I will also add a couple chapters on "Gospel Invitations." I do not intend to repeat what I wrote on this subject in my series on "Addresses to the Lost," but deal more with the question of offers of salvation, historically (and biblically) among the Baptists, particularly among the Hardshells. These smaller chapters will serve as a good transition from this series on "Gill and the Hardshells," to upcoming series on "The Great Commission," and "Paradigm Problems," and "Hardshell Proof Texts."
From the preceding chapters it is clear that the "Hyper Calvinists," who boast and claim such a high affection and regard for Dr. Gill, singing his praises, are the ones who seem to have read him the least, and who have read him with such seeming little care and close attention!
It is ironic too that they who claim to be his offspring, spiritually, are they who grossly misrepresent him! If he were alive today, he would be no friend to the Arminian Baptists, surely; but, he would be equally no friend to the hyper "Hyper Calvinists" of the Hardshell variety!
Dr. Gill would certainly not feel favored by the kind of hypocritical praise heaped on him by the Hardshell "ultraists," who can be seen, at times, to sing his praises, out of one side of their mouths, and then degrade him, at other times, and out of the other side of their mouths.
Dr. Gill did not change his mind on means in regeneration. He taught this in his Commentaries and in his later works, in his "Body of Divinity" and in his "Cause of God and Truth." Dr. Gill also taught that all men had a duty to believe the gospel and would be condemned eternally for their rejection of it.
Dr. Gill did believe in eternal justification, but he also believed that this eternal immanent act also included and necessitated, yea, guaranteed, the future death of Christ on the cross and the justifying experience of the elect in regeneration and conversion, which is executed and enjoyed and experienced "through faith."
Yes, the Hardshells may have a liking for Dr. Gill on the question of the extent of the atonement, and for this reason claim to be "Gillites" rather than "Fullerites," but they err in thinking that the view of Dr. Fuller and the view of Dr. Gill were at odds on the question of means in regeneration.
Both these great Calvinistic Baptists believed in gospel means. Both unwaveringly believed that all the heathen were lost without the gospel revelation. The only difference concerned the best scriptural manner to present the gospel to the lost, and to some extent, the nature of the disability that characterizes the dead in sin.
I have also shown clearly that the Hardshells have either been dishonest or grossly ignorant of Dr. Gill. I have shown too some of their hypocrisy regarding how they deal with the writings of such revered men who are no longer here to defend themselves.
This hypocrisy is seen in Elder Crouse, for instance, who warned Missionary Baptists about speaking irreverently about the dead and of mishandling their writings!
I have also interspersed, in the past few chapters in this series, some rebuttals to what the Hardshells have specifically said about Dr. Gill and his views on regeneration, and of some things some leading Hardshells have said about faith, an integral element in this whole discussion of regeneration.
In this chapter I will cite additional statements made by the Hardshells relative to Dr. Gill and his status as being "representative of Baptists views of things," in the the 18th century, all with the view of seeing who is truly the "Old" or "Primitive" Baptists.
Elder C. H. Cayce wrote:
"Gill and Brine were eminent men, they were representative men, of the Baptist Church in their day, and they did not call upon the unregenerate to repent and believe the gospel." (Editorials, Vol. 1, page 154)
But where did Elder Cayce give any support for this view from his writings? Have not numerous statements already been cited from Dr. Gill to show that this view is false, a great stretch? It is not true that Dr. Gill did not believe in or practice calling upon all to repent and to believe the gospel. This is simply a gross falsehood.
Eld. Mark Green wrote:
"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect."
Have they continued, since the Philadelphia Association's recommendation of Dr. Gill's Commentaries, to think this highly of him? Has their esteem for him not lessoned the further they have gone in time? Will their esteem for him be not lessoned even more now that I have "set the record straight" regarding Dr. Gill and his relationship to Hardshellism and their "Spirit Alone" hybrid theory of "regeneration" ?
