Do you recognise the differences between reformed/calvinist/Hyper?

[pinoybaptist]

too much sarcasm and environment of dislike on this thread and similar ones. I decided I am going to take "full control of myself" like the guy in this video.
have some laughs, folks.....chill out....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfs0wz8nEPU

 

[kyredneck]

what a sweeping statement you make.
I am a Primitive Baptist and some here would call me a hyper-Calvinist (whether I am or not is another subject altogether).
Yet I abhor the doctrine of absolute predestination, as do many doctrinally sound and sane Primitive Baptists.
I have argued with many here that God is NOT the author of sin, he is NEVER the cause of sin.
I do not believe God predestined when you are going to fart, when, how loud, and how foul the smell will be.

'Absoluters' are what mainstream PBs here call 'hyper'. Some are so 'hyper' that even the mosquito that bit you last night was 'predestined' to do so. 'Predestine' is found only four times in the scriptures and is ALWAYS in reference to God choosing a people for His own possession, NOT to events.

[add]:

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: Eph 1

and as you put it 'God is NOT the author of sin, he is NEVER the cause of sin':

And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind. Jer 7:31

and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal; which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Jer 19:5

And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. Jer 32:35

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

You could have saved a lot of space on here and avoided carpel tunnel syndrome by simply saying, "Since you don't agree with me, you are wrong about everything you say". That pretty much sums up your entire post.

:laugh: Well now....once again you cannot respond scripturally to my post as you cannot respond to the confessions of faith or calvinism itself.You show that once again.

So now, I'm going to pull rank.

You have no "rank'....maybe you are a legend in your mind...but this shows nothing...you are a name on a computer screen.

This is only for the hermeneutically challenged and is not meant as a carte blanche on everyone. Just for you: I have an earned doctorate in theology so I have studied these issues formally for 9 years, and informally for 40. Therefore my knowledge trumps your knowledge, you are wrong and I'm right.

That you claimed to have studied, etc...when you demonstrate no understanding shows nothing. It is another vain boast by you....The fact is you answer nothing...it is you who make the personal attacks when you cannot respond.

I guarantee you cannot answer me...if you could, you would have tried and shown it to be so easy.You cannot. I knew when you slandered James White and called him dishonest that you were empty and vain.You make charges against Dr.White, and you cannot begin to address him honestly...much less anyone on here. All your vain boasting and you cannot establish anything doctrinally.

We can play that game all day long. But it's getting rather boring which is why I ignore half of your posts

.

:laugh: You ignore my posts because they expose your lack of knowledge on these truths.It is obvious that you have nothing.You have not responded anywhere to any of the verses.....I understand.

I asked you to respond to the confession of faith.....you cannot because we all know your response will show you know less than nothing, yet you are quite ready to attempt to speak down to us......as if.....you are some authority.:thumbs:

I rejoice with them that rejoice. Those who can carry on a debate without all the vitriol and ad homimen remarks have my attention, and I rejoice with them even when we don't agree.

Nice excuse...you cannot answer so...it must be that you are the "victim"

And those who always feel the need to be right at the cost of slandering other Christians on a personal level. I weep with them that weep.

You slander Dr.White...call the dividing line and speak to him direct,and we can all see how you will "set him straight"

When you can answer the things I have written vis a vis, then I might engage again instead of wasting my time on someone who ignores the arguments

Unfounded charges and no scripture is not much to respond to.....

wasting your time....another excuse to avoid answering...

ignores the arguments....you have not made one.

I am the Doctor, and you are wrong.

You are nothing as far as your posts are concerned.Anyone can claim anything.Cults have "doctors" also.

Perhaps I was predestinated and foreordained not to understand (thank God)

While God does withhold truth from the proud, the fact that you would use God's name in vain in such a light and frivolous way tells me what i need to know about your supposed "doctorate"

so you look silly for arguing with me

.
I am not arguing at all, just exposing you for the false "ideas" you inflict on us.

