Search results

Psalms 37:3 "Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed." Trusting in the Lord is salvation! Doing good follows the trust in the Lord. It's called being conformed into the image of Christ. The good is all the work of the Holy Spirit through...

Whatever you say, K, it's ok with me.

The works because you are saved not the works to get saved. Those that have done good are those who trusted in Christ and their works do follow them.

I've proven my statement that Gill's commentary is based on hyper-Calvinism, and BF backed it up.

And be led into the Calvinist dictionary that makes a mockery of the Word of God. No thanks. We've argued for months on end, but you never get enough. I only pointed out that Gill's commentary is based on hyper-Calvinism, and now I have to explain everything all over again that we've argued...

We discussed this a few weeks ago, K, when you flew angry. Paul is speaking of works vs faith. He says that even the Gentiles who don't have the Law do by nature the things written in Law. But they are still without righteousness just as the Jews who depended on the Law. If man was honest...

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.