Gill on the Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Do you agree with Dr. John Gill on the covenant?

I have considered the covenant of grace in a former part of this work, as it was a compact in eternity, between the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Spirit; in which each person agreed to take his part in the economy of man’s salvation: and now I shall consider the administration of that covenant in the various periods of time, from the beginning of the world to the end of it. The covenant of grace is but one and the same in all ages, of which Christ is the substance; being given for "a covenant of the people", of all the people of God, both Jews and Gentiles, who is "the same" in the "yesterday" of the Old Testament, and in the "today" of the New Testament, and "for ever"; he is "the way, the truth, and the life", the only true way to eternal life; and there never was any other way made known to men since the fall of Adam; no other name under heaven has been given, or will be given, by which men can be saved. The patriarchs before the flood and after, before the law of Moses and under it, before the coming of Christ, and all the saints since, are saved in one and the same way, even "by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ"; and that is the grace of the covenant, exhibited at different times, and in divers manners. For though the covenant is but one, there are different administrations of it; particularly two, one before the coming of Christ, and the other after it; which lay the foundation for the distinction of the "first" and "second", the "old" and the "new" covenant, observed by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 8:7,8,13; 9:1,15; 12:24), for by the first and old covenant, is not meant the covenant of works made with Adam, which had been broke and abrogated long ago; since the apostle is speaking of a covenant waxen old, and ready to vanish away in his time: nor was the covenant of works the first and most ancient covenant; the covenant of grace, as an eternal compact, was before that; but by it is meant the first and most ancient administration of the covenant of grace which reached from the fall of Adam, when the covenant of works was broke, unto the coming of Christ, when it was superseded and vacated by another administration of the same covenant, called therefore the "second" and "new" covenant. The one we commonly call the Old Testament dispensation, and the other the New Testament dispensation; for which there seems to be some foundation in 2 Corinthians 3:6,14 and Hebrews 9:15 these two covenants, or rather the two administrations of the same covenant, are allegorically represented by two women, Hagar and Sarah, the bondwoman and the free (Gal. 4:22-26), which fitly describe the nature and difference of them. And before I proceed any farther, I shall just point out the agreement and disagreement of those two administrations of the covenant of grace.

For the rest visit: http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#2
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
Since Christ was slain before the foundation of the world[1Pet 1:20] and we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world[Eph 1] and He came to save HIS people from there sins and Abraham saw his day and was glad[John 8] and we're built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone: I believe I am in agreement with Mr. Gill. Not to mention I'm a closet Particular Baptist as well!;)
 

polemic_turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
I believe Gill has a lot to teach modern day Baptists about covenant theology. I can't wait to get to this part in my studies! :D
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Are you studying Gill right now? Is it a course or personal study? Please, share.
 

polemic_turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
No course; I've just got his commentaries, body of divinity, and too little time to fully use them at this point. Give me time, Lord!
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
No; the first part (first sentecne or two is OK) but he blows it completely when he distinguishes what is the old and new and how thye work. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Its seems like he is doubletalking. He being very "dispensational" by his own accord.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Mr. McMahon, no offence but why do you link [here in this thread and in your retraction] Baptistic thinking with dispensationalism? Are Baptist always dispensationalists according to your understanding of them?

jm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top