Dr. Gill also was constant and unwavering in his defining of "saving faith," showing from the scriptures that the faith of salvation included knowledge of Christ and the Gospel. He constantly defined the universal regenerating experience of "coming to Christ" as all the same thing as believing in him and trusting in his atoning death upon the cross, that which can only come by "hearing the word of God" (Romans 10).
This was perfectly in line with his predecessers of the 17th century, the view of John Bunyan, and John Spilsbury, and Benjamin Keach, and William Kiffin, and yes, even Samuel Richardson. Thus, Dr. Gill is not a 32nd cousin to modern Hardshellism.
Dr. Gill also believed and taught that the Spirit uses the means of the gospel to regenerate and birth the elect. He taught this in all his writings, never wavering in the least from that position. He also equated regeneration and the new birth.
Yes, in his theological definitions, in strict definition, he often made regeneration a first step in the process of the new birth, similar to what we see was the view of the first Hardshells generally. But, he never wavered from holding to the broader and scriptural definition of regeneration, which included effectual calling, conversion, sanctification, and both active and passives aspects of the work.
Complete or full regeneration, biblical regeneration, was not effected until one had actively turned to the Lord in faith, repentance, confession, and in becoming a disciple and follower of Jesus and his word; Dr. Gill did not restrict regeneration to simply the passive work of God.
Dr. Gill defines the term "regeneration" broadly unless he is speculating or giving a technical or theological definition of the word. How does he define the term, strictly or broadly? That is the question that each must be careful to keep in mind when he reads the good doctor; if one pays close attention to the context of his words, one will see that Dr. Gill writes carefully and lets the reader know when he is using the term in either its stricter or its broader signification. But, since when do the Hardshells read the scriptures, the confessions, or Dr. Gill, or Samuel Richardson, or the other Baptist forefathers, with such care and honesty? If they were honest they would come forth and say amen to what I am writing in this regard.
Dr. Gill did, in my opinion, show dotage in his later years, leanings toward Hyper Calvinism. I will have more to say about that later. However, he was never as "hyper" as many make him out to be, that is for sure.
Dr. Gill did cause harm, again in my opinion, by his speculating and deviating, at times, from strict scriptural definitions. But again, more on that later.
Dr. Gill probably molly-coddled the speculations of his young disciples, like John Brine. But, I do not see where even Brine rejected the view of Dr. Gill that men are called to faith and salvation by the gospel. It was all a question of whether all men were required to believe in Christ and repent of sins, or of "duty faith," a topic I have already addressed, and a question of "method," just which was the best way to present the gospel to the minds of the unregenerate, whether they should in any sense, by the preacher, be "offered" or "invited" to come to Christ for salvation. Brine believed that only the Holy Spirit could "offer Christ" in this manner, although he would use the gospel preached by the gospel preacher; or, as the Old Baptists were often heard to say, the Holy Spirit "takes the things of Christ and shows them (and offers) them to the heart, mind and soul of the unregenerate sinner."
Dr. Gill also agreed with what I have already written regarding the conversion cases of Lydia, and of the Pentecostal 3000 (to be dealt with at length in upcoming chapters on "Hardshell Proof Texts"), etc. He is against Hardshell interpretations on these cases of conversion.
Recall too how in the first chapter, in this series on "Gill and the Hardshells," I cited the words of Elder Biggs and his piecemeal citation of Gill, and where he added his own comment and interpretation to the citation of Gill, saying - "regeneration doesn't give ideas."
But, one cannot find an iota of evidence, from the writings of Dr. Gill, that he ever held such a notion, and to imply that he did, is gross dishonesty or ignorance, willful or otherwise. No, Dr. Gill believed that many "new ideas" come to the elect when they were effectually called by God's word and Spirit out of death in sin to life in Christ. They were unbelievers before their regeneration and believers after. How can one go from an unbeliever to a believer and not come to a new idea? Preposterous! What glorious Hardshell hermeneutics! (I hope to have some chapters on "Hardshell Hermeneutics" towards the end of this book)
Dr. Gill would not agree with Hardshells on what they say about the Greek active versus passive voice as used in the New Testament in regard to regeneration nor to what they say about conditional versus unconditional salvation (but more on that too in upcoming chapters on "Paradigm Problems").
I have shown the dishonesty of Cruise and Daily in their giving of half quotations from Dr. Gill and how they do the good doctor a great dishonor by charging so many falsehoods upon him.
But, let us see what the good doctor wrote about justification, especially those passages in his "Body of Divinity" that Hardshells cite in an attempt to again make him "one of them." I will cite enough to show the reader that I am not citing the doctor in a piece-meal fashion. I will also make comments where it is judged pertinent, and then I will close with citations from Samuel Richardson on the topic of "eternal justification" and show how he did not believe Hardshellism, as Elder Gowens and other Hardshells imagine.
I will also cite from John Spilsbury, William Kiffin and Hanserd Knollys, who were in close fellowship together with Richardson, Richardson being a member of the church of which Spilsbury pastored, and all who signed the first London Baptist Confession of Faith. I will then cite some things from Benjamin Keach, who became the leading spokesman for the Particular Baptists in the period leading up to the signing of the second London Confession. Kiffin forms a link between the first and second London Confessions, the only one to sign them both.
"Of Other Eternal And Immanent Acts In God, Particularly Adoption And Justification." (Book Two Chapter Five)
Dr. Gill writes:
"I shall not here treat of these as doctrines, in the full extent of them; or as blessings of grace actually bestowed upon, and enjoyed by believers, with all the privileges and advantages arising from thence; or as transient acts passing on them, and terminating in their consciences at believing; but as internal and immanent acts, taken up in the mind of God from eternity, and which abide in his will..."
This is one caveat that the Hardshells miss! Dr. Gill wrote upon the subject of justification in two separate works, one dealing with the justification as an eternal and immanent act of God, and being effectually and fully wrought out by Christ on the cross, and the other dealing with justification as it is experienced, imparted, and received by the elect in their calling by the Spirit and word of God, or "by faith."