In fact, it is silly to see any Calvinist arguing for their position because if it is true to form, eventually we will all be forced against our will to believe you.

The fact is you cannot believe unless God allows you to.Looks as if that has not happened yet.

Everyone else can call me James, Doc, Dr, Ach, but Iconoclast lost his privileges and is in time-out.

Sure...lol ...you cannot answer at all...so you retreat like a turtle into a shell.
You have no credibility at all.

the other post which you cannot answer and will avoid still stands:

Unless you take a historic confession of faith which gives the correct definition of the teaching and interact with it, you are making false caricatures instead, and so avoiding the truth which you cannot overturn at all.




Anyone who says they read a bible has to believe that those words are in there .You who oppose the teaching do not believe in the teaching as given in scripture....so no, you do not believe in it.

This is easily shown for example when either of you ,or others attempts to speak about the key texts and cannot.

to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

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

Every and any comment you will offer here, will contain a wrong and unbiblical view of foreknowledge,and wrong implications about sanctification.
Unless you speak truthfully about what is written by Paul.



Yes...and we see that you do not yet grasp the teaching so for sure your conclusions are opposing yourself and those who might be inclined to listen to you.......Cal's spot your error from a mile away

.

 

[Yeshua1]

I hope you'll at least drop in to answer a question or two.

What do you believe is the destiny of those who have never heard the gospel. Will God cut them some slack? Are they immune from condemnation because they cannot be blamed for rejecting the gospel they have never had an opportunity to hear?

I hope others will share their view on this, as well.

So, here are the nitty-gritty questions: Will all who have never heard the gospel go to heaven? If not all, will some?

If some will not, what is the basis of their condemnation?

If the answer is yes, they'll go to heaven, then we should immediately cease all personal witnessing, evangelism and missions, lest some hear the gospel, reject it and go to hell, when they could have gone to heaven if we'd just left them alone.

God is sovereign, so that who ever has been saved by the Cross, he will always make sure that somehow they get the message and believe unto salvation in jesus!

My main contention with PB is where are they ANY NT verses that support that God saves us apart from receiving jesus thru faith in him and His work for us?

 

[Yeshua1]

You could have saved a lot of space on here and avoided carpel tunnel syndrome by simply saying, "Since you don't agree with me, you are wrong about everything you say". That pretty much sums up your entire post.

So now, I'm going to pull rank. This is only for the hermeneutically challenged and is not meant as a carte blanche on everyone. Just for you: I have an earned doctorate in theology so I have studied these issues formally for 9 years, and informally for 40. Therefore my knowledge trumps your knowledge, you are wrong and I'm right.

We can play that game all day long. But it's getting rather boring which is why I ignore half of your posts. I rejoice with them that rejoice. Those who can carry on a debate without all the vitriol and ad homimen remarks have my attention, and I rejoice with them even when we don't agree.

And those who always feel the need to be right at the cost of slandering other Christians on a personal level. I weep with them that weep.

When you can answer the things I have written vis a vis, then I might engage again instead of wasting my time on someone who ignores the arguments and responds with nothing more than "you don't understand". Until that time comes, I am the Doctor, and you are wrong. Perhaps I was predestinated and foreordained not to understand (thank God) so you look silly for arguing with me. In fact, it is silly to see any Calvinist arguing for their position because if it is true to form, eventually we will all be forced against our will to believe you.

Everyone else can call me James, Doc, Dr, Ach, but Iconoclast lost his privileges and is in time-out.

So you would see yourself a greater theologian than paul/peter/ and John, eh?

or smater than Calvin, correct?

real calvinists, NOT the strawmen that you and van like to drum up to beat down upon...

are VERY serious about getting out the Gospel message, as God has ordained that was aprt of his salvation plan to reach with jesus all those that he elected and chose in the cross to get saved!

For we hold to a Soveregn God, who DID make a definite salvation forr his own peoples by anfd thru the Cross, do you hold that Jesus death was a definite salvation to announce, or more to it being a death that might be saving some?