If they truly had as great a "respect" for Dr. Gill and for his upholding of Calvinism, and his destroying of Arminianism, then they will quit saying that it is "Arminianism" to believe that God regenerates and begets through faith and by the gospel!
Also, they will repent of their false interpretations on all those passages which Dr. Gill believed clearly taught the use of means in regeneration.
Elder Green also mentions how the London Confession of Faith is also a "friend" of the Hardshells in the same way Dr. Gill is supposed to be a "friend" of Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism. But, as I will show in upcoming chapters on "Hardshells & The Confessions," the old London Confession of 1689 is no "friend" to Hardshellism.
Elder Green continues:
"We have claimed them as our own (London Confession and Dr. Gill) and have referred to them time and time again in our defense of the faith against Arminianism and Fullerism. They provided a very visible link for us with the “old country” and those brethren who were not only of our faith, but also of our own language and a similar culture."
The "language" of Spilsbury is not the "language" of Hardshellism! Nor is the "language" of Hardshellism anything akin to the "language" of Kiffin, Richardson, Knollys, and of Dr. Gill. The "language" of today's Hardshells is not even much like the "language" of the first Hardshells who supported the "Black Rockers"!
"Similar culture"? The spiritual environment of those first Old Baptist churches were filled with preaching that called upon the lost sinner to seek salvation! They had a passion in their preaching and church activities that gave the sanctuary an air of missionary zeal! Such is not the same kind of spiritual "culture" you find in a typical Hardshell church of today!
A "visible link with the old country"? You had better find another link! (Which some are trying to do! it is laughable!) Will you accept as a "link" in your "chain" a church that believes as Dr. Gill and the Confessions on the question of the nature and causes of regeneration and the new birth? On conversion and predestination? On perseverence? I will deal more with this problem on "links" in chapters on "Hardshell Landmarkism."Elder Green continues:
"We Primitive Baptists have been very vocal in our claims that the true churches of God in this generation are found under our name. We have been unflinching (stubborn, hard-headed, hardshell? SMG) in our assertion that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and that God has not let that truth fall to the ground but has preserved it by a direct succession of churches found under different names through the ages. “Their faith was our faith,” has been our cry. Probably no other works have been so frequently alluded to by our ministers in their writings concerning the agreement of Primitive Baptist faith and that of our forefathers as those we will examine in this article."
Was the "faith" of Dr. Gill on regeneration and means the "faith" of the Hardshells? Was the "faith" of Dr. Gill regarding the heathen the same as the Hardshells? Why do you claim him and the men who wrote and signed the London Confession as your "forefathers" when they are not in agreement with you on such a fundamental issue?
Elder Green continues:
"As the years flow by and one generation passes into another, the environment in which “the old paths” exist sometimes varies drastically. In the midst of these changing scenes, it is a matter of great comfort to the child of God to be able to read about his spiritual forefathers and their beliefs and practices, and rejoice that the gates of hell did not prevail against Truth and her pillar."
Is it part of the "old paths" to believe in gospel means? Did Dr. Gill walk in those "old paths"? Did Spilsbury, Kiffin, Richardson, Knollys, or Keach? Is it part of the "old paths" to believe that the church is still under the great commission and to yet be heavily involved in evangelism?
Elder Green continues:
"Included in the contents of this article are numerous quotes from a number of leading Primitive Baptist ministers over the years concerning their affection for the London Confession and the writings of that fierce opponent of Arminianism, Dr. Gill. May their bold statements reconfirm our faith in God’s providential care for His eternal truths—those same principles to which we as Primitive Baptists hold."
Did someone not know any better, he would think, after reading such lines as the above, that the old Confessions and Dr. Gill taught Hardshellism! Such is the way, however, that the Hardshells beguile unsuspecting and uninformed souls about their recent origins. These "two friends" of Hardshellism, did not teach the "same principles" that are held to by today's evolved Hardshell denomination.