Notwithstanding this warning of Dr. Gill, the Hardshells take what Dr. Gill says here about justification as an eternal act of God, or as an eternal decree to justify in time by the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and think that it contradicts what he says elsewhere when treating of justification as it is applied and experienced by the believer in Jesus when he is saved and born again.
Dr. Gill says he is "not treating of" justification "as a grace actually bestowed," or of regeneration, where the effects, results, fruits, and certain consequences of the work of Christ are actually "applied to the conscience of the believer." But, in the Hardshell paradigm of the new birth, there is nothing applied to the "conscience" of the sinner! But, of this I will more fully address in those chapters on "Hardshell Paradigm Problems." Notice however, that Dr. Gill affirms, in the above introductory remark, that justification does "not terminate" until it is enjoyed and experienced by the believer in Jesus. That denies Hardshellism.
He says further:
"First, It did not begin in time, but commenced from eternity; it is an act of God’s will, and has its complete essence in it; and the will of God is eternal, no new will, nor any new act of will, arises in God in time; or otherwise he would not be the unchangeable God he is.
It is an act that does not first take place at believing; indeed the saints are "all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus", openly and manifestatively, (Gal. 3:26) but then it is not faith that makes them children, but what makes them appear to be so..."
This is where the Hardshells wills sometimes stop in their citation of Dr. Gill. If the above were cited to one unfamiliar with Dr. Gill, and who did not know the context of his remarks, he might think that Dr. Gill was upholding Hardshellism, affirming that faith is no part of regeneration or justification, in any sense. He might even get the impression that Dr. Gill believed that one did not have to have faith, or believe in Jesus, in order to be saved, or to (in any sense) become a child of God. But, that would be reading the doctor out of context and misapplying his sentiments to areas where he cautioned against applying them. Dr. Gill was affirming that all whom God decreed to justify, from eternity, were justified when Christ died on the cross (for those whom the Father decreed to justify), and that all these would certainly be effectually called in time by the word and Spirit and thus receive the fruit and effects of this justification.
What the Hardshells do, in their system, is to leave out faith in Christ as a certain guaranteed effect of the decree of God and the death of Christ. They believe only a very few of the elect will receive the blessings of faith and repentance.
Dr. Gill continues:
"...adoption is the act of God, and not of faith; it is God that says, "How shall I put them among the children?" and again, "I will be their Father, and they shall be my sons and daughters", (Jer. 3:19; 2 Cor. 6:18) it is the work and business of faith to receive the blessing of adoption, which it could not do, unless it had been previously provided in the mind and by the will of God, and in the covenant of his grace; for the reception of which Christ has made way by his redemption, one end of which is "that we might receive the adoption of sons", (Gal. 4:5) that is, by faith; for God has appointed faith to be the general receiver of Christ, and of all the blessings of grace through him, and this among the rest; and to as many as receive Christ, he gives exousian, a power, authority, dignity, and privilege to become the sons of God openly; that is, to claim this as their privilege and dignity; which claim is made by faith; but not the thing itself claimed; " even to them that believe on his name", and who are described as regenerate persons; which is an evidence of their sonship, though not the thing itself; "who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man; but of God" (John 1:12, 13). But though this describes such who are the sons of God openly, and who believe..."
Hardshells erroneously think they have something they can claim as a support for Hardshellism and their "Spirit alone" theory of "regeneration" in such sections lifted piecemeal from the writings of the great doctor. A dishonest Hardshell might look at the above citation and cite them in the following fashion.
1. "Justification...is an act that does not first take place at believing."
2. "It is not faith that makes them children."
3. "Faith...is an evidence of their sonship."
They might even write a book and say, "see there, Dr. Gill is our man"! But, it would either be stunning dishonesty or amazing ignorance.
But, of course, he did not mean to imply that faith in Christ was not a part of regeneration or the new birth! Hardshells must read that into their misconstruction and misinterpretation of the good doctor.
All Calvinistic Missionary Baptists believe what the good doctor wrote on justification. Yes, the Arminian Baptists may have some who believe that a man is not justified, in any sense, before he believes, and that he creates his own faith, and that he is justified on the basis on that self created faith, but true Old Calvinistic Missionary Baptists do not believe this. Rather, we believe that all those who the Father justified in eternity, by an eternal act of his will, are the same ones who in time were justified when Christ died for them on the cross, and that the absolute certain consequences of these acts of the Father and Son in justification are regeneration, faith and repentance, pardon of sin, and the gift of righteousness, and of the Holy Spirit.
The Hardshell system has most of the elect and justified not ever receiving, in this life, the gifts of faith and repentance! A man is justified when Christ died on the cross. Does that mean he doesn't have to be regenerated or come to faith, yea, even to be born at all? Hardshell logic and the Hardshell paradigm on salvation, must force them to answer yes, and make either natural birth or regeneration unnecessary to actually become a child of God and justified!
Dr. Gill continues:
"The elect of God are frequently spoken of as a distinct number of men, given to Christ, and as previous to their coming to him by faith, which is the certain fruit and consequence of that gift; see (John 17:2, 6, 9, 24, 6:37) yea, they were given to Christ before the world was; for if grace was given to them in him before the world began, they themselves must be given to him, and be in him before the world began (2 Tim. 1:9). Now these were given to Christ in the relation of children, and therefore must be children so early; "Behold, I, and the children which God hath given me" (Heb. 2:13)."
It is not Hardshell doctrine to see faith and repentance, evangelical graces, as the "certain fruit and consequences" of what Christ has done on the cross! If they believed it was, then they would also believe that all the elect will come to faith and repentance, through the gospel. Just because Dr. Gill believed that one was a child of God by election, even before human existence, did not negate his belief that they also become children of God in a new birth, children of God by faith. To affirm that one is the result of the other does not support Hardshellism, however.
Dr. Gill continues:
"Active justification is the act of God; it is God that justifies. Passive justification is the act of God, terminating on the conscience of a believer, commonly called a transient act, passing upon an external object. It is not of this I shall now treat, but of the former; which is an act internal and eternal, taken up in the divine mind from eternity..."
In the words of Dr. Gill, justification was not accomplished until there was something experienced in the conscience of the believer. This experience in the conscience is regeneration. Regeneration follows justification as an effect of the death of Christ. But, justification, as it is experienced in the conscience and soul of the elect, is a new birth or conversion experience.
