Neogillist
Puritan Board Freshman
It is a known but sad fact that certain thorough-going Calvinists throughout the history of the church, and also more recently have fallen out of their original position to embrace the Arminian scheme. While as a general rule, nonetheless, is that most Christians who start out semi-Pelagian and become monergists remain so until for the rest of their life, there are a number of exceptions to the rule, some of whom had even read much Puritan and Reformed literature. It is a historic fact that James Arminius, who had been trained as a strong Calvinist under the tutorship of Theodore Beza and originally believed the doctrines of grace, was asked to defend Reformed doctrine against Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert, a liberal scholar of the day, and found himself unable to refute him. Little did people know that those seeds of doubts, sown into Arminius’ mind would grow into the most proeminent system of semi-Pelagianism in the history of the Church.
This is an important lesson for all of us, and I would say more especially so for those who were brought up in a Reformed church, under a steady diet of Heidelberg Cathecism, Belgic Confession or even Westminster Confession of Faith, and learned to trust those historic documents before being well acquainted with the Bible. Perhaps in your reading of Scriptures you have encountered passages that seemed to conflict with the doctrines of grace, or that you were unsure if the concept of an atonement for the elects alone was really scriptural. Personally, I myself had started to find some inconsistencies between the secret, as opposed to the revealed will of God, and had started to believe that the Arminian scheme does present the concept of a God who is truly loving. But even if you are not one of those people, and that no doubts in regard to Calvinism have even come to your mind, it would still be a good idea to read the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, or at least so in my opinion, and ensure that the foundation of your faith remains firm and unshakeable.
While John Wesley is considered by his followers as the greatest Arminian of all times, the best Arminian scholar of the eighteenth century, was probably neither him nor Adam Clark, but Dr. Daniel Whitby, an Anglican bishop and theologian. In 1733, his Discourse on the Five Points was reprinted, and judged a masterpiece on the subject, an unanswerable attack on the Five Points of Calvinism in favour of the Arminian Scheme. Whitby had essentially refined certain arguments from the Remonstrants, and constructed his own, presenting a large number of passages as “prooftexts” for Arminianism, and refuting all the main passages of Scripture that historic Calvinists had appealed to in favor of their system. He had directed much of his arguments both against low Calvinists like John Davenant and high Calvinists such as William Twisse. It would obviously take more than an amateur theologian to answer Dr. Whitby, perhaps more like a genuis, someone of the same calibre as Owen or Calvin. John Gill took the charge at hand and started writing a point-by-point refutation of Discourse on the Five Points which would send the treatise into the grave, where its master was then lying. Along with John Owen’s Death of Death I would judge The Cause of God and Truth as the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, both indeed being unrefutable.
The Cause of God and Truth consists of four parts. In the first part, Gill performs a thorough exegetical analysis of sixty different passages of Scripture that Dr. Whitby and other Arminians had raised in support of their system. Many of these passages are still being appealed to by Arminians today, whether in seminaries or on the Web. Yet, not a single one of them have taken the time to refute Gill on any one passage, and however less would have time to do it point-by-point. Gill’s approach to the Scriptures is both systematic and scientific. In his defense, he first presents the Arminian interpretation or argument drawn from Scriptures and point out the logical flaws in Dr. Whitby’s reasoning. Next, he begins to rule out various false or improbable interpretations by looking at the context, the grammar in the original language, or facts of history. He also frequently appeals to rabinical sources from non-Christian scholars, presenting their views, and he finally begins to converge towards the most probable interpretation that takes into account what the inspired author had in mind in writing what he did. Making continual use of the analogy of Scripture, the reader quickly learns to trust John Gill’s exegesis, for he never attempts to “prove his point,” occasionally adopting an interpretation that is less favourable to the Calvinist. Moreover, Gill is not carried away by every whimp of emotion when he writes. Unlike John Calvin, he does not use any demeaning language against his opponent, instead politely calling him “the learnt writer,” and unlike John Owen, he does not attempt to impress or shock his opponent with the large number of arguments he can raise against a sophist interpretation. Moreover, Gill is careful not to contradict himself, and is very technical in his semantics, ensuring that not a single door remains open for the Arminians to go through. He has always more than one possible solution to provide, but always highlights the most probable one rather than the most Calvinistic one. The reader who is acquainted with the Calvin and Owen will soon realize that Gill frequently converges to the same interpretation as those two, showing the great consitency that exists among high Calvinist scholars.
