A Tale of Two Faiths

[McCree79]

I don't see how that's relevant to our discussion. Aside from my view, the point that is relevant is this: In a united church-state system, the government is the secular arm of the religious authorities, and the religious authorities, the "Church", is the religious arm of the government.

That's why all the Magisterial Reformers were persecutors and murderers, including Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. They sanctioned and approved of persecution, torture, and killing of religious dissenters. The Anabaptists were almost wiped out by the state churches -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. And Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli approved of it and participated in it. Luther by his words sanctioned it. If you doubt it, research it. And yet Luther was not nearly as bad as Calvin.

It is simply astounding to me to see supposed Baptists defending such. Our spiritual ancestors were persecuted, mutilated, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by state churches. Like I said, this must be end times.

The Consistoire(church) counsel was different from the civil counsel. The civil counsel carried out the execution, not the Consistoire. Calvin even pleaded with the civil counsel to give Michael a quick death. By the law only allowed burning at the stake. The counsel refused Calvin's request has done had done before and after. Over 10 years before this execution,the civil counsel ruled that Consistoire has no civil authority.

* I am not saying execution was the deserved punishment, but under that government.... It was the punishment. Calvin and Consistoire deemed Servetus a heretic. Which I think most people on the BB would say he was. The civil counsel which held authority of Calvin, carried out the execution. Calvin was not above this counsel.

I assume you believe the Pope to be a murder as well, for execution of heretics as well? I am not talking about wars. Just the heresy executions. Just looking to understand your point of view.

 

[DHK]

DHK wrote:

Cooper P. Abrahams III wrote:

Although DHK cannot find any evidence of the expression ‘saving faith’ in his Bible, apparently his rabid anti-Calvinist mentor and spiritual soul mate, Abrahams, can.

A CONCISE SUMMARY OF SAVING FAITH

I write this for the benefit of Pastor DHK and others on this board who have difficulty grasping this essential Christian doctrine.

1. Saving faith is the gift of God to sinners. It is a saving grace.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith..."
It is astounding that you don't know the difference between grace and faith.

2. It must be God’s gift because saving faith is spiritual. Man is carnal and carnal cannot produce spiritual.

"It must be because." This is an inference from you, not scriptural evidence.
1. "saving faith" is not found in the Bible; it is a term used for those who have to be told what faith is.
2. It is not the gift of God to the unregenerate. God does not give the unregenerate spiritual gifts or the fruit of the Spirit. Your saying so doesn't make it true. The gospel comes first. Faith in the gospel is what is required to be saved. That is the order that must be followed. That is what is described. Look at Acts 16:30,31.

3. This fundamental truth is evinced when Jesus explains the absolute necessity that Nicodemus must be ‘born again’ of the Spirit. If carnal wisdom could believe on Christ, surely Nicodemus (the wisest teacher in all Israel) would qualify. Yet he did not.

You have never given an accurate exposition of this passage. You don't seem to know what happened here.

4. Saving faith is faith that justifies. (Romans 5:1) Those who are justified are saved. Therefore, faith that justifies is saving faith.

Quite true.
The Bible says: "Being justified by faith we have peace with God."
It does not say "saving faith." It simply uses the term "faith." Faith is faith.

5. Saving faith is a grace given to the Elect. (Titus 1:1)

It doesn't speak anything of "saving faith". He is addressing believers here.
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
It is: their faith, their knowledge of the truth, which is after their godliness.
--hardly speaking of the unregenerate. In fact not even speaking of "saving faith," but rather of a "walk of faith."

6. The Elect are those whom God the Father has predestinated to be effectually called unto saving faith which justifies:

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:

Predestination always refers to the blessings of the saved, never to salvation in and of itself. So even here you have it wrong. Again, you are inserting into the passage words that are not there, destroying the text. Adding to the Bible is something you shouldn't be doing.

7. Note that the sequence does not verbally include ‘saving faith.’ The Holy Spirit has intentionally omitted notice of ‘saving faith’ in order to teach us that saving faith is a grace of God which accompanies the effectual calling of the Elect.

No, faith is faith. It does not need to be redefined by you. The Holy Spirit knew that. You do not need to correct God. There is a difference between grace and faith. Faith is not "a grace." Where do you get that from--Catholicism?

8. In the same way that the Elect do not call themselves to justification, they do not produce saving faith. The calling comes from God, justification comes from God, and everything else in-between which is necessary unto justification comes from God. That would include regeneration by the Spirit, repentance and saving faith which justifies.