The Hardshell system has nothing done in the conscience when one is "regenerated"! If they try to deny this, which they may, simply ask them - "what happens to the conscience of the infant when it is regenerated?" When it is all said and done, you will discover that the Hardshell experience of "regeneration" is nothing but a "hollow log" experience. Is it not at least such a thing with most of the elect, by the Hardshell system (seeing they believe all who die in infancy are regenerated and cleansed in conscience by the blood of Jesus, together with all idiots)?
Dr. Gill continues:
"First, It does not begin to take place in time, or at believing, but is antecedent to any act of faith.
Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free grace of God; "Being justified freely by his grace", (Rom. 3:24) nor the efficient cause of it; "It is God that justifies", (Rom. 8:33) nor the meritorious cause, as some express it; or the matter of it, that is the obedience and blood of Christ, (Rom. 5:9, 19) or the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his active and passive obedience; nor even the instrumental cause; for, as Mr. Baxter himself argues, "If faith is the instrument of our justification, it is the instrument either of God or man; not of man, for justification is God’s act; he is the sole Justifier, (Rom. 3:26) man doth not justify himself: nor of God, for it is not God that believes": nor is it a "causa sine qua non", as the case of elect infants shows; it is not in any class of causes whatever; but it is the effect of justification: all men have not faith, and the reason why some do not believe is, because they are none of Christ’s sheep; they were not chosen in him, nor justified through him; but justly left in their sins, and so to condemnation; the reason why others believe is, because they are ordained to eternal life, have a justifying righteousness provided for them, and are justified by it, and shall never enter into condemnation: the reason why any are justified, is not because they have faith; but the reason why they have faith, is because they are justified; was there no such blessing of grace as justification of life in Christ, for the sons of men, there would be no such thing as faith in Christ bestowed on them; precious faith is obtained through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, (2 Peter 1:1) nor, indeed, would there be any room for it, nor any use of it, if a justifying righteousness was not previously provided. Agreeable to this are the reasonings and assertions of Twisse, Maccovius, and others. Now if faith is not the cause, but the effect of justification; then as every cause is before its effect, and every effect follows its cause, justification must be before faith, and faith must follow justification."
Dr. Gill is not wavering from what was essentially taught and believed by his predecessars, from the belief of Spilsbury, Knollys, Kiffin, Richardson, and Keach.
All these men believed the elect were justified by God's eternal decree, and also, in a different sense, when Christ died upon the cross and rose from the grave. Thus, they taught that the elect were justified before they were born into this world and that what they receive thereby, in this world, comes to them as a sure consequence of that fully wrought out justification. But, they also believed that this justification and the righteousness it brings, comes to the elect when they are regenerated and converted, when they receive by faith the blessings of justification in their hearts and minds, in their consciences. So, for Dr. Gill, to say men are justified before faith, is not to affirm Hardshellism. It is not equivalent to him also saying that men can be saved whether they ever have faith in Christ!
Dr. Gill writes further:
"Faith is the evidence and manifestation of justification, and therefore justification must be before it; "Faith is the evidence of things not seen", (Heb. 11:1) but it is not the evidence of that which as yet is not; what it is an evidence of, must be, and it must exist before it. The "righteousness of God", of the God-man and mediator Jesus Christ, "is revealed from faith to faith", in the everlasting gospel, (Rom. 1:17) and therefore must be before it is revealed, and before faith, to which it is revealed: faith is that grace whereby a soul, having seen its guilt, and its want of righteousness, beholds, in the light of the divine Spirit, a complete righteousness in Christ, renounces its own, lays hold of that, puts it on as a garment, rejoices in it, and glories of it; the Spirit of God witnessing to his spirit, that he is a justified pers on; and so he is evidently and declaratively "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11)."
Again, faith is viewed not as an unessential means of applying the benefits of Christ's justification, in the writings of Dr. Gill. It is the Arminians who think that God, by their brand of "foreknowledge," looked down through the corridors of time and saw who, by their own free will and initiative, believes and repents, and chose them on that basis and it is this Arminian view that Gill, like Richardson, were writing against. True Calvinistic Missionary Baptists do not believe in this kind of system but believe what Gill and Richardson affirmed on justification being the result of God's gracious decree as acted out in Christ Jesus and his death upon the cross for sin, but they reject, as did the Old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, the idea that any of the elect would fail to be justified by faith, in time, in their regeneration experience.
Dr. Gill continues:
"Faith adds nothing to the "esse" only to the "bene esse" of justification; it is no part of, nor any ingredient in it; it is a complete act in the eternal mind of God, without the being or consideration of faith, or any foresight of it; a man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith..."
Again, this is the Arminian view that Dr. Gill is refuting, not the view of his Baptist predecessars, all who believed that faith in Christ was essential to eternal salvation, although it be a consequent of the justification achieved and accomplished by Christ's death on Calvary.
Dr. Gill continues:
"Justification is the object, and faith the act that is conversant with it. Now every object is prior to the act that is concerned with it; unless when an act gives being to the object, which is not the case here; for faith, as has been seen, is not the cause, nor matter of justification; what the eye is to the body, that is faith to the soul: the eye, by virtue of its visive faculty, beholds sensible objects, but does not produce them; they are before they are seen, and did they not previously exist, the eye could not behold them; the sun is before it is seen; and so in innumerable other instances: faith is to the soul, as the hand is to the body, receives things for its use; but then these things must be before they are received; faith receives the blessing of justification from the Lord, even that righteousness by which it is justified, from the God of its salvation; but then this blessing must exist before faith can receive it (Ps. 24:5). Christ’s righteousness, by which men are justified, is compared to a robe or garment, which faith puts on; but then as a garment must be wrought and completely made, before it is put on, so must the justifying righteousness of Christ be, before it can be put on by faith."
But Hardshells do not believe that "faith" is the "hand" that receives the justification of Christ! They rather believe that many go to Heaven without faith at all! What kind of faith do infants and idiots have to receive the gift of Christ's righteousness?