In the second part of the work, Gill presents a number of passages that carefully, and indeed clearly teach the doctrines of grace, presenting the historic Reformed interpretation, and then refuting the twisted arguments that Dr. Whitby had raised against them. The reader will be amazed to see the exposition of John Gill, as well as the malice of Arminianism in trying to fight the very Holy Spirit of Scriptures. This part has really helped me realize that Arminianism is truly heretical, and that Arminians who attempt to refute the clear and logical meaning of such passages are doing no less than resisting the truth of the Gospel.
In the third part of his work, Gill finally responds to many philosophical arguments that Whitby had raised in support of the Arminian scheme and against the Calvinistic one. Dr. Gill also admits how Calvinism share both similarities and differences with Stoicism, but is careful to clear the charge that Augustianism had risen from the influence of Stoicism in the early church. Unlike many low Calvinists who preceeded him, John Gill is not a fan of paradoxes, and consequently does not like to combine universal concepts with Calvinistic ones. Consequently, he does not feel obliged to support the concept of a general will in God to save all mankind, and a specific will to save some and damn others, or to add certain universal aspects to the atonement like other Calvinists such as Charles Hodge and James Ussher have done. In some cases, Gill actually agrees with his opponent, and is never overly dogmatic on a particular issue. In many respects, Gill adopts an agnostic position in regard to theological ideas that the Scriptures do not prove, such as whether dying infants are saved or damned, or the origin of the soul. Overall, the Calvinism of John Gill is the simplest, most logical model that naturally seems to pop out of Scriptures.
In the fourth part, Gill presents quotations from the writings of different church fathers to disprove Dr. Whitby’s claim that synergism was the theological system of the early church. Although certain writers like Origen were inconsitent or careless in some of their remarks, Gill shows that most of them were very much in the same line of thinking as Augustine, and that all Augustine did was to clarify and fine-tune the teachings of the apostles and church fathers, thus making Calvinism or Augustinianism the original truth of the early church. This is truly a masterpiece that must have required a lot of research on the part of Dr. Gill, in identifying all the hundreds of quotations and translating them into English. For example, from Irenaeus he points out: “He plainly hints at the stability and immoveableness of the decree of election, when he calls it, turris electionis, “the tower of election;” for why should he call it a tower, but because it is impregnable and immoveable, because “the purpose of God, according to election, is that foundation which stands sure, not of works, but of him that calleth?”
Unfortunately, some have criticized this work as being “one of hyper-Calvinism’s greater works” according to Dr. Matthew McMahon, and other Reformed theologians of today labelling it “John Gill’s hyper-Calvinistic Cause of God and Truth.” One may indeed appeal to different exerpts from the book that sound somewhat hyper-Calvinistic in their semantics, but it must be noted that the same language can be found in the writings of John Owen, John Calvin, and even a lot more so in Arthur W. Pink. Perhaps it is the fact that John Gill rejects the concept of a universal offer of grace that makes low Calvinists uncomfortable, or that Gill says that “the gospel is not an offer, but the power of God unto Salvation…” However, the careful reader will see that Gill is simply avoiding careless semantic that would make irresistible grace sound resistible. John Calvin and other Reformed theologians would speak of the “Gospel Offer” or the “Universal Offer,” with the original Latin connotation behind the word offero, which means to “present” or “put forth.” However, by 1735 it appears to me that the word had started to change connotation in the English tongue, suggesting that the gospel presentation had turned into today’s gospel offer, although I would need to do more research to prove this. This is at least true for the word passion, also derived from Latin which originally carried the connotation of “suffering” in English, and today means “a mild obsession.” Moreover, John Gill clearly believes in common grace, although he calls it “providencial goodness” or “kindness,” and clearly denies equal ultimacy, suggesting that God is passive towards the reprobates, not taking pleasure in adding unecessary burdens upon them. While Arthur Pink argues that God sovereignly hardens the reprobate, Gill interprets the hardening of the heart as a second cause. John Gill even shows that God is good towards the reprobate, occasionally granting them an outward or ceremonial repentance so that they may receive a milder punishment in hell. In regard to duty-faith, Gill presents various propositions in support of it, but later opts for an agnostic position, pointing out that God calls the reprobates to have at least a historical faith in Christ, but that it cannot be proven from Scriptures by direct exegesis whether God actually expects them to believe to the saving of their soul or not. Moreover, while many infralapsarians nowadays attempt to win Arminians over by portraying the supralapsarian scheme as cruel and extreme so as to make their position appear more moderate and biblical, John Gill actually defends both views against the attacks of Whitby, but overall seems to come down more infralapsarian, as can also be shown from other of his writings, and is also alleged by Toplady and his biographer John Rippon. Consequently, I do not see how the charges of hyper-Calvinism can be raised against Gill anymore than against Owen, Twisse, Calvin or Pink, especially in comparison to the real hyper-Calvinists that arose after him like John Ryland, James Well and more recently Herman Hoeksama.
