BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, All
In reading "Spurgeon V Hyper-Calvinism, the author Iain Murray asserts that Gill was viewed as a "High Calvinist". What do you think?
Peace to u,
Bill
Murray points out in his book,
The Forgotten Spurgeon, that Spurgeon didn't like the term "hyper-Calvinism". He also described what Spurgeon meant by the term:
Hyper-Calvinism in its attempt to square all gospel truth with God's purpose to save the elect, denies there is a universal command to repent and believe, and asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. In other words, it is those who have been spiritually quickened to seek aSaviour and not those who are in the death of unbelief and indifference, to whom the exhortations of the gospel must be addressed. In this way a scheme was devised for restricting the gospel to those who there is reason to suppose are elect.
When I think of hyper-Calvinists, I think more of those present day wing-nuts with all their wacky web-pages saying how God hates homosexuals and the like, when in actuality, it's more the people who run those web sites that hate homosexuals and the like, and enjoy expressing their hate. I don't think of John Gil when I think of what the term "Hyper-Calvinist" means in current day usage.
But back to Gil. I do not deny that all mankind are God's enemies (Romans 5), and that the non-regenerate are under the power of Satan (Ephesians 2), and stand condemned for not believing the gospel (John 3). Indeed sinful humanity is in a perilous plight. The gospel message needs to be proclaimed to all: even those who most disagree with "Christian" values. I agree with Calvin (and Spurgeon), that the message is to be proclaimed to all.
In Murray's book,
Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, chapter 8 is most interesting. Note that Murray points out that Spurgeon had a lifelong high regard for Gil's work (p.125). I also utilize Gil's commentaries, and have a high respect for his writings. There are many nuances to what Gil is saying, and what Spurgeon is interpreting him as saying (for instance, see the discussion at the bottom of pages 128 and the top of page 129). If in fact Gil is guilty of what Spurgeon charges in restricting the Gospel call, we should stand with Spurgeon against such teaching. On the other hand, we can't "throw
the baby out with the bath water". Just like some of the errors Augustine or Luther, we need to remember that salvation is not the result of a theology test- if it were Satan would beat us all with the highest grade (this is my paraphrase of Jonathan Edwards at this point).
God bless,
James Swan