In the famous court case called "The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church" (1909), resulting from a division within Mt. Carmel Regular Old School Baptist Church, the question of who were the real Old Baptists was debated, with the court's decision to determine who retained ownership of the church property. Involved in this question was who was more in keeping with the church's deed restrictions, as to articles of faith, and more in keeping with the sentiments of the majority of Old School or Primitive Baptists in the years immediately after the famed "Black Rock Address" in 1832. The chief issue was, of course, the question of means in regeneration, and of the connection between faith and salvation, together with questions about Sunday Schools, missions, and other matters. I will be addressing this famous court case in later chapters.
This trial is connected with a division over the "means question" in the 1880's, in parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky, for the most part. Elders W. T. Pence and E. H. Burnam were two leading Old School or Regular Baptist ministers who took the position that the Old Baptists, after 1832, did not firmly stake out a position against gospel means, and yet was, they argued, the majority position, and that it was not till the latter half of the 19th century that the present majority faction, "gained the ascendency," the faction that says "faith in Christ is not necessary to regeneration and salvation."
In this trial, Elder Burnam was questioned about the causes of the division. In his testimony he gives this information about himself:
"I am at present a citizen of Virginia; 76 years old, and occupation, minister exclusively...I am a minister of the Regular Baptists, or Old School Baptists, as it was called, and is yet in many places...I have been a minister , ordained, since the 4th day of April, 1857."
Here is some of that testimony.
Q. "Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?"
A. (by Elder Burnam) "Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith."
Q. "By whom has that departure been made?"
A. "That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate."
Q. "I hand you copy of the publication called Zion’s Advocate, of June 1891, and call your attention to the places marked on pages 123 and 124. Please state whether or not that is the publication to which you refer."
A. "Yes, sir; this is the book. This is the book to which I refer. Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth of June 1891."
Q. "Who was the editor of that?"
A. "The editors were Elders C. H. Waters and T. S. Dalton."
Q. "Give us the quotation now?"
A. (Reading.) “Faith is the fruit of the spirit and not the soil into which the spirit is planted. Hence it, like repentance, knowledge of the truth, power to hear the gospel and further the growth in Christ is the evidence of spiritual life in the soul and not the means by which life is obtained. Eternal life may exist without all or any of these evidences. Take, for instance, the case of John, the Baptist, had he not the spirit before his natural birth when he leaped at the salutation of the mother of his Lord. Regeneration had certainly taken place but could it have been manifested by his exercise of faith, repentance, etc.? Certainly not. Upon this principle we can rejoice in the hope of the salvation of the infant, the idiot and the heathen who has never heard the name of Jesus. Spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance towards God or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration, and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of his grace from this time state, ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the River.”
"That was the declared faith of this paper and as I have reason to believe accepted by the people, because subsequently, in 1898, when I gave my opinion of this doctrine, I was assailed by the Editor of this same paper, John R, Daily, which led to a dispute between us lasting for two or three years. He declared himself the advocate of the same thoughts and ideas."
Q. "Did I understand you to say, Mr. Burman, that faith was necessary to regeneration?"
A. "It is inseparable from regeneration, Mr. Leedy. We do not say that a man must believe in order to be regenerated. We don’t say that a man must be regenerated in order to believe, but being regenerated he believes, and believing he is regenerated. They are simultaneous and inseparable."
Q. "You believe that faith is necessary to salvation then?"A. "Oh, yes, certainly, just as much as regeneration is."
Q. "Do you believe that infants are ever elect?"
A. "All infants are elected."
Q. "Well, faith is not necessary to their salvation, is it?"
A. "There is one recorded instance of a man who was unborn, who rejoiced in God, the Saviour."
Q. "You have reference to John leaping in his mother’s womb?"
A. "Yes, sir; for joy. Don’t say simply leaping, but leaping for joy."
Q. "You think he had faith. Is that what gave him joy?"
A. "How can a man rejoice without faith, Mr. Leedy?"
William F. Keyser (Member of Burnam side)
"I believe this, that it is necessary for any person who is saved to have a knowledge of Christ, a knowledge of the gospel of Christ; I believe that God provides the means by which the knowledge of this gospel shall be brought to that individual sinner; I believe that without a knowledge of Christ, and without the gospel, in its broad sense, no mortal under Heaven can be saved; I believe in addition to that that God has provided means by which all his elect chosen in Christ before the world was shall be saved; I believe that God has provided a means, a means chosen in eternity, that he has chosen, ordained, the means by which this is brought about. It is not a question for us to say what God can do or what God cannot do; the question that concerns us most is what God requires of us to do. He tells his ministers to “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel and lo, I am with you even unto the end of the world” and I believe it is their duty to obey. I imagine the purpose of that command of Christ is for the salvation of his own people; if not, it seems to me it would be a useless command."
"The “Anti-Means” however, believe that---if I understand it correctly---men are saved faith or no faith."
Q. "Where did you get that idea from, that that is their belief?"
A. "I get that from the writing of, principally from Dr. Waters who is a member, or was a member, I think he is living yet, of a church of like faith and order whom they endorse, whom Elder Daily, the pastor of this very church here endorsed."Zion’s Advocate for August, 1898, page 225 - "Every saved child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith; infants and idiots must be so saved for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated, faith (belief) therefore is not necessary to eternalsalvation.”
(http://primitivebaptist.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=825&Itemid=56)
Thus, modern Hardshell doctrine, following the faction represented by Daily, Potter, Waters, and Dalton, is directly opposite to the teachings of Dr. Gill on this topic, and were he alive today, he would be insulted by the treatment his writings have received from the Hardshells, would repudiate Elder Potter saying "Gill is our man."
But, getting back to Gill and what he said about justification and its relationship to faith, he continues:
"Secondly, Justification is not only before faith, but it is from eternity, being an immanent act in the divine mind, and so an internal and eternal one..."
"It is further objected, that if God’s elect are justified from eternity, then they were not only justified before they themselves existed, but before any sin was committed by them; and it seems absurd that men should be justified from sins before they were committed, or any charge of them brought against them. To which may be replied, that it is no more absurd to say, that God’s elect were justified from their sins before they were committed, than it is to say, that they were imputed to Christ, and he died for them, and made satisfaction for them before committed..."