Elder Green says further:
"It should be noted that Elders C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, and W. S. Craig in particular were well-known as experts in the history of our denomination. Others, including Elders J. Harvey Daily, S. N. Redford, R. H. Pittman, Jesse Cox, and Lee Hanks, published works in this field, and were serious students of the subject. Elder Lemuel Potter’s references to church history in his debates and lectures were so extensive that his knowledge in that field is unquestionable. When these men recommended these “two old friends” to their people, they knew whereof they spoke."
As far as the above named men being "experts in history," of being first rate Hardshell "historians," or of the Baptists generally, I will have a lot to say about that, in addition to what I have already said in previous chapters on "Hardshell History," showing how the leading Hardshell "historians" have not been very honest or thorough in their research and published "histories."
Hardshells are infamous for their "revisionist histories." Did these "historians" really "know whereof they spoke"? Are they really worth "recommending" as legitimate Baptist historians? I will hopefully deal with these questions in upcoming chapters. "Serious students" of history? Were they honest with their own history? Have they at all been guilty of "sweeping under the rug" any "ugly facts" about their history? Stay tuned to future chapters!
Elder Green writes further:
"To Primitive Baptists, one of Gill’s greatest contributions was his unflinching adherence to the pure doctrine of Particular Redemption."
Yes, and this is the only thing you, my Hardshell brothers, seemingly focus on, regarding Dr. Gill! Why do you avoid realizing that Dr. Gill and Dr. Fuller did in fact agree on means in regeneration, so that you are a disciple of neither? Besides, Dr. Fuller believed in unconditional election, and that only the elect would receive the fruits of the atonement.
Elder Green says:
"One writer noted that is would test the constitution of most of the literary men in England just to read all that Gill wrote (If that is so, how many Hardshells do you think have done so? SMG). With such a volume of words flowing from his pen, it is inevitable that anyone would find points here and there in which he differed with Gill. Still, all in all, as Charles Spurgeon said, in the matter of sound, massive, sober Scriptural comment, Gill cannot be excelled. Primitive Baptists have been in hearty agreement. Their opinions of the good Doctor follow."
From "The Old Baptist Test" by Elder John M. Watson 
"I will now show, most conclusively, that Parkerite ultraisms have changed some of the Old Order of Baptists into a new sect. Facts must speak here. I will contrast a tenet of the Particular Baptist Church of London, about 1720, with one of a Baptist Church lately constituted, on a tenet of Parkerism: “A declaration of the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ at Horsleydown, under the Pastoral Care of Mr. John Gill, etc.”
I can understand Dr. Watson recommending Dr. Gill; for, as I have shown already from Elder Watson's book, "The Old Baptist Test," this great leader of the first generation of Hardshells without a doubt believed in gospel means in regeneration! He also did not stand alone but represented a large segment of the first "anti-mission" or "old school" Baptists, as I shall show further in upcoming chapters on Hardshell history.
I will also have a good bit more to say about Dr. Watson who I have recently discovered was the original editor of the "Old Baptist Banner" that began publication in the 1830's in Middle Tennessee. This paper seems to have been started as a reaction to the recently begun Missionary Baptist publication called "The Baptist Banner." All Dr. Watson did was add the word "old" to it. As the one periodical was to be a voice in favor of church sponsored missions, so Dr. Watson's periodical would speak against them, and on behalf of the Hardshells. But, more on all this in upcoming chapters.
Dr. Watson is truly a unique character and there seems to have been a conspiracy, of sorts, to bury his writings, together with other perceived harmful writings, harmful at least to the "ultraist" wing of the anti mission movement, the faction that "won out" or at least "weeded out" the other sects.
Why have no issues of this periodical survived as has bound volumes of the "Signs of the Times"? Could it not be because there is much information in those early issues, in the 1830's through the 1860's, that might be detrimental to present day Hardshell "claims," such as the "claim" that the split from the Missionary Baptists was strictly over the question of the use of means in regeneration?
I recall reading recently a comment that a Hardshell made, upon the death of Elder John Clark, the editor of the "Zion's Advocate" (began 1854), that Elder Clark had "left behind" him a "vast amount of historical information" relative to the Hardshells. Where is this "valuable information"? If it was so valuable, then why has it not been preserved?
