Where is better teaching than those who took the old paths?

Nor have these “Moderate Calvinists”, to use another self-imposed name, come up with teaching on righteousness, holiness and sanctification which betters that of such writers as Crisp, Perkins, Sibbes, Chauncey, Ames, Hoornbeeck, Goodwin, Twisse, Traill, Davis, Alting, Maccovius, Pemble, Gill, Toplady, Hervey, Ryland Sen., Brine, Romaine, Huntington, Hawker, Gadsby, Tiptaft, and Philpot – writers and preachers they are constantly criticising. Nor by their repeated denunciations of godly, Bible-believing men of a holy walk by labelling them ‘Antinomians and Hyper-Calvinists’ have they impressed others concerning their own resolution to keep the law and not bear false-witness and live holy, blameless lives. The extreme one-sidedness of these modern critics of phantom-Antinomianism and make-believe Hyper-Calvinism is apparent from the way they are attacking the memory of Gill and Brine. These men were peace-makers to a high degree, intervening wherever strife arose so that the brethren could live in harmony with one another. John Ryland Sen., testified that the one big reason why the Particular Baptists did not fall apart as some other ‘denominations’ was the uniting agency of John Gill. The facts also show that Gill and Brine were honored, indeed, treasured amongst other ‘denominations’ as Masters in Israel, the Evangelicals of the Church of England, in particular, paying them high tribute. There was never such a man of peace as Anglican James Hervey, but he looked to both Gill and Brine as his mentors. Anyone reading Anglican Erasmus Middleton’s fine biography of Gill in his BIOGRAPHIA EVANGELICA will soon find out how free Gill was from the all too usual ‘denominational’ narrow-mindedness. When that great scourge the MODERN QUESTION hit the churches, removing Particular Atonement out of their polite vocabulary and splitting them down the middle with the new Liberalism that came with it, it was Brine of all people who stood in the middle of the parties, urging them to put Christ first and rejoice in that union rather than quarrel with the brethren over definitions of faith which were BECOMING MORE AND MORE LEGAL, METAPHYSICAL AND UN-EXPERIMENTAL AS THE DEBATE WENT ON. Then came Andrew Fuller who saw nothing of a Christian nature in those who took the so-called High Side of the MODERN QUESTION debate and thus quarrelled [heretics always bring schism even when they appear in the best of sheep’s clothing] not only with the memory of Gill, Brine and Hervey but with those living members of Christ. . . Now, it seems that modern Fullerites are pointing a finger at the very peace-makers themselves and saying sanctimoniously, “Depart from me, for I never knew thee.”

So, why do I resist Andrew Fuller and his false teaching still imbibed by many????

1. Fuller did not believe in Total Fall, but a partial fall and taught in his doctrine of man’s “inclinations’.
2. God’s children are taught in the Scriptures the eternal love of God for His people as opposed to a common saving love for all without distinction which comes to naught in the case of many.
3. Rather than particular, limited, successful atonement Fullerism teaches the idea of an atonement, a metaphor, rendered effective on application by the believer.
4. Fuller taught figurative justification and imputation as opposed to actual justification and imputation.
5. Fuller taught token substitution as opposed to penal substitution.
6. Fuller taught token ransom rather than actual ransom.
7. Fuller resisted the doctrine that God’s revelation actually reveals what is PERMANENTLY His character and will.

Andrew Fuller believed that particular redemption and election should be dropped from preaching. Again, give Fuller the Fuller Brush OFF AND THAT BEFORE BREAKFAST!

——————–

Bill Bryant