costello<br><br>If your understanding of what Gill said is correct, I would have to say that Gill would be contradicting almost every other Calvinist commentator on the subject. It also goes against Calvinist teaching on the subject, so if he actually believes those things (as you interpreted him) he couldn't be called a "Calvinist".<br><br>If you have done much reading on Gill, you will find that he is a strong proponent of Calvinism. So much so that he has been accused of being a hyper-Calvinist (falsely I believe). So I find it highly unlikely that your interpretation of him is correct.<br><br>Tom