Reflections on the True Church conference 2010 and on Alexander McLaren
This past weekend (February 19–21) I had the distinct privilege of being a speaker at the 2010 True Church Conference held at Grace Life Church, Muscle Shoals, Alabama. What a privilege to meet and hear Jeff Noblit, pastor of the host church, Conrad Mbewe—“the Spurgeon of Africa”—and his wife, Barry King, a church planter in London, Jonathan Sims and David Miller—a really deep privilege.
I spoke twice: once on “Defining hyper-Calvinism” and on “Missionary Pioneer Andrew Fuller & hyper-Calvinism.” The first talk was particularly difficult to prepare, since I decided to focus on the soteriology of John Gill (1697–1771) and his teaching on the pactum salutis, eternal justification, and the free offer of the gospel. I do think Gill to be on the hyper-Calvinist side of the equation and thus to have been an innovator, following lesser lights like Joseph Hussey and John Skepp rather than the broad stream of Reformed orthodoxy of the seventeenth century. Although Gill quoted Thomas Goodwin, for instance, in supporting his view of eternal justification, he misunderstood Goodwin. But to present such in a popular format, I felt peculiarly difficult. Then to speak on Fuller and do him justice was a challenge. But I am so thankful for the opportunity to be with those brethren.
Flying back this a.m., I missed worship at the house of God. I therefore “listened”—that is, within my mind as I read it—to a sermon preached over a hundred years ago: “Feeding on ashes” by Alexander McLaren (1826–1910) [in A Rosary of Christian Graces (London: Horace Marshal & Son, 1899)]. What a gem—in many ways he was good as a preacher as his contemporary, C.H. Spurgeon (1834–92). A reminder of what life and true life is all about. I was struck by the way he read that clause, “Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you” (p.213), which he took spiritually and an offer of Christ of himself. Spurgeon had a richer view of the table of the Lord.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 21st, 2010 at 3:12 pm and is filed under 19th Century, 21st Century, Baptist Life & Thought. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
February 21st, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I wish I had been there, Dr. Haykin. It sounds like it was an edifying experience…
February 21st, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Having just finished reading Tom Nettles chapter on Gill in “By His Grace, For His Glory” I was wondering in your opinion where does Nettles get it wrong with understanding Gill’s positions or in the definition of Hyper calvinism?
February 21st, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Well, Gill is not as straightforward as one would think on the issue of the free offer. He does exhort sinners sometimes in his sermons. A lot has to do with how you define hyper-Calvinism. I think the theological background that Gill lays out puts him in that camp, that, eternal justification coupled with the pactum salutis.
February 21st, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Dr. Haykin, will you be posting a manuscript of your presentation regarding Gill and hyper-Calvinism?
February 21st, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Dr. Haykin,
So glad to hear of your presence in North Alabama. I was actually driving through there this weekend to visit family. I am familiar with Bro. Noblit’s ministry (though he would not know me)and we also had Bro. Miller in a series of meetings in our church last year. Wish I would have known about the conference, I would have loved to heard you speak. I am sure they were blessed by your ministry.
February 21st, 2010 at 11:57 pm
John:
Give me your e-mail and I shall send you a copy.
M.
February 21st, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Sorry we missed one another Barry. Blessings!
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Kenneth & Michael,
Andrew Fuller also noted the mixed witness to Gill’s views on the free offer of the Gospel. Early in his ministry, Fuller characterized the no-offer position as “Dr. Gill’s system.” But by 1787, Fuller acknowledged that “when engaged in other controversies, he [Gill] frequently argued in a manner favorable for our side [ie, for making Gospel offers].” Fuller provided nearly a dozen citations from “The Cause of God and Truth” to prove his point…see Fuller’s Collected Works, 2:422. I have never looked up the cited texts to see what Gill actually said, which would make an interesting exercise.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Dr. Haykin -
Any chance you’d post that Gill paper here for the wider audience?
Andrew
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 am
Michael,
Am I mistaken or doesn’t Richard Muller place Gill in the stream of Reformed thought? I agree it is not cut and dry but would you argue that believe in eternal justification puts you outside of the stream of Reformed orthodoxy?
Also, curious… have you seen Paul Helm’s thinking on Gill?
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/12/analysis-22-gift-of-gill-john-gill-1697.html
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/01/analysis-23-nemo-obligatur-ad.html
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/02/language-and-theology-of-free-offer.html
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 am
Allen:
If you will notice what I said, I did not say anything about Gill being outside the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy. I said, he chose not to follow it on this issue. I have seen the Helm articles and forgotten about them. Thanks for the reminder.
Andrew: I might post it. But it would need a little work.
And thanks Paul for the reminder of the difficulty of classifying Gill.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Michael,
You’re right. Thank you for the clarification. After reading it more carefully I see what you mean. I would agree that he chose not to follow the mainstream of Reformed thought on that issue.
Although, I’m not quite fully convinced he was a hyper-Calvinist. :)
Allen