Your opinion is noted but not proven. God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. He does not do it for them. Herein is your fallacy.

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, shows His Elect the things which are Christ’s.

All the graces needed for salvation, including saving faith, are Christ’s to give.

The Elect understand that their faith was Christ’s to give, not theirs to give Christ.

Are you one of the elect? How do you know? Who told you? On what basis do you have an assurance that you are one of the elect or that God elected you?
After all, you did say: "The Holy Spirit...shows His Elect the things which are Christ's." Really? How did He show you that you are: first one of the elect, and second, all of those things which are Christ's.

He is the author of their faith.

I don't argue with that, only with your interpretation.

To God alone be the glory!

Always.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you [the Elect] into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [the Elect]
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [the Elect]

You have quoted this verse out of its context.
The Holy Spirit indeed has come. But has he guided you into ALL truth?
No, he hasn't. You do not know everything as is very evident on this thread. You are wrong in many things. You do not know "all truth." That would be an arrogant assumption on your part.

This was a statement made by Christ and given to his disciples in particular. It was prophetic; a promise--The Holy Spirit would guide them into all the truth that they would need to write down in the inspired scriptures. They would recall all the truth that He had taught them. The Holy Spirit would guide them, and thus we have "the inspired Word" today. What they wrote was faultless the Holy Spirit bringing back to their memories each and every conversation and event without error.
It is not a promise that is given to you.

 

[steaver]

We were not there. we do not understand what it was like to live and confess Christ at that time. Squire R posted a short thread a few weeks ago and also got at this idea. Some of the violence and killing I just do not understand...but I was not alive then. Many things were done by many groups back then.
We do not understand all of the thoughts and motives but we do not need to either. We are called to be saints now...in our time.

Unbelievable!! Giving professing Christians a pass because of the times they were living in?? Seriously??? 'Well, hey, everybody else was murdering Christians for disagreeing with the state, so we might as well also'.

Are you telling me Calvin didn't have the same Scriptures we have today?? Calvin didn't understand he wasn't suppose to be hunting down those who disagreed with him and consenting to their death? Didn't Calvin ever read how Paul was doing that very evil deed until he got saved??

Pitiful anyone can defend such a man. If John Calvin didn't understand the love of Christ I certainly would not trust anything else he might have thought he understood.

 

[steaver]

I don't see how that's relevant to our discussion. Aside from my view, the point that is relevant is this: In a united church-state system, the government is the secular arm of the religious authorities, and the religious authorities, the "Church", is the religious arm of the government.

That's why all the Magisterial Reformers were persecutors and murderers, including Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. They sanctioned and approved of persecution, torture, and killing of religious dissenters. The Anabaptists were almost wiped out by the state churches -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. And Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli approved of it and participated in it. Luther by his words sanctioned it. If you doubt it, research it. And yet Luther was not nearly as bad as Calvin.

It is simply astounding to me to see supposed Baptists defending such. Our spiritual ancestors were persecuted, mutilated, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by state churches. Like I said, this must be end times.

:thumbs: If a person cannot see the obvious, how can they be taken seriously when preaching Calvinism?

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK wrote:



Cooper P. Abrahams III wrote:



Although DHK cannot find any evidence of the expression ‘saving faith’ in his Bible, apparently his rabid anti-Calvinist mentor and spiritual soul mate, Abrahams, can.

A CONCISE SUMMARY OF SAVING FAITH

I write this for the benefit of Pastor DHK and others on this board who have difficulty grasping this essential Christian doctrine.

1. Saving faith is the gift of God to sinners. It is a saving grace.

2. It must be God’s gift because saving faith is spiritual. Man is carnal and carnal cannot produce spiritual.

3. This fundamental truth is evinced when Jesus explains the absolute necessity that Nicodemus must be ‘born again’ of the Spirit. If carnal wisdom could believe on Christ, surely Nicodemus (the wisest teacher in all Israel) would qualify. Yet he did not.

4. Saving faith is faith that justifies. (Romans 5:1) Those who are justified are saved. Therefore, faith that justifies is saving faith.

5. Saving faith is a grace given to the Elect. (Titus 1:1)

6. The Elect are those whom God the Father has predestinated to be effectually called unto saving faith which justifies:

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:

7. Note that the sequence does not verbally include ‘saving faith.’ The Holy Spirit has intentionally omitted notice of ‘saving faith’ in order to teach us that saving faith is a grace of God which accompanies the effectual calling of the Elect.