The Cause of God and Truth is no less than a must-read for every Reformed Christian desiring to know how to defend his faith against the attacks of Arminians and Papists. John Gill’s Cause of God and Truth did not bring a final blow to Arminianism, since so long as there are sinners on earth there will be free-willers; rather, it brought a final blow to the scholarship of Arminianism. Today’s Arminians are like chicken without heads, leafing through their Bible in search of prooftexts where there are none. Those theologians who claim to believe in the authority of Scriptures and are outwardly Arminian are willfully ignorant, just like their father Wesley. Interestingly, while much of Wesley’s influence today has degenerated into some liberal church denominations, or Charismatic/Pentecostal movements, John Gill’s influence still stands through all his precious and influencial writings. There were no fewer than four pastors/theologians who wrote to Wesley urging him to stop spreading the lie, including John Gill, George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady and Jonathan Edwards. Unfortunately, Wesley hard-headedly continued to drive his movement forward, ignoring the wise and godly advise of his contemporaries. Perhaps if only he had tried to think rationally and read The Cause of God and Truth, things would have been different. Gordon H. Clark, the greatest Reformed philosopher of the twentieth century (along with Van Til) said that John Gill was a genuis for writing this treatise. I agree.
This is an important lesson for all of us, and I would say more especially so for those who were brought up in a Reformed church, under a steady diet of Heidelberg Cathecism, Belgic Confession or even Westminster Confession of Faith, and learned to trust those historic documents before being well acquainted with the Bible. Perhaps in your reading of Scriptures you have encountered passages that seemed to conflict with the doctrines of grace, or that you were unsure if the concept of an atonement for the elects alone was really scriptural. Personally, I myself had started to find some inconsistencies between the secret, as opposed to the revealed will of God, and had started to believe that the Arminian scheme does present the concept of a God who is truly loving. But even if you are not one of those people, and that no doubts in regard to Calvinism have even come to your mind, it would still be a good idea to read the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, or at least so in my opinion, and ensure that the foundation of your faith remains firm and unshakeable.
While John Wesley is considered by his followers as the greatest Arminian of all times, the best Arminian scholar of the eighteenth century, was probably neither him nor Adam Clark, but Dr. Daniel Whitby, an Anglican bishop and theologian. In 1733, his Discourse on the Five Points was reprinted, and judged a masterpiece on the subject, an unanswerable attack on the Five Points of Calvinism in favour of the Arminian Scheme. Whitby had essentially refined certain arguments from the Remonstrants, and constructed his own, presenting a large number of passages as “prooftexts” for Arminianism, and refuting all the main passages of Scripture that historic Calvinists had appealed to in favor of their system. He had directed much of his arguments both against low Calvinists like John Davenant and high Calvinists such as William Twisse. It would obviously take more than an amateur theologian to answer Dr. Whitby, perhaps more like a genuis, someone of the same calibre as Owen or Calvin. John Gill took the charge at hand and started writing a point-by-point refutation of Discourse on the Five Points which would send the treatise into the grave, where its master was then lying. Along with John Owen’s Death of Death I would judge The Cause of God and Truth as the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, both indeed being unrefutable.