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry to see you have become a mind reader, claiming to know what only an irrational mind would claim to know.

Let me take you through it one more time. If the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is true, then God is the Author of sin, i.e. the rejection of Christ. There is no escape for this conclusion if your mind is rational.

And this conclusion is obvious, yet each and every Calvinist, except hyper Calvinists deny it. What word describes denial of the obvious?

God ordained/decreed thatHis will would be worked out in and thru the falls of satan and Adam, but did NOT cause either to fall, nor authored sin they themselves freely chose to do!

 

[Van]

Summary of thread:

1) Hyper-Calvinists embrace the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus are wrong but rational.

2) Main-line Calvinists deny the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus wrong and irrational.

3) Reformed that embrace the 5 points of the TULIP are Calvinists in disguise.

Hyper-Calvinists say God is the author of sin, but main-line Calvinists say Total Spiritual Inability does not cause the sin of rejecting Christ, wrong and irrational.

These obvious truths have been buried by post after post seeking the change the subject to the character and qualifications of those holding views opposed to irrational Calvinism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Summary of thread:

1) Hyper-Calvinists embrace the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus are wrong but rational.

2) Main-line Calvinists deny the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus wrong and irrational.

3) Reformed that embrace the 5 points of the TULIP are Calvinists in disguise.

Hyper-Calvinists say God is the author of sin, but main-line Calvinists say Total Spiritual Inability does not cause the sin of rejecting Christ, wrong and irrational.

These obvious truths have been buried by post after post seeking the change the subject to the character and qualifications of those holding views opposed to irrational Calvinism.

Reformed are calvinists, its just that not all calvinists are reformed!

And you try to beat up the strawman , again, when will you start to address what calvinists REALLY believe and teach?

 

[Van]

Reformed are calvinists, its just that not all calvinists are reformed!

And you try to beat up the strawman , again, when will you start to address what calvinists REALLY believe and teach?

Yet another falsehood, even on this board, we have had posters claiming to be reformed but denying they were Calvinists. Thus Calvinists in disguise.

I address Calvinism accurately, you simply make charges against me to change the subject from your irrational beliefs
Shuck and jive is all you have, shuck and jive.

The summary of the thread stands vindicated. LOL

1) Hyper-Calvinists embrace the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus are wrong but rational.

2) Main-line Calvinists deny the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus wrong and irrational.

3) Reformed that embrace the 5 points of the TULIP are Calvinists in disguise.

Hyper-Calvinists say God is the author of sin, but main-line Calvinists say Total Spiritual Inability does not cause the sin of rejecting Christ, wrong and irrational.

These obvious truths have been buried by post after post seeking the change the subject to the character and qualifications of those holding views opposed to irrational Calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Doc James, could you please interpret this Scripture?

1 Corinthians 2:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[salzer mtn]

A Calvinist does not go out of his way to seek sinners WHERE THEY ARE AT. If he ever does, then he is not a true Calvinist. The Calvinist does not have a message to offer the sinner which is why they don't go soul winning. "Now Mr Sinner, I don't know if you are elect or not, but God has to wake you up out of your dead state and grant you repentance, but if you are not elect, then what I am telling you is a waste of time because you are going to hell anyway"

No true Calvinist believes that a sinner is capable of making a decision for Christ on the spot, right where the sinner stands. Why not? Because the Calvinist understands that making such a decision involves free will and the ability to choose and since Calvinism has a fundamentally different view of the gospel, it is not possible for a Calvinist to be evangelistic because by definition, there is never a call for the sinner to repent of his own volition.

The Calvinist can say Christ died for sins, but the Calvinist can not tell the sinner he is talking to that "Christ died for YOUR sins". The Calvinist can tell the sinner that God demands repentance, but the Calvinist can not ask the person to make a decision right then and there for Christ because the Calvinist does not know if God has granted him repentance or not.

