Featured A Tale of Two Faiths

Yes, so pretend to try to act like an adult here.

Lies again. And are all my quotes from scholars and historians untrue?

You can say that again.

 

The majority of professing Presbyterians (in name only)in America are from PCUSA. They, for the most part are indeed apostate. do you disagree? If so on what basis? And how could they possibly be hyper-Calvinists?

How in the world could it ever be considered a "relative term"?

That's pure drivel. From that inane thinking Dr.M-L-J, James Boice, B.B.Warfield, --even Spurgeon himself, would fall under the category of being five-pointers and yet by no stretch of the imagination be hyper-Calvinistic. You need to get more scholarly sources. They're stinking up the place.

You are full of hot air.

We fail to see spiritual discerment and functioning reason with that kind of mindset of yours.

 

As usual you deal in falsehood DHK. This snip is from 1:13:17:

"This distiction [between the Father and Son] did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of the Father (Jn.1:18). For who will dare to affirm that the Son entered his Father's bosom for the first time, when he came down from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in many other passages besides (Jn.14:6;15:26;14:16)

 

The only reason I have heard your interpretation is because you are the only one ever to present such a skewed interpretation of that passage because of your Calvinistic bias. And so it goes. Calvinists redefine words, misinterpret scripture, allegorize scripture, all to meet their own ends--to fit their theology into Calvin's theological box. That is truly pitiful.

Here is what A.T. Robertson says on the same verse:

His explanation of the Greek is eons away from yours, and yet uses the same Greek NT.

 

What is truly pitiful is that you can't seem to read or understand what Robertson is saying--and you don't realize that he and I are arguing the same thing.

But, as I'll point out, you cannot or will not discuss the verb--gennao--being passive and what that means...

Of course, Robertson defines the verb as Aorist and Passive, yet you have no clue what that means. Also, the Greek Aorist and the Passive are undefined by Robertson in the text excerpt you cite because one would have to know what the Aorist and Passive signify before reading Robertson with hope of understanding.

Can you tell what the Passive means? Can you make a case for your skewed interpretation of the verse (Where you have Jesus telling Nicodemus "go get yourself born again")? Likely not....

The Archangel

 

Seems to me that this guy is saying the same thing Archangel is saying...

 

DHK, here is a link that shows side by side comparison of the WCF and the London Confession 1689. You really ought to look over them and realize one does not have to choose one or the other. Reformed Baptists for example do not believe in sprinkling infants. I have to wonder if you have ever read either.
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

 

I read Robertson over and over again. He doesn't come anywhere close to this drivel:

In fact, the context speaks for itself. What does it say?

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
--Okay, Nicodemus is thinking, "I need to be born again. Jesus said it is necessary." Therefore he answers Jesus and says,
"How can a man be born when he is old?..."
--How do I do this; what must I do... Obviously Nicodemus wanted to obey the command that Jesus gave him. He was looking for instructions that he could carry out what Jesus had said to him. HOW? he answered.
The context speaks for itself.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--It is in this verse that Jesus begins to tell Nicodemus the how.

 

That is the inconsistency of some of the Reformed brethren on this board who use the WCF as one of their authorities and do quote from it (instead of the Bible). Why not just go all the way and accept infant baptism as well? They fail to take Calvinism to its logical conclusions. I keep saying that, but most of them don't believe me.

 

You are dishonest. But I'll say this: You are an expert dancer. You're excellent at "The Twist".

I know you speak for God, but he only spoke through a jackass one time.

 

When the RCC was engaging in persecution and murder of Anabaptists and others, just like the Magisterial Reformers were, yes, the pope was guilty because he approved of it.

About Calvin and Servetus: "When Servetus mentioned that he would come to Geneva, "Espeville" (Calvin) wrote a letter to Farel on 13 February 1546 noting that if Servetus were to come, he would not assure him safe conduct: "for if he came, as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive."

"On 20 October the replies from Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Schaffhausen were read and the council condemned Servetus as a heretic. The following day he was sentenced to burning at the stake, the same sentence as in Vienne. Calvin and other ministers asked that he be beheaded instead of burnt, knowing that burning at the stake was the only legal recourse. This plea was refused and on 27 October, Servetus was burnt alive—atop a pyre of his own books—at the Plateau of Champel at the edge of Geneva."