"Justification, as a transient act, and declarative, follows calling; but as an immanent act in God, it goes before it, of which we are only speaking, as ought always to be remembered."
But, my Hardshell friends, where does Dr. Gill eliminate faith from the experience of regeneration in these words? Does he not constantly uphold faith as the means by which the elect receive the effects and fruits of the justification wrought out by Christ on the cross.
He continues:
"It is affirmed, that those various passages of scripture, where we are said to be justified through faith, and by fairly, have no other tendency than to show that faith is something prerequisite to justification, which cannot be said if justification was from eternity. To which the answer is, that those scriptures which speak of justification, through and by faith, do not militate against, nor disprove justification before faith; for though justification by and before faith differ, yet they are not opposite and contradictory. They differ, the one being an immanent act in God; all which sort of acts are eternal, and so before faith; the other being a transient declarative act, terminating on the conscience of the believer; and so is by and through faith, and follows it. But then these do not contradict each other, the one being a declaration and manifestation of the other. What scriptures may be thought to speak of faith, as a prerequisite to justification, cannot be understood as speaking of it as a prerequisite to the being of justification; for faith has no causal influence upon it, it adds nothing to its being, it is no ingredient in it, it is not the cause nor matter of it; at most, they can only be understood as speaking of faith as a prerequisite to the knowledge and comfort of it, and to a claim of interest in it; and this is readily allowed, that no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes; that is, he cannot have the knowledge of it, nor any comfort from it (which, to Dr. Gill, is what constitutes regeneration!); nor can he claim his interest in it, without faith (again, which is part of regeneration, in Dr. Gill's teachings); and this being observed, obviates another objection, that if justification is before faith, then faith is needless and useless (that is what the Hardshells reason from what the doctor wrote! watch him correct their mistake!). It is not so; it is not of use to justify men, which it is never said to do; but it is of use to receive the blessing of justification, and to enjoy the comfort of it."
I ask my Hardshell friends this very simple question - "can a man, according to the bible or Dr. Gill, 'receive' the blessing of justification without faith?" Though faith is not the ground of justification, yet it is the means of receiving it!
Dr. Gill writes further:
"It is asserted, that justification cannot be from eternity, but only in time, when a man actually believes and repents; otherwise it would follow, that he who is justified, and consequently has passed from death to life, and is become a child of God, and an heir of eternal life, abides still in death, and is a child of wrath, because he who is not yet converted, and lies in sin, abides in death, (1 John 3:14) and is of the devil, (1 John 3:8) and in a state of damnation, (Gal. 5:21) but this latter especially cannot be admitted of, with respect to God’s elect, even while unconverted."
"It is urged what the apostle says (1 Cor. 6:11). "Now ye are justified"; as if they were not justified before; but the word now is not in the text; and was it, and admit that to be the sense of it, it does not follow that they were not justified before: for so they might be "in foro dei", in the court of God, and in his account from eternity, and in Christ their Head and Surety, and especially when he rose from the dead, before now; yet not till now be justified in "foro conscientiae", in their own consciences, and by the Spirit of God; which is the justification the apostle is there speaking of. In a word, the sentence of justification pronounced on Christ, the representative of his people, when he rose from the dead, and that which is pronounced by the Spirit of God in the consciences of believers, and that which will be pronounced before men and angels at the general judgment, are only so many repetitions, or renewed declarations, of that grand original sentence of it, conceived in the mind of God from all eternity; which is the eternal justification pleaded for; and is no other than what many eminent divines of the highest character for learning and judgment, have asserted, as before observed; and it is to such as these Dr. Owen refers, when he replied to Mr. Baxter, who charged him with holding eternal justification; "I neither am, nor ever was of that judgement; though as it may be explained, I know better, wiser, and more learned men than myself, (and he might have added, than Mr. Baxter,) that have been, and are."
(www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal-Divinity/Book2/book2_05.htm)
"Of Justification" (Book Six, Chapter Eight)
"Pardon of sin, and justification from it, are very closely connected; the one follows upon the other; according to the position of them in some passages of scripture, pardon is first, and justification next; (as in Acts 13:38, 39; 26:18), though they are not, the one, in reality, prior to the other; they are both together in the divine mind, and in the application of them to the conscience of a sinner..."
This certainly is contrary to Hardshellism! Their regeneration paradigm omits any application of pardon and justification to the conscience of a sinner!
Dr. Gill continues, talking about the various causes of justification.
"1. In their efficient cause, God: as God only can and does forgive sin, it is his prerogative, it is peculiar to him; so it is God that justifies the sinner, and he only; "there is one God, who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith"; that is, that justifies both Jews and Gentiles, who believe in Christ (Mark 2:7; Rom. 3:30).
2. In their moving cause, the free grace of God: pardon of sin is owing to the riches of God’s grace, and the multitude of his tender mercy; and justification is ascribed to the grace of God, and is said to be freely by his grace (Eph 1:7; Ps. 51:1; Titus 3:7; Rom. 3:24).
3. In their procuring cause, the blood of Christ: the blood of Christ was shed to procure the remission of sins, and it is by it; and so likewise justification is by the same blood (Matthew 26:28; Rom. 5:9).
4. In the objects of it: the same persons that are pardoned are justified, and the same that are justified are pardoned; to whom God imputes the righteousness of Christ, to their justification, to them he gives the remission of sin; and to whom he does not impute sin, but forgives it, he imputes righteousness without works (Rom. 4:6-8).
5. In their commencement and completion: pardon and justification commence together, and both are finished at once, "simul" and "semel"; and are not carried on in a gradual and progressive way, as sanctification is (Col. 2:13; Acts 13:39).
6. In the manner of actual enjoying them, which is in a way of receiving, and that by faith; it is by faith men receive the forgiveness of sins; and by it they receive abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness to justification of life; and, this is what the Scriptures call justification by faith (Acts 26:18; Rom. 5:1, 17, 18). But though they agree in these things, in others they differ."