8. In the same way that the Elect do not call themselves to justification, they do not produce saving faith. The calling comes from God, justification comes from God, and everything else in-between which is necessary unto justification comes from God. That would include regeneration by the Spirit, repentance and saving faith which justifies.

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, shows His Elect the things which are Christ’s.

All the graces needed for salvation, including saving faith, are Christ’s to give.

The Elect understand that their faith was Christ’s to give, not theirs to give Christ.

He is the author of their faith.

To God alone be the glory!

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you [the Elect] into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [the Elect]
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [the Elect]

DHK.......crushed again by his own link:laugh:

Can anyone think of when he has gotten anything correctly.
He does not get that you quote from the link.....can it get any worse?

 

[The American Dream]

Unbelievable!! Giving professing Christians a pass because of the times they were living in?? Seriously??? 'Well, hey, everybody else was murdering Christians for disagreeing with the state, so we might as well also'.

Are you telling me Calvin didn't have the same Scriptures we have today?? Calvin didn't understand he wasn't suppose to be hunting down those who disagreed with him and consenting to their death? Didn't Calvin ever read how Paul was doing that very evil deed until he got saved??

Pitiful anyone can defend such a man. If John Calvin didn't understand the love of Christ I certainly would not trust anything else he might have thought he understood.

So did you ever consider our own history, or is it just the 1500s that concerns you? I grew up in Mississippi in the 50s and 60s. Things I saw done in the name of segregation are not worth mentioning here, but they were nothing but mean. So, has it ever entered your mind, all those pastors giving a wink and a nod to such a system, even after having read the Bible and gone to seminary? Or is your gaze on John Calvin so fixed that you did not even consider something right at your own back door? How did these pastors show the love of Christ? Were they even part of the elect, or in your case, did they ever exercise their saving self faith?

 

[The Archangel]

3. This fundamental truth is evinced when Jesus explains the absolute necessity that Nicodemus must be ‘born again’ of the Spirit. If carnal wisdom could believe on Christ, surely Nicodemus (the wisest teacher in all Israel) would qualify. Yet he did not.

You have never given an accurate exposition of this passage. You don't seem to know what happened here.

And yet, DHK, you insist that Jesus is giving Nicodemus an imperative: Go and get yourself born again.

It is you who have never given anything close to an accurate exposition of the passage. You seem to ignore the Greek which clearly states--in the Passive--that something must be done to Nicodemus that he, by definition, cannot do to or for himself.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

steaver

Unbelievable!! Giving professing Christians a pass because of the times they were living in?? Seriously???

'

You cannot understand anything I write Steaver...that is what is unbelievable.

I do not like to interact with someone who feels the need to put their twisted spin on what I said....you do that with everyone.

I did not say I gave anyone a pass....I do not need you saying what you think I said.

Well, hey, everybody else was murdering Christians for disagreeing with the state, so we might as well also'.

You are clueless about that time and the laws as they were.

Are you telling me Calvin didn't have the same Scriptures we have today??

I did not mention Calvin.I am speaking of all the events of that time period as Squires post made reference to. The people did not have everything available to them. Are you not capable of thinking through this?

Calvin didn't understand he wasn't suppose to be hunting down those who disagreed with him and consenting to their death? Didn't Calvin ever read how Paul was doing that very evil deed until he got saved??

This thread is not about Calvin, and what he did or did not do.
He has already gone into the eternal state

Pitiful anyone can defend such a man. If John Calvin didn't understand the love of Christ I certainly would not trust anything else he might have thought he understood

.

Bearing false witness is a sin. You were not there. God is His Savior or Judge, not you.

 

[The Archangel]

And yet Carey had to make a break from the "type of Calvinism" that his other "five point" Calvinist brothers held to. They didn't want him to go to field because God would elect them any way "with or without his help." According to Calvinism they were the ones that were correct in taking Calvinism to its logical conclusion. That is all I am saying.

You obviously don't know your baptist history. While there were some hyper-Calvinists in Carey's England, he was by no means alone in his efforts to reach the lost of India. There was, in fact, an entire society that sent and supported his and other missions.

I am not saying that there are five point Calvinists on this board who do not evangelize. I never said that. I know very well that some of your churches are very evangelistic. What I am saying is that when Calvinism is taken down its proper road then the obvious conclusion is that there is no need for evangelism, as those in Carey's day believed.