I believe Elder Clark advocated gospel means in regeneration. I have cited from him already that substantiates this claim, I firmly believe. He also was a close associate of Elder Burnam who believed in gospel means, the split called "the Pence-Burnam division over Sunday Schools and Gospel Means," not occurring till just a couple years after the death of Elder Clark. His views were cited, however, by both sides, in the trial that resulted from that division.
I have, however, also seen some citations, wherein certain words are omitted, in typical Hardshell fashion, and wherein it seems that Elder Clark did not believe in means in regeneration or the new birth. But, more on this point in upcoming chapters. Besides, I plan on doing some research this coming January at a couple libraries that have old Hardshell materials, and I hope to discover some of this lost, yet "valuable information," from men such as Dr. Watson and Elder Clark.
It would not surprise me that Elder John Clark could possibly be cited on both sides of this issue. He was, after all, a bridge builder in Virginia, and a famous one at that. It seems not only ironic but appropriate that he would act as a "bridge" between the warring factions within the broader "anti mission movement."
I think he sought "reform" among the "Old School" Baptists, as did Elder Watson and others, seeing many in the movement had steadily gone to great extremes in doctrine and practice. I think he also tried to be a kind of "glue" to keep the various factions together, much the same way, no doubt, that some of the 2nd generation "Campbellites" or "Restorationists" also did in the midst of competing factions within the broader "restoration movement."
In fact, as I shall show more in future chapters, both the Hardshell and the Campbellite movements were "reform" or "restoration" movements, although the Hardshells would not want their movement to be styled as such.
Getting back, however, to Dr. Gill and the Hardshells, Elder Green cites other leading Hardshells who speak highly of Dr. Gill and the old London Confession of Faith. He next cites Elder Lemuel Potter, one who is universally recognized as one of the greatest apologists and historians of the Hardshell denomination, and who's writings did not get "buried" but have been faithfully preserved. I wonder why? Stay tuned!
From The Throgmorton-Potter Debate (Elder Lemuel Potter) 
"But we wish to continue this same quotation: “This was the strict Calvinistic, or Gillite plan.” He is talking about the doctrine that had been uniformly believed among the Baptists, and this doctrine of particular atonement was called the strict Calvinistic or Gillite plan. Then, you see, we stand with Dr. Gill…"
Yes, Brother Lemuel, you may speak in agreement with Dr. Gill on his views on the atonement, but you cannot justly say that you and the Hardshells are in agreement with Dr. Gill on means in regeneration! This is the same great apologist who argued in debate, with the Arminian Baptists, that Gill must have been a Hardshell simply because he openly disavoved Arminianism!
If the term "Arminian" is defined as "anyone who believes in human means (or gospel preaching) in the work of regeneration," then Hardshells must make Dr. Gill an "Arminian"! Will the Hardshells come forth and answer this "Hardshell Buster" question - "Was Dr. Gill an Arminian or not? Will you try to have it both ways?"
Elder Potter continues, in that famous debate, saying:
"Dr. Gill was our man. And I know that it is not necessary to state here that Dr. Gill believed and taught what is now called Calvinism. He was one of the brightest lights that the Baptist churches have had since the days of the apostles, and there is no Baptist that is a Baptist that does not speak of Gill with pride."
"OUR man"? No, he was not Throgmorton's "man" on the atonement; however, he was not Potter's "man" on the nature and causes of regeneration! I will tell you this - He is my man! I agree, like all the Old Baptists, both before and after the great Dr. Gill, that the atonement was intended only for the eternal benefit of the elect and that all the elect will be called to life and salvation by the gospel. I will therefore repeat - I AM MORE OLD BAPTIST THAN TODAY'S SO-CALLED PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS!
Elder Green continues his citation of Potter on Dr. Gill:
From "A Treatise on Regeneration, Christian Warfare, and the State of the Dead" by Elder Lemuel Potter 
"We have others present, but can not quote them in this article, as Elder Jesse Cox, Dr. John Gill, and others who believed as we do. These have been our spiritual fathers; and they have all believed without controversy that at death the soul left the body. These men of God are our witnesses today, in favor of our claims to the name of old Primitive Baptists."
That is just a bunch of nonsense. It is again worth repeating the words of that first great Hardshell slayer, Elder J. M. Peck, of whom I will have more to say in upcoming chapters, - "they arrogate to themselves the name of primitive or original," for they have no "claims" to the historic Baptist faith on regeneration, perseverence, predestination. They absolutely cannot win any debate on the question - "Who are the Primitive Baptists?" or the question (or criterion) of gospel means and the nature of regeneration and the meaning of conversion and the experience of perseverence.
Elder Green "calls his next witness" for his "two friends," calling forth the disciple of Elder John R. Daily, the well known Elder R. H. Pittman.
From "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers in the United States" by Elder R. H. Pittman 
"...in his `Body of Divinity,’ the grand old doctrines of grace, taken unadulterated from the Divine fountain, presented in the phraseology and with the illustrations of an intellectual giant, and commended by a wealth of sanctified Biblical learning only once in several ages permitted to mortals, sweeps all opposition before them, and leaves no place for the blighted harvests, the seed of which was planted by James Arminius in modern times.”
If the "grand old doctrines of grace" are found in their "unadulterated form," in John Gill's "Body of Divinity," and if he taught gospel means in that work, then the doctrine of gospel means does not "adulterate" the doctrines of grace as Hardshells wrongly avow. This "intellectual giant" denied what Hardshells believe and teach about regeneration, and conversion, and perseverence, and predestination, and on the state of the heathen who die without the gospel revelation, etc.!
Elder Pittman continues:
"How sad to think that the great body of New School Baptists of today have repudiated Gill’s works, turned a deaf ear to the plain teachings of the Holy Scriptures and become the devoted apostles of James Arminius!"
Is that so? Is it true with regard to all Baptists who support missions? Do all Missionary Baptists "repudiate Gill"? Is that not a misrepresentation without support or factual evidence? Is it not rather the "Primitives," and not the "Missionary" Baptists, who have "repudiated" the great Dr. Gill on means and on conversion? And, talk about the "plain teachings" of the Bible! Do they think so highly of Dr. Gill, as an "intellectual giant," and then make him blind on this subject?
Did he not believe in gospel means because it is so plainly taught in the Bible? Did he have nothing but his "logic," he probably would have written in the manner of the Hardshells, but being guided solely by the Bible alone, he taught what was clear and plain in scripture, and that is the gospel means position. I can say the same thing relative to myself. Did the Bible not teach gospel means, and if I were guided by human logic alone, I would still be a Hardshell in regard to their understanding of the matter. But, did not my earlier chapters, like the series "Hot Shots Returned," show clearly from the scriptures that the new birth took place through the gospel?
I have sought throughout this book, thus far, to prove that Hardshellism is first and foremost against the scriptures. It is only secondarily that I argue from history or from other sources. The whole debate, historically, stems because the Hardshells have said that they alone are the "Original" Baptists, and their being "Primitive" is due primarily to their stand on their "Spirit alone" theory of "regeneration," and thus the need to prove Hardshellism wrong using Baptist history as secondary criteria. Were they not Landmarkers, and believers in "strict church succession," this would not be seen as such an important matter. But more on all this in future chapters.
Elder Pittman continues:
"Yet how soon is this great teacher in Israel set aside for the carnal reasoning, flesh pleasing, pride fostering, God debasing and man-exalting doctrines of James Arminius? And how absurd and inconsistent for the New School denomination to claim John Gill and many other Bible Baptists when they deny through the press and in the pulpit the doctrine they contended for?"
Well, we shall see just how much the Hardshells have themselves "set aside" that "great teacher," the beloved Dr. Gill! At least the New Schoolers, who did not agree with Dr. Gill, did not try to distort his writings in order to make it appear that he agreed with them!
Elder Pittman continues:
"Only a short time after the bones of this wonderfully gifted servant of God had been laid in the grave, Andrew Fuller began to ponder upon the expediency of making a change in Baptist tactics, and after years of heated controversy with his brethren led the majority of those professing the Baptist name into the Arminian camp. I have given these few points in the life of Gill to show that he preached the same doctrine and contended for the same practice that the Primitive or Old School Baptists are the only exponents of today."
Several things come to my mind from reading the above. First, is this the way a true historian, a genuine reporter of facts, writes? Second, is it not rather an "interpretation" of history, and generally one with little or no real factual basis? Third, how fervent are the Hardshells in their intent to let the whole world know that they, and they alone, are the "rightful heirs" to the doctrine preached by Gill, and yet, they reject him on the chief doctrine of the so-called Arminians, on the Spirit's use of truth in the new birth! Finally, they so "put on airs" in their pretended "respect for the dead," and then torture the great doctor's writings and views on such important doctrines of the Christian faith! They do the same with the writings of Richardson and of the London Confession itself.
Elder Green then "calls his next witness" on Dr. Gill.
From "A Theological Discussion on the Plan of Salvation" (Elder John R. Daily in the Daily-Throgmorton Debate) 
"So much for John Gill. How about this work from which I am quoting? Was it written when he was a boy and didn’t know? By no means. In the Memoirs of John Gill, found in his “Body of Divinity,” it is said: “This was his last work, and contains the substance of what he delivered to his people through the space of five or six years.” So much for Dr. John Gill. Yes, I stand where Dr. John Gill did in his mature age, when he had thought the matter over studiously. So, as I follow Brother John Gill, my brethren can follow me along. Rather, you follow me as I follow Christ. That is the proper rule."
Here is a man who, in one breath, says that Dr. Gill is a "witness" who has lost credibility to speak on this topic, one who has "contradicted himself," and thus all must "set him aside" on this point, and then, in another breath, this same man says that Dr. Gill "stands with" the Hardshells!
But, have I not shown how wrong and dishonest the great Hardshell apologist was on Dr. Gill? I hope no one today (as did Elder Crouse many years ago) attempts to promote the "Daily Theory on Dr. Gill." My dad has promoted this theory of Daily's, but will he continue to do so once he reads these chapters on Gill (I just sent them to him)?
Next, Elder Green summons forth the testimony of Elder J. S. Newman.
From "The Baptists In All Ages" by Elder J. S. Newman 
"The views of John Gill were the prevailing doctrine held to or believed by the Baptists prior to the introduction of modern missions among them."
Well, who is "Primitive" then? those who believe in gospel means, or those who do not? Where were the Hardshells in the 18th century? Where is their "link" with the "old country"?
The next witness is Elder J. D. Holder.
From "Principles and Practices of the Church" by Elder J. D. Holder 
"Mr. Fuller, and those who worked with him, quietly waited until this great man Dr. John Gill’s remains rested in death, and his voice was stilled, and his fruitful pen rested on his desk, before they advanced their new ideas of taking the world for Christ."
That is nothing but slander and insinuation and made by someone who has absolutely no evidence to prove the conspiracy of heart of which Holder charges upon the dead! Oh yes, pretend to respect the dead John Gill, but it is okay to "pour it on" Andrew Fuller! But, as I said, both Fuller and Gill believed in gospel means, and both believed that the eternal benefits of the atonement were intended only for the elect. Both believed that the faith that comes by hearing the gospel was the only faith the elect know anything about.
"New ideas"? That is funny! The only real "new idea" on the "Baptist block," of the Christian religious community, is Hardshellism, and not the "gospel means" position! And, Fuller's view on the atonement was really not new among Particular Baptists.
Elder Holder continued:
"Dr. Gill’s scholarly writings, his Body of Divinity, and his complete commentary on every verse of the Old and New Testaments are more sound, and show a deeper, richer mind than any scholar of his day and some say than any man since New Testament times. While very few of Mr. Fuller’s distinguished followers care to pull from the shelf his writing and ponder their meaning as well as their failure to stand the test of Bible theology."
But, I wonder how many Hardshells have really read Fuller himself, rather than reading what their "historians" and "interpreters" and "apologists" have told them?
The next witness is the highly respected Hardshell, Elder Oliphant.
From "The Holy Scripture on Women Preachers" by Elder P. T. Oliphant
"Dr. John Gill: This author was the standard of orthodoxy among the PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of England for over two hundred years."
And then we hear from one of the Hardshell historians, the one, as Brother Ross has shown, "chopped up" the old London Confession, in his "history" called "The Church of God," a copy of which is on my desk as I type these lines.
From "The Church of God" by Elder Lee Hanks
"John Gill, perhaps the most learned, able, sound, upright and humble Baptist minister since the days of Paul—author of a Commentary on the Whole Bible, a Body of Divinity, etc." (Foreword - "Two Old and Honored Friends")
Elder J. S. Newman wrote:
"Hyper-Calvinism is only another name for the doctrine John Gill of England preached and the Baptists believed before Carey, Fuller and others began to remodel the system and doctrine of the ancient Baptists." (Baptists In All Ages: Chapter X)
Again, all complete falsehoods!
Elder Joe Holder wrote:
"In the teachings of the Founders Movement, John MacArthur, John Piper, and many other popular teachings of our time we see the distinct marks of Fuller’s ideas prominently displayed under the guise of the doctrines of grace. While claiming that they are preaching the old gospel message, Fuller’s contemporary successors are in fact promoting Fuller’s ideas, not the beliefs of Particular Baptists and other faithful believers prior to Fuller. A number of contemporary titles are in circulation today that name Primitive Baptists and charge us Fuller-esque style as being “Hyper-Calvinists,” and as being “antinomian.” The theological issues involved in Fuller’s teachings are front page relevant to every person in our age who believes in the doctrines of grace. When these works charge us with being “antinomian” and “Hyper-Calvinist” in our beliefs, they promote their ideas of human instrumentality in regeneration and leave their readers with the false impression that human instrumentality is the old gospel. One need only read old and respected Reformed thinkers such as W. G. T. Shedd (or Fuller’s contemporary, the respected Particular Baptist John Gill) on regeneration to learn that immediate, direct Holy Spirit regeneration is the old gospel, not the new."
"The fruit of Fuller’s influence most often appears in two forms: 1) “duty-faith,” Fuller’s belief that it is the duty of all humans to exercise “saving faith” in Jesus, or 2) in various forms of gospel instrumentality (the idea that God uses the gospel to call the elect out of nature, sin, and spiritual death into spiritual life, that all elect shall hear and respond favorably to the gospel, or that any regenerate elect who hears the gospel shall believe it). Primitive Baptists—I believe correctly and Biblically—attribute the work of eternal salvation, including the exclusive instrumentality of the Holy Spirit in the new birth, to God, while strongly teaching that it is indeed the duty of all regenerate elect to exercise faith in Christ, to repent of their sins, and to live their lives “as newborn babes,” desiring and living according to the sincere milk of the word of God. Biblical faith is anchored in the Lord Jesus Christ, not in itself. It seems that the glaring inconsistency of much modern teaching that follows Fuller’s “duty-faith” to one degree or another is this; they have faith in their faith, they believe in their belief, but they rather clearly ignore the strong and consistent Biblical focus of faith that is anchored in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work, not in itself."
(Joseph R. Holder - Riverside, CA, February 16, 2007)
I think I have successfully refuted all this, don't you think?
I will be next presenting, in two chapters, examples where I feel Dr. Gill did seem to go overboard in his speculating and extremism in fighting Arminianism, wherein he showed leanings towards Hyper Calvinism and what would later develop into Hardshellism. I will also have at least two chapters on "Gospel Invitations."