Again, this is a flat denial of Hardshellism! Why any Hardshell would want to cite from these sections on Justification in an attempt to prove that Dr. Gill believed like Elders Daily, Waters, and Dalton, that faith in Christ was not necessary for the receiving of salvation, is amazing.
He writes further:
"I have, in a former part of this work, see "Justification" 853 (that I cited from at the beginning - SMG), treated of justification, as an immanent and eternal act in God; and so it may be said to be from eternity, and before faith; and in what sense it is so, with a removal of objections, has been shown in the place referred to; and therefore shall only now discourse concerning justification, as it terminates in the conscience of a believer; and which the scriptures style justification by faith."
"The word "justify" is never used in a physical sense, for producing any real internal change in men; but in a forensic sense, and stands opposed, not to a state of impurity and unholiness, but to a state of condemnation; it is a law term, and used of judicial affairs, transacted in a court of judicature; (see Deut. 25:1; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:22; Matthew 12:37), where justification stands opposed to condemnation; and this is the sense of the word whenever it is used in the doctrine under consideration..."
"As it is to faith the righteousness of Christ is revealed, and by faith it is received, hence believers are said to be justified by faith; so this faith, as well as righteousness, is of Christ; as he is the object of it, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me"; so he is the "author" and "finisher" of it (John 14:1; Heb. 12."
"He works faith in convinced and enlightened persons, to look at the righteousness of Christ, and take a view of its glories and excellencies; to approve of it, desire it, and to lay hold on it, and receive it as their justifying righteousness. Such a faith is of the operation of God, of the Spirit of God; it is what he works in the saints, and enables them to exercise it; hence he is called, "the Spirit of faith" (Col. 2:13; 2 Cor. 4:13)."
"The objects of justification are described as sinners, and ungodly: "sinners" (Gal. 2:17), "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5). So they are, in their unregenerate state: but when converted, they are described as believers in Christ; for the righteousness of Christ is "unto all, and upon all them that believe"; it is applied unto them, and put upon them; and they have a comfortable sense and perception of their justification by it; they "believe in Jesus Christ, that they might be justified by the faith of Christ"; by Christ, the object of faith, and through believing in him, have a comfortable view of their justification before God, and acceptance with him; hence it is said, that "by him all that believe are justified", openly and manifestatively, and have the testimony and comfort of it within themselves; and these may be said to be "justified by faith"; by Christ, and his righteousness received by faith, (Rom. 5:1 3:22 Gal. 2:16 Acts 13:39) and such are not nominal believers, who only have a notional, historical faith, or who only profess to believe, as Simon Magus did; but who, "with the heart, believe unto righteousness"; who truly and heartily believe in the righteousness of Christ for their justification before God; and such shall never come into condemnation, (Rom. 10:10 John 5:24)."
"Nor are faith, repentance, and new obedience, the terms of it, and required by it, as conditions of men’s acceptance with God; faith and repentance, as doctrines, are gospel doctrines, and parts of the gospel ministry; and as graces, are not terms and conditions required in it, to be performed by men of themselves; they are blessings of grace, declared in it, and are gifts of grace bestowed on men; faith is the gift of God, and repentance is a grant from him; and both they, and new and spiritual obedience, are provided for in the covenant of grace (Ezek. 36:26, 27)."
Again, though Dr. Gill does not believe men are justified because of a man's self created faith, this does not negate his consistently believing that the decrees of God relative to election and justification did actually guarantee that all the elect would be brought to saving faith and repentance.
He continues:
"Fifthly, nor faith, the "to credere", or act of believing; this is, by some, said to be imputed for righteousness; but is not so; for, Faith, as a man’s act, is his own; and is called "his" faith, "thy" faith, and "my" faith (Hab. 2:5; Matthew 9:22; 15:28; Jas. 2:18), whereas, the righteousness by which a man is justified, is not his own, but another’s, and therefore not faith."
"Now faith is neither the one nor the other; and though men are said to be "justified by faith", yet not as an act of men; for then they would be justified by works, contrary to express scripture; nor by it as a grace of the Spirit in men; for this would confound justification and sanctification together; but by the object of it, Christ, and his righteousness, apprehended, received, and embraced by faith. And though believers are said to be justified by faith, yet faith is never said to justify them."
If faith be the channel for receiving God's eternal blessings, how could it be unneccesary and not a part of regeneration?
He says further:
"It is called, "the gift of righteousness", and "the free gift", and "the gift by grace" (Rom. 5:15-17), because freely wrought out by Christ, and freely imputed by God the Father; and faith is freely given to receive and embrace it."
"Peace with God is another fruit and effect of justification; being "justified by faith, we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1), peace with God is made by the blood of Christ, and reconciliation by his death; and besides that, there is a peace of conscience which is had in a way of believing, and through a comfortable sense and perception of an interest in the righteousness of Christ, the effect of which is peace and quietness (Isa. 32:17)."
But, this experience of faith and peace in conscience is, to Dr. Gill and the Old Baptist of the Confessions, the sum and substance of regeneration!
Elder William Kiffin - "The Place Of Justification"
Written as the introduction to Richardson's Treastise
Elder Richardson himself addressed his writing as follows:
"TO THE HOLY SPOUSE OF JESUS CHRIST, WHO ARE Subject to Him in the Obedience of the Gospel."
Elder Kiffin says:
"Some place justification to be only in the conscience. But we place it only in Christ where it is, and to Whom it belongs. Justification consists in taking away of sin. None but Christ can do that. Justification and acceptation are one. For without justification there is no acceptation. And seeing we are accepted in Christ, we are justified in Him. If our justification be a spiritual blessing, (as it is) then it is in Christ where all spiritual blessings are, "Blessed be God, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ," Eph. 1:3. Where our redemption and righteousness are, there is our justification. Righteousness and justification are one. This we have not in our selves but in Christ, "who is made unto us of God, wisdom and righteousness," 1 Cor. 1:30. "In whom we have redemption," Col. 1:14. Our justification is a part of our completeness. Therefore, where we are complete there we are justified. But we are not complete in our selves, but in Him Col. 2:10. If all things on which depends our happiness were accomplished, John 19:28, then was our justification also. For without that no man could be saved."
