Reading John Gill

[JohnOwen007]

Hey Joshua,

I suspected I might get a response from you. I didn't want to offend by anything I said; but I am speaking from my raw experience of Gillites. There exists very little in the way of mission activity from them in my experience (I'm not speaking for everyone's experience, only mine).

But I grow weary of the "crying 'wolf'!" that seems to be concerning those who disbelieve the idea that God "sincerely desires" something which is in complete contradiction to His decree.

I guess I grow weary of being told this is a contradiction, when the clear majority in the 16th and 17th century reformed tradition didn't see it as such. Hence, Francis Turretin drew a distinction between between God's will of εὐδοκίας (‘‘good pleasure”, the decretive will) and εὐαρεστίας (“approbation” / “complacency” / "delight" the preceptive will) [Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae III.xv.8, Opera 1:200]. In this way Turretin explains Ezek. 33:11 that God delights not in the death of anyone (εὐαρεστίας) but wills only the salvation of the elect (εὐδοκίας ).

Hence, other reformed divines taught:

Zacharias Ursinus:
"'God wills that all be saved' [1 Tim. 2:4], (i) in respect that he delights (delectatur) in the salvation of all" . (Ursinus, Doctrinae Christianae Compendium Canterbury: Thomas Thomasius, 1585, p. 483).

Robert Rollock:
"He [God] wills, I say, the salvation also of the reprobate, because the salvation of the creature is in itself a good thing" (Rollock, Analysis Dialectica [...] in Pauli Apostoli Epistolam ad Romanos 8:19-39, p. 140.)

Thomas Manton:
"God may be said to like the salvation of all men, yet not to intend it with an efficacious will" (Manton, Sermons upon Ezekiel XVIII.23 Sermon I, Works 21:465)

Matthew Henry:
"It is true, that God has determined to punish Sinners, his justice calls for it; and pursuant to that, impenitent Sinners will lie for ever under his Wrath and Curse; that’s the will of his Decree, his consequent Will, ‘tis not his antecedent Will, the Will of his delight: though the Righteousness of his Government requires that Sinners die, yet the Goodness of his Nature objects against it." (An exposition of The Old And New Testament, 4:459).

There are much better systematic theologies with which to get one's teeth into than Gill.

Blessings,

Marty.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I would highly recommend referring to his commentaries when ever possible. They are always enlightening historically and exegetically.

 

[bookslover]

Does anyone have an opinion on Gill's The Cause of God and Truth?

 

[JM]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/best-scholarly-defense-calvinism-32911/

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

. . .
I guess I grow weary of being told this is a contradiction, when the clear majority in the 16th and 17th century reformed tradition didn't see it as such. Hence, Francis Turretin drew a distinction between between God's will of εὐδοκίας (‘‘good pleasure”, the decretive will) and εὐαρεστίας (“approbation” / “complacency” / "delight" the preceptive will) [Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae III.xv.8, Opera 1:200]. In this way Turretin explains Ezek. 33:11 that God delights not in the death of anyone (εὐαρεστίας) but wills only the salvation of the elect (εὐδοκίας ).
. . .

Marty.

I searched my Giger Dennison P&R 3 Vol edition of Turretin and could not correlate to your reference. However, the ref to Ezek. 33:11 may be found in my 1:408. But I don't think your point is obvious. Turretin is consistent in his distinction between the decretive and preceptive aspects of God's will. You rightly indicate that Turretin sees this will of complacency/delight as indicating God's "preceptive" will. A few pages later, in 1:412, Turretin clearly says that God's will of complacency (εὐαρεστίας) "commands man's duty and declares what is pleasing to God."

The confusion comes when one tries to maintain that God has a "volitional" desire for the salvation of the reprobate. God's volition is expressed in his "decretive" will, not his "preceptive" will. Turretin is not confused here while I believe Amyraldians and Davenantian "dual reference" men are! So were Murray and Stonehouse in their "Free Offer" argument.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

You might want to try and get your hands on a copy of John Rippon's biography of Gill - "The Life and Writings of the Rev. John Gill, D.D." It can be obtained on Amazon fairly cheaply (around $10).

I have found it very informative and interesting.

 

[CarlosOliveira]

I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).

The two parts, I understand, were published separately; the Doctrinal (1767), then the Practical (1670). And, these were his last two books, published before his death in 1771, at the age of 73.

I've never read Gill before. Any suggestions?

1.) Find and read Richard Muller's articles, "John Gill and the Reformed Tradition,"

You may read this article on-line here

 

[bookslover]

I'm going to try to take a whack at reading John Gill's systematic theology. The edition I'm using is this one: A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures by John Gill; 3 volumes (London: W. Winterbotham, 1796).

The two parts, I understand, were published separately; the Doctrinal (1767), then the Practical (1670). And, these were his last two books, published before his death in 1771, at the age of 73.

I've never read Gill before. Any suggestions?

1.) Find and read Richard Muller's articles, "John Gill and the Reformed Tradition,"

You may read this article on-line here

Thanks, Carlos. I read it. That was a fascinating article by Muller; he really shed light for me on the sources of Gill's theological thought.