The need for evangelism is a biblical one, not an "ism." Calvinism's logical conclusion is not a lack of need for evangelism any more than the logical conclusion of non-Calvinism is open theism.

There is a need for evangelism because of, among other passages, Romans 10. Paul asks, rhetorically, "how will they hear without a preacher?" The implied answer in Greek is: they won't.

Calvinists believe that we are a means to an end: We share the Gospel, reasoning, imploring, and pleading with others to believe in Christ. Why? Some "ism?" Hardly. We evangelize because a proper biblical theology requires us to do so. We sow the seeds, the "seed" being the Gospel. Hearts that God has prepared will receive it. Stony hearts will reject it. It really is that simple.

What does predestination and predetermination mean?
What does reprobation mean?
In spite of what you do God has selected some to heaven and has appointed the rest to an eternal torment in the Lake of Fire. It is a horrible doctrine, but one that Calvin (not the Bible) taught. Why, therefore, witness?

This doctrine of the election of the elect to salvation and the damnation of the wicked came at great cost to Calvin, leading him into doctrinal error:

(Institutes, III: xxii, 1)
Was Christ the eternal Son of God or not? Not according to Calvin.
In fact He was "presented this honor" of being the Son. What heresy!
It is a denial of the co-eternal and oneness of the triune Godhead.
And then in typical fashion he berates anyone who dares to contradict or question the "inspired truths" that come from his imagination.
What "inspired truth" now follows--that God freely elects some to salvation while reprobating others to damnation. That is his right. His logic is based on the reasoning that Christ was given "the right" to become the Son of God.
What foolishness.

And I thought what you wrote couldn't get any more stupid....

Get it through your head: I don't read Calvin. I have the Institutes and use them, at the very least, as a reference--especially in times like this when certain vandals--such as yourself--seek to misquote him for their own nefarious purposes.

You should try quoting the entire article. It says exactly the opposite of what you are saying it says. But, since you've repeatedly demonstrated an inability to rightly handle Scripture in context, why should we be surprised that you can't handle others?!

I am not a Calvinist because of what Calvin says. I am a "Calvinists" because of what Scripture says.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

And yet, DHK, you insist that Jesus is giving Nicodemus an imperative: Go and get yourself born again.

It is you who have never given anything close to an accurate exposition of the passage. You seem to ignore the Greek which clearly states--in the Passive--that something must be done to Nicodemus that he, by definition, cannot do to or for himself.

The Archangel

:applause::applause::applause: Until he can own this truth he will not make any progress in spiritual things
:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

And yet, DHK, you insist that Jesus is giving Nicodemus an imperative: Go and get yourself born again.

It is you who have never given anything close to an accurate exposition of the passage. You seem to ignore the Greek which clearly states--in the Passive--that something must be done to Nicodemus that he, by definition, cannot do to or for himself.

The Archangel

I know what the passage means and have preached on it many times.
I believe that in about 20 different translations, at least one of them would have gotten it right, IF you were right in your translation. But no, not one agrees with you. For that reason alone, I would question your use of the Greek. I believe you use the Greek according to your own presuppositions, just the way many people here use the English--making it say what they want it to say instead of what it literally says. Making it simple, I don't trust your interpretation.
It says what it means, not what you say it means.

 

[The Archangel]

I know what the passage means and have preached on it many times.
I believe that in about 20 different translations, at least one of them would have gotten it right, IF you were right in your translation. But no, not one agrees with you. For that reason alone, I would question your use of the Greek. I believe you use the Greek according to your own presuppositions, just the way many people here use the English--making it say what they want it to say instead of what it literally says. Making it simple, I don't trust your interpretation.
It says what it means, not what you say it means.

No, you don't know what it means--and it's obvious. Also, it's obvious you have no facility with the languages.

These 20 different translations... I'm sure they capture the passive as well as English can capture the Greek passive. Look the verb up for yourself. In John 3:3 it is passive (and Aorist, too).

The reason you don't "trust" my interpretation is because it is catastrophic to your presuppositions. My "interpretation" isn't an interpretation at all. It's actually what the text says. The verb is passive. That is a fact, not an interpretation. In Greek, by definition, the subject (Nicodemus, in this case) cannot perform the action of the verb on himself, it must be done to him.

