-
The Difference Between John Gill’s Free Declaration of the Gospel to Sinners and the Banner of Truth’s ‘Free Offer’
Dear Brother: What is the difference between Gill’s ‘free declaration of peace and pardon, righteousness, life and salvation to poor sinners’ and the ‘free offer’ and ‘duty faith’ of those who deny outright that Gill appealed to all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel? The difference is that Gill keeps to the gospel as fulfilling what the law could not do, namely provide ‘free grace’. Modern harsh critics of Gill such as friends of the Banner of Truth and Reformation Today, cannot give up their trust in the law for salvation and sanctification. They start with preaching the gospel of duties until faith comes (sic!) and end with preaching sanctification and holiness through keeping the law. There is no room for free grace…
-
Chapter 1: The Method Propounded, The Matter Stated, And Followed Into The Grand Plea For Offers, And These Briefly Examined And Defeated.
The order of this little writing will consist principally of three points. 1. Concerning offers of Grace. 2. Concerning invitation of sinners to come to Christ. 3. Concerning exhortations to sinners to come to Christ. And albeit I may insist mostly {if the Lord will} upon the first branch of these three laid down, thereby, through the Lord’s assistance, to rectify the mistaken doctrine about offers of Grace, and to advance the true doctrine of Free Grace Operations working efficaciously upon the elect of God; yet I may likewise add something, though very briefly, which belongs to the other two branches. To begin by laying down the method of handling the first, viz., the offers of Grace and Salvation. I. To show how men do…
Further Study
Chapter 4: The Third Principal Point Is To Prove That An Offer Of Grace Is No Gift Of Grace; And Then Where Is Your Offer?
Chapter 10: A Reply Made Unto Sundry Pleas Urged Against What Is Written
Chapter 2: A Disproof Of Offers, Or, The Proof Of The First Of The Three Crowning Points In This Debate; Viz., That Offers Of The Gospel, And Offers Of Salvation To Sinners, Are No Preaching Of The Gospel, Nor Preaching Salvation Unto Sinners.
-
Evangelizing Or Proselyting?
Arminians evangelize, right? Low-Calvinists evangelize, right? Moderate-Calvinists evangelize, right? Hyper-Calvinists don't evangelize, right? Wrong! The Hyper-Calvinists are the only persons who evangelize. The other groups proselyte. In a recent study on Hyper-Calvinism[1], I distinguished between evangelizing and proselyting. In his book, "Hyper-Calvinism": Is It True?", Stanley Philipps differentiates between the two systems. On page 63, he writes: "(Proselytizing and evangelizing are not the same thing! Modern "evangelism" is a misnomer - it is blatant "proselytizing.”) The Hyper-calvinists never utilized man-made institutions to improve on God's Word. They never turned to the world of the ungodly for financial support or for church members. Finding no "free offer" - not even once - in the Scripture, they give none. To them, the true Gospel is a proclamation,…
-
Tobias Crisp (1600-1643): Exalter Of Christ Alone
Tobias Crisp served the Lord during a time of civil war and ecclesiastical unrest. There were threats of a papal take-over in the Established Church and Amyraldianism, Arminianism, Grotianism and Socinianism were flooding into the country to water down the faith inherited from the Reformers and defended by the Puritans. Crisp found these new religions false as they did not exalt Christ. Entering the ministry as an unconverted man This ‘holy and judicious’ person, as Augustus Toplady describes Crisp, was born into a family of London sheriffs and aldermen and was educated at Eton, Cambridge and Oxford, finishing his studies by gaining a D.D.. He married Mary Wilson, an Alderman’s daughter, and the couple were blessed with thirteen children. He was ordained Rector of Brinkworth…
-
Is Hyper-Calvinism A False Gospel?
Based on the false dichotomy between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, Low and Moderate Calvinists misrepresent High (Hyper) Calvinism as that form of doctrine which is unorthodox, killing a love for souls, eliminating the need for evangelism and undermining the purpose of prayer. Such are the charges set forth by Roy Hargrave as the reasons why he abhors the Hyper-Calvinists. However, are these assertions true? Is Hyper-Calvinism unorthodox? Does Hyper-Calvinism kill a love for souls? Does Hyper-Calvinism eliminate the need for evangelism? Does Hyper-Calvinism undermine the purpose of prayer? In this study, Jared Smith responds to these charges, setting forth an argument that not only are Hyper-Calvinists orthodox, but they alone nurture an authentic love for souls, fulfill the great work…
-
Six Hundred Hyper-Calvinist Baptist Churches
High-Calvinism[1] may be defined as that set of teachings which denies duty faith, rejects the free offer and renounces the moral law as a rule of conduct for the believer's life. Stated positively, High-Calvinism is that set of teachings which promotes the preaching to all sinners of a full, free and fruitful gospel. By a full gospel, I mean it is the good news of the three branches of the gracious covenant—the electing love of the Father, the redeeming grace of the Son and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. It is on this basis we reject the pernicious doctrine of the free offer. By a free gospel, I mean there are no conditions or requirements placed upon the sinner in order for him/her…