My, oh, my; the demonic Calvin wanted Servetus beheaded instead of burned at the stake.

 

Simply point out anything I said that was false.

Go to my quotes of actual church historians and Calvin scholars and point out, with all of your vaunted expertise, in what ways they are wrong. Surely, since you have claimed that you have read all their books on the subject you are in a position to school them.

 

That Baptists here are perpetrating lies and defending the monster Calvin is one of the most astounding things I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot.

Notice that Rippon will not respond to what I've said to him several times about what would have happened to him if he had lived in Calvin's Geneva. I guess he doesn't like having his bull gored.

 

Nothing you've said about Calvin is true.

Tell me, do you have an icon of him in your home that you regularly kiss? I mean, I know Baptists don't usually do such things, but they don't usually defend and idolize state-church butchers, either.

 

Nope.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. The verb gennao, being passive, cannot mean what you want it to mean, what you've been saying it means.

This isn't an issue of interpretation or context, it is an issue of what "is" is. "Is" does not mean was, it means is. You're doing something similar with the verb gennao. The context doesn't, can't, and won't override the passive verb.

What is more, you cite v. 5 as a contextual argument for Nicodemus being told to do something... But, in v. 5 the verb gennao is also Aorist and Passive.

Why your "interpretation" is wrong is seen in to facts about the verb itself:

1. As already mentioned, in a passive verb (which is not interpretive, it is based on the form of the verb in the text) the subject does not and--by definition--can not act upon himself.

So, the assertion that Nicodemus is seeking to do something to or for himself is in error and, no matter how much you want it to say what you're saying it says it won't.

2. The use of the Aorist tense further shows an action presented in its entirety. The use of the subjunctive mood (along with the third-class conditional statement) with the Aorist Passive suggest the possibility of a future fulfillment--but the Passive means that it is something that--if it is to be done at all--will be done to Nicodemus, not by Nicodemus.

Face it, DHK, you're never going to be right about this. You can kick against the goads of the Greek grammar all you want, but this passage will never say and will never mean what you think it means.

Again, I challenge you to explain your "interpretation" from the Greek. Tell me why gennao isn't to be taken as an Aorist Passive. You've already demonstrated that you can't do what I'm asking and in that demonstration of "lack-thereof" you have also shown that you're simply out of your league. You have no facility in the languages. All you can do is reference AT Robertson (who is a great scholar, by the way). But, even in referencing him you've shown that you have no idea what he's saying.

The Archangel

 

Yeah.....in a previous post I already said Calvin asked them to change to penalty from burning to beheading. The consul refused, because Calvin had no say in the punishment. If you were on the religious counsel in Geneva, would you have found Micheal innocent of heresy? If you found him guilty, the city government would put him to death. What Micheal was doing was heresy. Do you lie and free a heretic, or let him die?

So, in Tyrol, where the Anabaptists had a violent uprising to bring religious reform.....that would make them murders to. So, murders killing murders. The world was a violent place. Still is outside of leading economic countries.

At what point did Calvin torture or execute a Anabaptist?

 

I don't remember who it was that brought up abortion, but that is a very good point. We are worried about one man that Calvin may or may not of killed. How many of us are actively fighting against abortions? 115,000 babies are killed every day. Calvin 1 murder. Modern Christians....42 million murders(abortions) a year. And these babies have done nothing to provoke death. If you aren't speaking out, writing to congress,....doing something to fight abortion....our sin is much greater than Calvin's. If he was demonic, we are Satan incarnate.

 

I can give you a reasonable exposition of John chapter three.
What you can't do, using your Greek, is force it into any of the translations I have read (and that is plenty) and make sense of it. The only past or aorist that Christ is referring to is "the first birth," his physical birth. Nicodemus needed still in the future to be born again. At that time, the time that Christ was speaking, he had not yet been regenerated. How then could Christ be speaking in the passive and aorist. You don't make sense.

Neither would Christ speak in the mystical and allegorical language of both Calvin and Augustine to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
The passage is fairly simple and straight forward for those who will accept the truth.