The Cause of God and Truth consists of four parts. In the first part, Gill performs a thorough exegetical analysis of sixty different passages of Scripture that Dr. Whitby and other Arminians had raised in support of their system. Many of these passages are still being appealed to by Arminians today, whether in seminaries or on the Web. Yet, not a single one of them have taken the time to refute Gill on any one passage, and however less would have time to do it point-by-point. Gill’s approach to the Scriptures is both systematic and scientific. In his defense, he first presents the Arminian interpretation or argument drawn from Scriptures and point out the logical flaws in Dr. Whitby’s reasoning. Next, he begins to rule out various false or improbable interpretations by looking at the context, the grammar in the original language, or facts of history. He also frequently appeals to rabinical sources from non-Christian scholars, presenting their views, and he finally begins to converge towards the most probable interpretation that takes into account what the inspired author had in mind in writing what he did. Making continual use of the analogy of Scripture, the reader quickly learns to trust John Gill’s exegesis, for he never attempts to “prove his point,” occasionally adopting an interpretation that is less favourable to the Calvinist. Moreover, Gill is not carried away by every whimp of emotion when he writes. Unlike John Calvin, he does not use any demeaning language against his opponent, instead politely calling him “the learnt writer,” and unlike John Owen, he does not attempt to impress or shock his opponent with the large number of arguments he can raise against a sophist interpretation. Moreover, Gill is careful not to contradict himself, and is very technical in his semantics, ensuring that not a single door remains open for the Arminians to go through. He has always more than one possible solution to provide, but always highlights the most probable one rather than the most Calvinistic one. The reader who is acquainted with the Calvin and Owen will soon realize that Gill frequently converges to the same interpretation as those two, showing the great consitency that exists among high Calvinist scholars.
In the second part of the work, Gill presents a number of passages that carefully, and indeed clearly teach the doctrines of grace, presenting the historic Reformed interpretation, and then refuting the twisted arguments that Dr. Whitby had raised against them. The reader will be amazed to see the exposition of John Gill, as well as the malice of Arminianism in trying to fight the very Holy Spirit of Scriptures. This part has really helped me realize that Arminianism is truly heretical, and that Arminians who attempt to refute the clear and logical meaning of such passages are doing no less than resisting the truth of the Gospel.
In the third part of his work, Gill finally responds to many philosophical arguments that Whitby had raised in support of the Arminian scheme and against the Calvinistic one. Dr. Gill also admits how Calvinism share both similarities and differences with Stoicism, but is careful to clear the charge that Augustianism had risen from the influence of Stoicism in the early church. Unlike many low Calvinists who preceeded him, John Gill is not a fan of paradoxes, and consequently does not like to combine universal concepts with Calvinistic ones. Consequently, he does not feel obliged to support the concept of a general will in God to save all mankind, and a specific will to save some and damn others, or to add certain universal aspects to the atonement like other Calvinists such as Charles Hodge and James Ussher have done. In some cases, Gill actually agrees with his opponent, and is never overly dogmatic on a particular issue. In many respects, Gill adopts an agnostic position in regard to theological ideas that the Scriptures do not prove, such as whether dying infants are saved or damned, or the origin of the soul. Overall, the Calvinism of John Gill is the simplest, most logical model that naturally seems to pop out of Scriptures.
In the fourth part, Gill presents quotations from the writings of different church fathers to disprove Dr. Whitby’s claim that synergism was the theological system of the early church. Although certain writers like Origen were inconsitent or careless in some of their remarks, Gill shows that most of them were very much in the same line of thinking as Augustine, and that all Augustine did was to clarify and fine-tune the teachings of the apostles and church fathers, thus making Calvinism or Augustinianism the original truth of the early church. This is truly a masterpiece that must have required a lot of research on the part of Dr. Gill, in identifying all the hundreds of quotations and translating them into English. For example, from Irenaeus he points out: “He plainly hints at the stability and immoveableness of the decree of election, when he calls it, turris electionis, “the tower of election;” for why should he call it a tower, but because it is impregnable and immoveable, because “the purpose of God, according to election, is that foundation which stands sure, not of works, but of him that calleth?”
