Once again the claim has been put forward that John Gill was not a hypercalvinist. This time, though, this denial is embedded in the context of a another dispute regarding James White.
For the purposes of this post, I am not so much interested in the White aspect of the dispute, but in [...]
Continue reading about John Gill’s Hypercalvinism Revisited: A Response to Turretinfan
[Continuing from Part 1]
In this post, my aim is to document some recent historical claims made regarding John Gill’s hypercalvinism. I will first cite Tom Nettle’s original attempted defense of Gill, and then post a critical rebuttal by Robert Oliver. After this I will post a small comment from Nettles from another [...]
Continue reading about Was John Gill a Hypercalvinist? (Part II)
Hulse:
The essence of hyper-Calvinism is to minimise the moral and spiritual responsibilities of sinners. Hyperism undoubtedly affects preaching and teaching and is very dangerous because it can stultify and destroy the witness and life of a church. There are few exceptions. There have been some like William Gadsby, who although they intellectually adhered to hyperism [...]
[Part II continues here.]
From two critical sources, the one key element of classic hypercalvinism is the denial of duty-faith.
David Englesma:
But hypercalvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the should call everyone in [...]
Continue reading about Was John Gill a Hypercalvinist? (Part I)
Well “E” for Effort to our Mr Chew in Singapore. Mr Chew has produced his reply. You can find it here as a downloadable PDF. His main post is here.
I printed out the little opus and scanned it eagerly. Unfortunately for us, the actual amount of reply probably could be fit on one [...]
Continue reading about P = I. I = Irrelevant. Therefore P = Irrelevant
Recent Comments