"The Mystery of Justification by Christ Alone"
"This mystery of Christ is a great mystery. Oh meditate and dive as deep as you are able into this mystery. The benefit will be great and sweet. The more I am exercised herein, the more I see into it and enjoy justification by Christ alone, and more clearly see our believing cannot justify us. Yet I deny not but the power to believe is from the Spirit, Who is the life of motion in faith. The life of faith is the life of Christ as I have treated elsewhere; what faith is, and what it does, and wherein it differs from presumption, etc. God hath given faith in His to know, assent and believe the Truth, Heb. 11:3, Acts 28:24."
"The Unbeliever Has No Knowledge of Any Justification"
"Also we confess that he that believes not has no knowledge of any justification. All who are without faith are visibly in a perishing state. There is not the least appearance to the contrary. No man may apply salvation to such as believe not. Nor may they apply any to themselves. Such as believe not have no enjoyment of God, no true peace, no evidence of life, no right to Baptism, or the Supper. They cannot see the mystery of the Truth. He cannot honor God nor love the truth, nor suffer for it."
"The Occasion For This Present Work"
"Yet faith cannot satisfy justice nor merit the pardon of the least sin. Only Christ can do that. And that exposition that gives most glory to Christ and least to man, I believe is the truth. This is that which occasioned me to write at this time. For since my Book entitled the Saints Desire has been published, I have received several Objections against what I have written in page 147. Namely, that we are justified by Christ alone and not by our believing. Some affirm the contrary. Their Reasons with an answer I here present to your considerations because I am persuaded I have written the truth, and that the contrary opinion is dishonorable to our Lord Jesus Christ, in that they ascribe not their justification to Him alone, but to something else, namely, their believing."
"Faith Is Not The Cause"
"That faith or any thing in us is not a cause, means, or condition, required to partake of the Covenant of Grace, justification or salvation, but only fruits and effects of the Covenant."
"Only The Power of God Can Correct Man's Mistakes About Justification"
"Without having respect either to any thing in the creature, or done by the creature, this favoring so much of pure grace in respect of the love of God, and that Covenant which lies between Christ and God, as that poor creature, man, knows not how to own or receive it. Truly, it must be no less nor no other power put forth by God to cause the soul to be believe this, than was put forth in raising up Christ from the dead, Eph. 1:18."
"Justification By Christ Alone Sets Forth the True Place of Faith in Salvation As An Evidence of Interest In Christ But Not A Join-Partner With Christ."
"Truly amongst those who are the beloved ones of our Lord Jesus, who have a like share and interest in Him as their life and peace, there is an aptness in men to miscarry in the knowledge of this rich grace of God. Some being apt to conceive that there is no Justification of a creature in no sense before and without faith, and so make Faith a joint-partner with Christ in the business of Justification. For, indeed, this is to me a certain truth, that whatsoever gives a being to a thing must needs be a part of that thing which it gives being to, and therefore, if there be no Justification in no sense considered, but as it has respect to faith. It is much to be feared, that that opinion claimed a great share of that glory which is peculiar to Christ Jesus alone. That the Scripture holds forth justification by faith in a sense is very clear, but yet under no other consideration, but by way of evidence, Heb. 11:1, 2. As it respects the taking away of sin from off the Conscience: For indeed the debt is paid by the blood of Christ alone, and we are therefore said to be justified by His blood, Rom. 5:9. For indeed, as Christ Jesus our Lord has paid the debt, "The Lord having laid upon him the iniquities of us all," so does He declare this satisfaction and acceptation of us in Christ by faith. Faith is the eye of the understanding whereby the soul comes to see the great things which God the Father has prepared for them who love Him."
From the above words of Kiffin, it is clear that he is in substance saying the same thing as Dr. Gill, both affirming that the grounds of justification lay in God's eternal decree and the work of Christ on the cross, but they also believed that God gave faith to the elect to receive the fruits of this justification. This "taking of sin from off the conscience" was what took place in regeneration.
JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST ALONE By Samuel Richardson
"Before conversion men are dead, and cannot believe till God give faith, Phil. 1:29. Is conversion and faith a fruit of hatred or love? If you say, of love, for so it is, then it will follow that God did love the elect when they did work iniquity, yea before they did believe, else he would not have given them faith..."
Objection 16 - "But God has decreed the means as well as the end, and faith is one of the means."
Answer:
"1. We grant God has decreed the end and the means, and whatsoever God has decreed shall unavoidably come to pass.
2. But we deny that faith is any means of our Redemption, Justification, or Salvation. Nothing but the Lord Jesus Christ is the means of our salvation.
3. There are means that are necessary to the revealing and enjoying the comfort of it, as the Holy Spirit, and as Ministers to reveal it, and faith to receive it.
4. Also there be fruits and effects of the love of God, and calling, etc., as faith, love, and our obedience to Christ, which all those who are the Lord's, prize in their place, yet these are no means of our salvation."
This is often cited by Hardshells today in a vain attempt to make Richardson into a Hardshell Baptist. But, Richardson believed in gospel means, as did all the other signers of the first London Baptist Confession of Faith, and so what he said about justification, did not negate his belief that faith was integral to regeneration, and regeneration was integral to the actual enjoyment of justification.
Objection 17 - "Faith makes us sons, for we are the sons of God by faith: Gal. 3:26. So that application of Christ, makes Him ours."
Answer:
"Adoption, Faith, Knowledge and Sonship"
"1. By faith we know our selves to be sons of God.
2. Faith makes us not sons, but predestination...The elect were sons before they believed; "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts," Gal. 4:6, unless they could believe without the Spirit, Gal. 5:22. They were sons before they believed. Because they were sons, God sent them the Spirit of His Son so that by Him they might believe and know that they were sons, both then, and before they believed."
"The word Faith is diversely understood. Sometimes by faith is meant knowledge, Rom. 14:22. And sometimes faith is meant the doctrine of faith, Jude 3. So also for the profession of faith, Rom. 1:8. Thus, Simon Magus believed. Also, by faith we are to understand the power by which we believe, Gal. 5:22. Sometimes by the word faith, we are to understand Christ, Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:16 with 19-23. Ten times at least in this chapter, the word Faith is put for Christ."