Now, instead of this cockamamie stuff you're spreading about what you think you "know" to be true and that my "interpretation" is wrong, prove it wrong from the Greek. I doubt you'll accept this challenge because, as I've mentioned earlier, you appear to have no facility to work in the original languages and, therefore, have no ability for yourself to judge what the text actually says.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

So did you ever consider our own history, or is it just the 1500s that concerns you? I grew up in Mississippi in the 50s and 60s. Things I saw done in the name of segregation are not worth mentioning here, but they were nothing but mean. So, has it ever entered your mind, all those pastors giving a wink and a nod to such a system, even after having read the Bible and gone to seminary? Or is your gaze on John Calvin so fixed that you did not even consider something right at your own back door? How did these pastors show the love of Christ? Were they even part of the elect, or in your case, did they ever exercise their saving self faith?

1Jo 4:20 - "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen".

I place these folks in the same category as the KKK....

Matt 7:23 - "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

I ask you, Did John Calvin not understand the love of Christ? Did he not have the same Scriptures we have today? It sounds to me like he had a religion, and a perverted one at that.

 

[steaver]

I did not say I gave anyone a pass....I do not need you saying what you think I said.
.

And then the pass.....

You are clueless about that time and the laws as they were.

The laws of the land do not trump the law of Christ. Stop giving them a pass....

I did not mention Calvin.I am speaking of all the events of that time period as Squires post made reference to. The people did not have everything available to them. Are you not capable of thinking through this?

Keep up brother! The topic has been John Calvin now for quite a few pages.

Bearing false witness is a sin. You were not there. God is His Savior or Judge, not you

Glad you finally discovered that one. Now go and sin no more....:smilewinkgrin:

 

[steaver]

I did not mention Calvin.I am speaking of all the events of that time period as Squires post made reference to. The people did not have everything available to them. Are you not capable of thinking through this?

Do you understand regeneration is Christ in you? Did these people (supposedly Christians we are speaking of) have the Holy Spirit teaching them not to hate their brothers and sisters? Or do you believe the Holy Spirit was powerless to those who could not read the scriptures for themselves?

Is this only true if one can read it? Or is it the Spirit that teaches such a truth from the heart? ...........1Jo 4:20 - "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen".

 

[The American Dream]

1Jo 4:20 - "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen".

I place these folks in the same category as the KKK....

Matt 7:23 - "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

I ask you, Did John Calvin not understand the love of Christ? Did he not have the same Scriptures we have today? It sounds to me like he had a religion, and a perverted one at that.

Did King David have the love of Christ in him despite being guilty of the crime of murder? How about breaking God's commandments of adultery and being a false witness? Did God use him for His purposes?

As has been said to you repeatedly, we are not judges of someone's final destiny, anyone. It is also a fact we were not in Geneva in the mid 1500s. Fact three is all I have to do is read Calvin's sermons, his Institutes, and realize the man was used by the Lord 1000 times more than me. Like David, we are all flawed and sinful. God used him for His glory more than me. Here is another fact. I know without a doubt David committed those sins, because Scripture says so. I do not know for sure the record of Calvin. You and your friend are getting the information off the internet. Most of it is speculation, and you have no verifiable proof. I could teach my parrot to copy and paste. No matter, one has to read the writings of the man to get a total picture. You focus on what others write about him, and most with an agenda against sovereignty, and most of them with a wiki type accuracy. One good example is the Servetus case, one of the few well documented cases of the hundreds you cite. Calvin was not the judge, or the executioner. He was a witness period. Yet the side that does not like him goes into the depth of "Calvin killed Servetus" by people having no idea of the facts. It really is not the point. The point is your side ignores the positive aspects of Calvin. The other flaw is you focus on nothing but Calvin. It seems to me Scripture is ignored when making a case for self induced saving faith. Every post is all about Calvin, when it should be all about Jesus Christ. It is a hobby or obsession with the free will side of the debate.

The reason I brought up the South in the 50s and 60s is I was there and lived it. In all the threads about racism, equal rights, and all being in Christ regardless of race, I never once saw you or any other poster bring out the pastors of that era giving support a system that treated folks of a different race basically like animals. I never saw one post condemning the pastors of that era for preaching that black people had no soul. Don't get me started on that, but the point is, no one brings up evils from the pits of hell of our own making, but go back 550 years and focus on Calvin. With certain posters its all about Calvin. Every time a thread starts about God being sovereign, it is all about Calvin. Yet, they skip right across people like David being used of the Lord, and the recent history of the South.

