The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Gill a Hyper-Calvinist?

Tom,

I would have to agree with the article, with what I know of Gill from reading some of his works, that he was is not rightly labeled a "hyper-Calvinist"... depending upon how one defines that term. In modern theological discussions, three of the most prominent 'marks' of hyper-Calvinism are:

1. Denial of the "free offer", i.e., that the Gospel should be preached indiscriminately to all and to require of them to repent of their sins and believe upon Christ, looking to God to enable them to do so.
2. Denial of "common grace" (a misnomer, IMHO), i.e., that although God has no love for the reprobate, He does act in a benevolent way upon all men in that He makes provision of their earthly temporal needs, gifts them at times with high intelligence and talents.
3. Denial, to some degree, that God uses means to call the elect, e.g., the preaching of the Gospel, sacraments and prayer.

Now, it is true that Gill, John Brine and others did hold to the serious error of "eternal justification". However, I personally don't include this error as being part and parcel and necessary to be included in the definition of hyper-Calvinism. But fortunately, some of these men were not consistent in applying what this doctrine implies, i.e., they did believe that the elect sinner when he repents and turns to Christ due to the efficacious calling/work of the Holy Spirit are justified at the time they exercise faith and not before. Others were consistent and insisted that at the time faith is exercised, the sinner only comes to realize that he was elect and justified already rather than actually being reconciled to God, and clothed with Christ's righteousness at that moment in time. Some Dutch theologians and even Karl Barth held to this view albeit in different ways.