"Because all things else besides God are but means of our knowing and enjoying him that is the substance."
"Because all that faith can do, is only to receive remission of sins, Acts 26:18. It cannot give remission of sins."
"Because faith has a relation and dependence on Christ, the one implies the other as a father implies a son; and a husband a wife, they are relatives. Faith looks only to Christ, and fixed in God: "That your faith and hope may be in God," 1 Pet. 1:20,21. Faith and Christ go together, where one is present, the other is present also."
Will Elder Gowens and other Hardshells continue to "claim" Richardson as "one of them" on their views of the new birth? Has Gowens read all that Richardson wrote on the subject? Does he know what his pastor and fellow laborer, John Spilsbury, believed and taught? Do they know what the first London Baptist Confession says about faith in Christ and gospel means in the new birth? Will Elder Gowens and the Hardshells accept Richardson when he says "faith and Christ go together"?
John Spilsbury
A writer on Spilsbury wrote:
"In the final analysis, Spilsbury saw four elements that merged together in the constituting of a "New Testament church."
First, he argued, must come the Word of God "which is to fit and prepare the matter for the form." The preaching of the Word assaults the pride of man, smooths his "hard and rough turbulent" spirit, aligns his "crooked and Serpent-like nature," and brings him humbly to embrace the "low and mean condition of Christ upon His cross."
Second, Spilsbury said that this same Word so convinces the sinner of its truth that its leaven "seasons and sweetens the whole man." The Word operates like a "fire that breaks forth and discovers itself" with such clarity in "such as have it," that they delineate specific truths from that Word. A confession of faith consisting of particular doctrines naturally develops. Others so prepared "come to one and the same mind and judgment in it."
"Spilsbury declared in no uncertain terms that saving faith must be manifest in the hearty approval and assertion of a body of propositional truths."
Spilsbury's Personal confession of faith
"I believe that God of his grace, in his own time, effectually calls such as shall be saved to the knowledge of the truth, who is said, of his own will to beget us by the word of truth: in which work of grace, nature is as passive, as a child in the parents begetting of it; and so God by His Spirit works faith in the hearts of all such to believe in Christ, and his righteousness, only for justification. And thus they are made righteous before God in Christ, and so conformable to the will of God the Father through the Son; and also made holy through the work of regeneration, and the holy Spirit of grace dwelling in them..."
"And lastly, I do believe that there is an holy and blessed communion of Saints, that God of his grace calls such as belong to life by election, unto the fellowship of his Son by the Gospel, of which matter, God by his word and Spirit joins them together in his Covenant of grace, and so constitutes his Church, as I have before showed: And as God hath thus built for himself an holy habitation of such pure matter, and also after so holy a manner, even so hath he provided a way of preservation and safety for the same; as Isa. 26:1." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spilsbury_(Baptist_minister)
"Who edited the 1644 Confession? We really don’t know for sure. Some have suggested John Spilsbury, one of the earliest London pastors, and this is probably as good a candidate as any. A. C. Underwood cites an anonymous writer who called him the "great Patriarch of the Anabaptist Confession," and R. L. Greaves says that "he was a signatory and probably the principal author of the Particular Baptist confession." W. L. Lumpkin’s suggestion that "he must have played a prominent part in its preparation" is probably correct. He then suggests that "if the Confession was the product of joint authorship, [he] probably had the assistance of William Kiffin and Samuel Richardson." Given the importance of these men, the proposed scenario is highly possible."
(Pastor James M. Renihan Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at Westminster Seminary in CaliforniaReformed Baptist Church of North San Diego CountyEscondido, CA - http://www.reformedreader.org/ctf.htm)Hanserd Knollys (1598-1691)
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. [Behold, I stand at the door, and knock.] Christ called this Church, her Elders and Members, to consider how unwilling he was to leave them, to forsake them, and cast them off, if they would take his counsel and amend. Behold, that is, observe well what I have yet further to say to you, ere I depart from you. [I stand at the door, and knock.] Christ knocks at the door of our Hearts by the powerful Operations of his holy Spirit, as 1 Thess. 1. 4, 5. and Heb. 4. 12. Christ continued his presence still with this Church, notwithstanding their luke-warmness, (as he did of old, Hos. 6. 4-9) and Hos. 11. 1-4-7, 8, 9-12. How shall I give thee up Ephraim? — How shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together;) because, First, Christ knew some of those luke-warm ones were elect ones, whom the Father had given unto him, John 6. 37, 38, 39, 40. and 2 Tim. 2. 19. and John 10. 16. or else Christ doth this to leave them without excuse, Rom. 1. 20. and Heb. 2. 1, 2, 3. [If any man hear my voice, and open the door.] That is in the Ministry of the Word, and open the door of his heart, by a willing consent to accept his offers of Grace upon Gospel-Terms. [I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me.] This is a great encouragement unto them to answer his earnest desire, and gracious Invitation to open their Hearts, and to admit him entrance, by promising them, First, Union with him; [I will come in to him.] Secondly, Communion with him; [and sup with him, and he with me.] By supping together, we may understand the mutual fellowship between Christ and their Souls, in the sacred Ordinances of God, 1 John 1. 3."
(Hanserd Knollys, An Exposition of the Whole Book of the Revelation (London, 1689), p. 59-60.
"According to the above material, Knollys thinks that the gospel is an "offer of grace" and a "gracious invitation" wherein Christ "earnestly desires" sinners to "open their hearts" and "admit him entrance." In other words, Christ wills for all of those in the visible church [according to Knollys' covenantal ecclesiology] that hear the external call [the "Ministry of the Word"] to comply with the gospel terms/commands."
(http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2007/11/hanserd-knollys-1598-1691-on-revelation.html)
Thus, the Hardshells are not the true "Primitive" or "Original" Baptists, using Dr. Gill and the first Particular Baptists as criteria.
In the last and concluding chapter on "Gill and the Hardshells," I will deal with some odds and ends issues relative to this topic, and also show where I think Dr. Gill did lean towards Hyper-Calvinism in his doting old age.
No comments:
Post a Comment