Search results

Yes, we reap what we sow! If you depend on the keeping of the Law/doing to earn salvation, you will be judged accordingly.

The theme is we can't justify ourselves by works, only God can justify by faith in the Blood of Christ. Christ told the Jews, "Moses gave you the Law and none of you have kept it." Paul is saying if you're trying to be justified by the Law, then you must do/keep the Law. Paul said no man...

As usual we have a different definition of Biblical words, in this case "justification." Paul said we are justified by Grace through faith. He didn't mention anything from the Calvinist dictionary.

Hello, BF. I didn't mean any disrespect toward you when I used you for an example. But you have proven my point! I'm not looking for an argument, I was just making a statement that ended up in the crosshairs.

"Yes, but...? Alan believes it or He wouldn't be posting Gill's commentary. I'm pointing out that it's based on Hyper-Calvinism.

Gill is over the top with Sovereignty, he viewed the Elect justified before they came to actual faith in Christ. This leads to several other problems related to "hyper." That is not what the Calvinists believe that I know personally.

If you can't see that John Gill is hyper in his explanations, then the word "hyper" probably doesn't exist in your vocabulary.

No disrespect meant, @Brightfame52 would be a good example. I'm a Dispensationalist, so it's pretty much the opposite of whatever you believe, for the most part.

Not necessarily. I've seen down to earth Calvinists for the most part.

I bet I've read more John Gill than you have! The same question can be turned to you when a different interpretation is taken from the same Scripture. My point is that John Gill leans toward Hyper-Calvinism, the extremes of that belief.

Ok, if you're into Hyper-Calvinism. What if John Gill was grossly ignorant of Scripture?

The teachings of Mr. Gill is a minority view of the Scripture among the Baptists.

Would you say from that experience that politics is a dirty business, or did you see it another way?

Well, Ken, sounds like you need to run for Congress and fix all these problems being that you're so worried about it. Me, I cast my vote and render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

There's grey area in the Constitution for the POTUS to have some working room without Congress. All of this is just another opportunity to push the King thing the left has going on. He knows his limits and if he makes a mistake don't worry, the Dems will take care of it.

If Trump were to put boots on the ground then yes he has to get congress involved. But for airstrikes like in Iran, he has authority to do a spanking or two.

It would be over before Congress could have a meeting on it. It's a very small scale war if that's what you want to call it. More like, "just stop doing that or I'll blow up some more stuff."

You're making the mistake that so many will make. You are ignoring the condition that all of these verses you've quoted are based on. Rom. 10:9 "That IF thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be...

I couldn't have said it any better!

Never thought this would happen! I'm agreeing with the Catholic!