Misquoting Is Misleading<\/b><\/p>\n
That we can find some overlap on concepts with other divines is clear. But this does NOT mean they share entirely the same conclusions on every nuance and distinction. So, that we must differentiate between them and their whole body of doctrine and not merely those thoughts which overlap. Taking quotations, then, out of their broader context can be misleading and easily misconstrued. It is a regular and consistent practice on social media and can be a source of indigestion of the mind, especially as a proof text. Proof texting in context is not the same thing as just noted.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n John Gill-Body Of Doctrinal Divinity, Book II<\/p>\n Chapter 6 Of the Everlasting Council Between the Three Divine Persons Concerning the Salvation of Men<\/p>\n 2c, d, & e<\/p>\n 2c. It may be reasonably concluded, from the consultation had between the divine Persons, concerning the formation of man, thus expressed, “And God said, Let us make man in our image”; which was said, not to angels, but to the other two divine Persons, the Son and Spirit; and it is not necessary to understand the words as spoken the moment, or immediately before the creation of man, but as spoken in eternity, in council between the divine Persons; for it may be rendered, “God had said”; and, indeed, God had determined on this in the decree of election; for as in the decree of the end, he chose some of the creatures his power could make, to be happy with him, for his own glory; so in the decree of the means, he resolved on the creation of them; as has been before observed; however, be it, that this consultation was immediately before the creation of man, as all the three Persons were concerned in that, and in his creation; it may be reasonably argued, that if there was a consultation of the divine Persons about the making of man at first, then much more about the redemption and salvation of him. But,<\/p>\n 2d. What would put this matter out of all doubt, is the sense of a passage in Zechariah 6:13 as given by some learned men, if it can be established; “And the counsel of peace shall be between them both”: some, indeed, interpret it of the Kingly and Priestly offices meeting in Christ, and of the unanimity of them in him; since it is before said, “He shall be a priest upon the throne”; but it seems rather to respect persons and things. Others have thought of Zerubbabel the prince, and Joshua the high priest, who were unanimously agreed in building the second temple: but an edifice of another kind, and of a spiritual nature, the church of God, seems to be intended, the building of which is ascribed to a single Person only. Rather by the “counsel of peace”, may be meant the gospel, called the counsel of God, and the gospel of peace, which was to be, and has been among Jews and Gentiles, preached to them, both as to them that are near, so to them afar off, as in Zechariah 6:15 and which was a means of making peace between them, and reconciling them together, (Ephesians 2:17 , 6:15 ) and in this sense of the words I formerly acquiesced: but there is another sense of them embraced by learned men, to whose judgment I pay a great deference; such as Heidegger, De Dieu, Cocceius, Witsius, Dr. Owen, and others, that this respects the council concerning the peace and reconciliation in eternity, between Jehovah and the Branch, between the Father and the Son, who in time was to become man. My objections to this sense have been that this council in eternity was between the three Persons, and not two only; and that is what is past; whereas this is spoken of as future: but when I consider that Jehovah and the Branch are the only Persons mentioned in the text, and so could only, with propriety, be spoken of, though the council was between the three; and that, in the Hebrew language, tenses are frequently put for one another, the past for the future, and so the future for the past; and things are said to be, when they appear to be, though they are before; the sense may be, that when the Man, the Branch, should grow out of his place, and build the temple, and bear the glory, and sit a priest on his throne, then it should clearly appear, that there had been a council of peace between them both, which was the ground and foundation of all: and in this light, this sense of the passage may be admitted, and so be a proof of the point under consideration. But if this is not the truth of this text; yet,<\/p>\n 2e. That there has been such a transaction between the Father and the Son, which, with propriety enough, may be called the “counsel of peace”, we have sufficient warrant from 2 Corinthians 5:19. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses”; by the “world” is meant the elect of God, he so loved, as to send his Son to be the Savior of, and for the life of whom Christ gave his flesh, (John 3:16 , 6:51 ) and about the peace and reconciliation of those, or in what way to make peace and atonement for them, God was in Christ, or with Christ, consulting, contriving, and planning the scheme of it; which was this, not to impute their sins unto them, but to Christ, now called to be the Savior of them; and this contains the sum of what we mean by the council of peace. I proceed,<\/p>\n