Unfortunately, some have criticized this work as being “one of hyper-Calvinism’s greater works” according to Dr. Matthew McMahon, and other Reformed theologians of today labelling it “John Gill’s hyper-Calvinistic Cause of God and Truth.” One may indeed appeal to different exerpts from the book that sound somewhat hyper-Calvinistic in their semantics, but it must be noted that the same language can be found in the writings of John Owen, John Calvin, and even a lot more so in Arthur W. Pink. Perhaps it is the fact that John Gill rejects the concept of a universal offer of grace that makes low Calvinists uncomfortable, or that Gill says that “the gospel is not an offer, but the power of God unto Salvation…” However, the careful reader will see that Gill is simply avoiding careless semantic that would make irresistible grace sound resistible. John Calvin and other Reformed theologians would speak of the “Gospel Offer” or the “Universal Offer,” with the original Latin connotation behind the word offero, which means to “present” or “put forth.” However, by 1735 it appears to me that the word had started to change connotation in the English tongue, suggesting that the gospel presentation had turned into today’s gospel offer, although I would need to do more research to prove this. This is at least true for the word passion, also derived from Latin which originally carried the connotation of “suffering” in English, and today means “a mild obsession.” Moreover, John Gill clearly believes in common grace, although he calls it “providencial goodness” or “kindness,” and clearly denies equal ultimacy, suggesting that God is passive towards the reprobates, not taking pleasure in adding unecessary burdens upon them. While Arthur Pink argues that God sovereignly hardens the reprobate, Gill interprets the hardening of the heart as a second cause. John Gill even shows that God is good towards the reprobate, occasionally granting them an outward or ceremonial repentance so that they may receive a milder punishment in hell. In regard to duty-faith, Gill presents various propositions in support of it, but later opts for an agnostic position, pointing out that God calls the reprobates to have at least a historical faith in Christ, but that it cannot be proven from Scriptures by direct exegesis whether God actually expects them to believe to the saving of their soul or not. Moreover, while many infralapsarians nowadays attempt to win Arminians over by portraying the supralapsarian scheme as cruel and extreme so as to make their position appear more moderate and biblical, John Gill actually defends both views against the attacks of Whitby, but overall seems to come down more infralapsarian, as can also be shown from other of his writings, and is also alleged by Toplady and his biographer John Rippon. Consequently, I do not see how the charges of hyper-Calvinism can be raised against Gill anymore than against Owen, Twisse, Calvin or Pink, especially in comparison to the real hyper-Calvinists that arose after him like John Ryland, James Well and more recently Herman Hoeksama.
The Cause of God and Truth is no less than a must-read for every Reformed Christian desiring to know how to defend his faith against the attacks of Arminians and Papists. John Gill’s Cause of God and Truth did not bring a final blow to Arminianism, since so long as there are sinners on earth there will be free-willers; rather, it brought a final blow to the scholarship of Arminianism. Today’s Arminians are like chicken without heads, leafing through their Bible in search of prooftexts where there are none. Those theologians who claim to believe in the authority of Scriptures and are outwardly Arminian are willfully ignorant, just like their father Wesley. Interestingly, while much of Wesley’s influence today has degenerated into some liberal church denominations, or Charismatic/Pentecostal movements, John Gill’s influence still stands through all his precious and influencial writings. There were no fewer than four pastors/theologians who wrote to Wesley urging him to stop spreading the lie, including John Gill, George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady and Jonathan Edwards. Unfortunately, Wesley hard-headedly continued to drive his movement forward, ignoring the wise and godly advise of his contemporaries. Perhaps if only he had tried to think rationally and read The Cause of God and Truth, things would have been different. Gordon H. Clark, the greatest Reformed philosopher of the twentieth century (along with Van Til) said that John Gill was a genuis for writing this treatise. I agree.
