish facts, to declare things that are done, and not to offer them to be done on conditions; as when a peace is concluded and finished, the herald’s business, and in which he is employed, is to proclaim the peace, and not to offer it; of this nature is the gospel, and the whole system of it; which preaches, not offers peace by Christ, who is Lord of all. The ministers are “kerukas,” criers or heralds; their business is “kerussein,” to proclaim aloud, to publish facts, to declare things that are done, and not to offer them to be done on conditions; as when a peace is concluded and finished, the herald’s business, and in which he is employed, is to proclaim the peace, and not to offer it; of this nature is the gospel, and the whole system of it; which preaches, not offers peace by Christ, who is Lord of all. As for the texts of scripture produced by this writer, several have nothing in them respecting pardon, life and salvation, and much less contain an offer of either; as I have shown at large in my first part of The Cause of God and Truth; whither I refer the reader;… SERMON 95 AN ANSWER TO THE BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE-WRITER.

For Gill, the concept of preaching, commanding, even calling, are distinct from offering. God can call all men, but this is not the same as God offering Christ to all men. What is more, for Gill, the issue was never that we should not preach to all men, but whether God or the minister of the Gospel offer Christ to any sinner. The former he affirmed, the latter he denied.

Back to the Challenge.

The challenge from Tony Byrne still stands. Note the wording of his first line: Ask White for specific biblical proof that God desires the eternal salvation of any of the non-elect

[Bold mine.]

Turretinfan has made the mistake of citing Gill as asserting that men are to “believe” and this in the context of Acts 17:30. And thereby he thinks he has met Byrne’s challenge. However, he has failed to look closely at Gill. For Gill, the command to believe, in the context of Acts 17:30, is not a command to believe spiritually, but only naturally, nationally and externally, as it is not the duty of any sinner to spiritually trust in Christ for the salvation of their souls.

If we apply Reymond’s own advice–which in its own turn, is actually quite naive–then we will be led right into the path of hypercalvinism; at least in terms of this verse.

The irony and tragedy in all this is that Turretinfan will cite the very same blocks of material from Gill and NOT see the inherent hypercalvinist claims and assertions. What is more problematic is that Turretinfan truncates the material from Gill, taking it out of context.

Conclusion:

1) I have tried to keep my rejoinder to Turretinfan has civil and Christian as I can. I have tried to not put words into his argument, to use demeaning terms or to make the discussion personal in any way.

My desire is that he be able to “see” himself in my representation of his argument. Even though it is clear that he has not done the same for Gill. One cannot see the true Gill in the “quotations” Turretinfan supplies. Within some of the very quotations he supplies, his claims are refuted.

2) Gill was a hypercalvinist and there is just no sensible and honest way to deny this truth.

3) Tony Byrne’s first line still stands, as Turretinfan has failed to even meet the first requirement posted by Byrne. This holds because John Gill did not even believe that Acts 17:30 speaks of God calling any man to eternal salvation, or likewise willing or desiring the eternal salvation of any non-elect person. Or to state it another way, Gill does not believe that God desires that all men have faith, properly speaking, in Christ.

And so to bring this full circle:

If Turretinfan or James White were to cite Acts 17:30 to prove that God desires the eternal salvation of the none-elect, and were we to follow Reymond’s  advice and embrace Gill’s exegesis of the same passage, we would have a refutation of the position Turretinfan and White sought to establish via this verse.

4) One can read Haykin’s article Defining Hyper-Calvinism

5) Lastly, for more on this consult the works by Peter Toon and Curt Daniel. And for more of the same from me on Gill, see here: Was John Gill a Hypercalvinist? (Part I). Follow the link to part II and to Robert Oliver’s relevant comments. See also my post on Gill’s denials of offer of the Gospel. See also Turretin’s affirmation of a conditional offer, which directly contradicts Gill.

David

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. March 16, 2010 7:15 am

    “It should occassion no surprise that Gill’s development of the doctrine of the everlasting covenant, in which he highlighted the role of the Spirit, along with his tenacious commitment to the notion of eternal justification should then lead to the rejection of the free offer of the gospel. For example, in a tract that he wrote in response to a rejection of predestination by the Methodist leader John Wesley (1703-91), Gill considered biblical verses like Acts 17:30, which states that God “now commands all men everywhere to repent” and Mark 16:15, in which there is a command to “preach the gospel to every creature.” Gill did not believe that either of these verses can be used to support the idea of the free offer of the gospel.”

    Michael A. G. Haykin, Hyper-Calvinism and the Theology of John Gill, 14-15.

    Notice what Haykin is saying about Gill’s interpretation of Acts 17:30, which is the very passage T-Fan references.

  2. March 16, 2010 7:22 am

    To the list of those who deem Gill a hyper-Calvinist, one can also add Michael Haykin, Robert Oliver, and Erroll Hulse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: