Anchored in Truth™ Striving Not to Build 'Great' Churches, but 'True' Churches

2/19/2010

Posted By Ken Askew

Text:  Titus 3:1-8

Dr. Haykin began with a historical account of the raising up of William Carey.  Very early in his ministry he received a rather serious rebuke from fellow ministers at an assembly.  The chair of that meeting was a colorful figure named John Ryland, Sr. 

Carey raised the question in the assembly of whether the command to the apostles to evangelize the nations (Matthew 28) was not one that was to be observed by the church to the end of time.  Carey was a proponent of evangelism and believer’s baptism.

Various accounts of the response Carey received indicate that it was decidedly negative.  One account says that he was sternly commanded to sit.  Hyper-Calvinism was at work in the background and assembly.  They would inquire as to whether it was really Carey’s duty or the church’s duty to carry the Gospel to pagan nations?

William Carey eventually ended up in India though—evangelizing the world. Ironically, John Ryland, Jr. would become one of Carey’s close friends and a great man of mission.  Thankfully, the stiff rebuke didn’t quench Carey’s thirst for missions.

One key figure in this negative response to Carey (and call to violate the call in Matthew 28) was John Gill.  Gill was deeply passionate about learning and was one of the most learned men in the British Isles in some foreign languages.  He was called to pastor a Carter Lane Baptist church in London in 1719.

Gill often is tagged with Hyper-Calvinism (correctly it seems) but he also wrote an excellent commentary on the Song of Solomon the New Testament, and later the Old Testament too.  Gill was a Baptist theologian; well read in Baptist circles.  Another positive note, Gill was insistent that God’s people learn the art of meditation.  But not all is positive in Gill’s ministry and life.  Gill was a hyper-Calvinist and in regards to the three main points below, Gill embraced the first two to the exclusion of the last.

1. The everlasting (eternal) covenant of peace between the Father, Son and Spirit.  In essence, this is a biblical, acceptable doctrine, but Gill was especially fervent in his inclusion of the Spirit’s work in salvation.  So much so that he removes the human element in conversion to a large degree.  He goes so far in defending sovereign grace that, well, he goes too far.  It is similar to one of Luther’s earthy comments on church history:  “Church history is like a drunk on a horse.”  Luther meant that people have a habit of going too far and falling off opposite sides of issues; going too far on some issues.

2. Eternal justification; God justifies before the foundation of the earth.  Gill said:  “Faith adds nothing to the essence of justification…”  Gill’s theology would almost remove the wrath of God from sinful man; a dangerous position.  With Gill’s theology, you are forced to determine whether you are “one of God’s elect.”  But the problem is that the gospel is an outward call; a proclamation.  (Interesting, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith explicitly denies Gill’s doctrine of eternal justification.)

3. The free offer of the Gospel (rejected by Gill).

Yes, Gill’s doctrine was flawed, but he did genuinely love the Lord and we would do well to remember and study the environment in which he lived and taught even as we disagree with some of his doctrines and conclusions.  He lived in a era that desperately needed spiritual revival.  It’s a shame then that revival didn’t begin with the Baptists; the fruit of hyper-Calvinism I suppose.

Truth Matters articles are available online at www.truthmatters.us.  Comments may be sent to kenaskew@me.com.