 

[The American Dream]

The laws of the land do not trump the law of Christ. Stop giving them a pass....

No the laws of the land do not trump the law of Christ. So what have you done to bring ours into line with the law of Christ. What have you done to express opposition to abortion since 1973, and the 50 state march to legalize gay marriage besides type a post? Let me guess, you voted Republican. How did that work out for you?

If you want to focus on Calvin (its all about Calvin) and the laws that existed at the time as being out of line with the law of Christ, why not make a fair comparison? If you are accurate about Calvin's record as a governing official in Geneva, then is their form of execution for whatever was a capital crime back then worse than the two laws cited above for modern day America? I think not. We kill more babies in one week than Calvin had executed (if he was the one who did it. You all have a habit of putting all the blame on him when he is not the central figure) if everything you said is true. So don't act like we have come out of the Dark Ages and are enlightened now to the Word. I will guarantee you the stench from this nation towards heaven is much greater than the sins of Calvin and Geneva ever was. So if you guys are going to paint a picture of Calvin, do so accurately.

 

[The American Dream]

No, you don't know what it means--and it's obvious. Also, it's obvious you have no facility with the languages.

These 20 different translations... I'm sure they capture the passive as well as English can capture the Greek passive. Look the verb up for yourself. In John 3:3 it is passive (and Aorist, too).

The reason you don't "trust" my interpretation is because it is catastrophic to your presuppositions. My "interpretation" isn't an interpretation at all. It's actually what the text says. The verb is passive. That is a fact, not an interpretation. In Greek, by definition, the subject (Nicodemus, in this case) cannot perform the action of the verb on himself, it must be done to him.

Now, instead of this cockamamie stuff you're spreading about what you think you "know" to be true and that my "interpretation" is wrong, prove it wrong from the Greek. I doubt you'll accept this challenge because, as I've mentioned earlier, you appear to have no facility to work in the original languages and, therefore, have no ability for yourself to judge what the text actually says.

The Archangel

I know very little of Greek except for what I picked up the year I lived in Greece on their isolated islands. No you will not be challenged. They would probably try to convince you there is no passive tense for verbs in the Greek language. Nope, Nicodemus was sitting around one day and said, think its time to exercise my internal faith. One day Paul was on his way to Damascus and said, what a pretty day, think Ill stop killing Christians and preach the Gospel. And Peter wanted to make Jesus feel good one day, and said out of his own good nature, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And good old Thomas, he thought, you know, next time Jesus pops in here I have got to mention He is my Lord and God. Nothing external about any of those folks. All were proactive and perfectly capable of scheduling their salvation.

On a serious note, no you will not be challenged because there is no Scripture to support their claims, regardless of language. Enjoy your posts.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Archangel

No, you don't know what it means--and it's obvious. Also, it's obvious you have no facility with the languages.

DHK...this is a simple request. You can supply an answer and get a response.

Remember when van tried this to no avail? Now it is your turn to shine....show us what you have on this....Do not dance around speak about obscure things, the question is quite clear-:thumbs:

These 20 different translations... I'm sure they capture the passive as well as English can capture the Greek passive. Look the verb up for yourself. In John 3:3 it is passive (and Aorist, too).[/QUOTE]

The reason you don't "trust" my interpretation is because it is catastrophic to your presuppositions. My "interpretation" isn't an interpretation at all. It's actually what the text says.

Yes...so rather than admit to what we know to be true and be thankful for the correction....what else could be the response?

The verb is passive. That is a fact, not an interpretation. In Greek, by definition, the subject (Nicodemus, in this case) cannot perform the action of the verb on himself, it must be done to him.

Ding,Ding, Ding:thumbs:

Now, instead of this cockamamie stuff you're spreading about what you think you "know" to be true and that my "interpretation" is wrong, prove it wrong from the Greek.

Ah yes,.....straight and to the point.

I doubt you'll accept this challenge because, as I've mentioned earlier, you appear to have no facility to work in the original languages and, therefore, have no ability for yourself to judge what the text actually says.

There you have it:thumbs:


The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

Concerning Spurgeon
Calvinist, yes;

Of course, and a strong one at that.

conflicted, yes.

You are absolutely wrong.

If Calvinist, he certainly was not consistent in his Calvinism. Anyone who has thoroughly read Spurgeon can see this quite readily. Any Calvinist who has seen this will probably, out of their own pride, never admit it.

You have poor reading skills, a terrible memory and a flint-like forehead.