The Calvinist can say that salvation is by grace, but the only assurance he can offer to the sinner that he is saved is by telling him that IF he has been granted repentance he needs to demonstrate it by good works, and thus the assurance of salvation is based on performance after an Arminian model.

A Calvinist does have a message to the lost and that message is, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all ecceptations that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners. A sinner by name is one thing but a sinner by understanding is another. Either by preaching in the pulpit or winessing to someone, to convince a person they have offended God in thought, word and deed and God is angry with the wicked every day and his wrath abideth on them and God will not at all acquit the wicked, but the soul that sinneth, it must die. If you can convince a person of these things you have done more in the way of salvation than preaching love, love, love to him all day.

 

[Van]

Note the verse (1 Corinthians 2:14) does not say, as some claim, all the things of the Spirit of God. It also does not say, some of the things of the Spirit of God. Thus we must look at the context to discern which of these two interpretations is correct. 1 Corinthians 3:1 say Paul had to speak the the new born Christians, already indwelt, as men of flesh. Thus teaching spiritual meat cannot be understood by babes in Christ or men of flesh, but spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel, can be understood by babes in Christ and men of flesh.

Clearly then the [spiritual meat] things of the Spirit of God is in view in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

 

[Van]

1) Hyper-Calvinism embraces the consequence of their doctrines, God is the author of Sin, and punishes sinners for the sins He caused. This is a mistaken view.

2) Main-line Calvinists deny the consequence of their doctrines, thus total spiritually inability does not cause the sin of rejecting of gospel. This is not only a mistaken view, it is irrational.

3) No amount of efforts to change the subject will alter these truths. LOL

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another falsehood, even on this board, we have had posters claiming to be reformed but denying they were Calvinists. Thus Calvinists in disguise.

I address Calvinism accurately, you simply make charges against me to change the subject from your irrational beliefs
Shuck and jive is all you have, shuck and jive.

The summary of the thread stands vindicated. LOL

1) Hyper-Calvinists embrace the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus are wrong but rational.

2) Main-line Calvinists deny the logical consequences of their doctrine, thus wrong and irrational.

3) Reformed that embrace the 5 points of the TULIP are Calvinists in disguise.

Hyper-Calvinists say God is the author of sin, but main-line Calvinists say Total Spiritual Inability does not cause the sin of rejecting Christ, wrong and irrational.

These obvious truths have been buried by post after post seeking the change the subject to the character and qualifications of those holding views opposed to irrational Calvinism.

reformed hold to 5 points of DoG, and all the calvinistic theology, so there cannot be reformed who are not calvinists!

And the truth is that you cannot see that hyper cals are NOT calvinists in the biblical sense, as they have gone past biblical teachings into serious errors!

what happened in the fall to you? Did God know what Adam would chosse to do and just permitted him to have free will answer?

Did the fall affect humanity at all, or do we still have the free will Adam had intact?

 

[Rippon]

Partial Calvinist are those who claim they do not adhere to all 5 points

But you specifically named George Whitefield as a "partial Calvinist." He not only believed in the so-called five points,but had a more full-orbed view of biblical doctrines known as Calvinism.

Norman Geisler considers himself a "moderate Calvinist" because he believes in eternal security, but not in the manner in which Calvinism portrays preseverence of the saints.

Norman Geisler likes to redefine historical theology.He is certainly an Arminian-to-semi-Pelagian.

Some believe in TUIP (minus Limited Atonement).

I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian.

You are an Arminian. Embrace your position,don't try to be evasive.

I don't care that Spurgeon embraced some of the errors of Calvinism, that was his choice.

And just what were some of the errors of Calvinism he did not embrace?

A Calvinist does not go out of his way to seek sinners WHERE THEY ARE AT.

And how would you like to characterize where they are at?

(And no wonder they live the Vaticanus and Siniaticus text that REMOVE that verse out of all the other 'Bibles').

No,it wasn't removed. The TR added it.

________________________________________________________

Do you believe that the Lord grants repentace and belief? And if you believe that the Bible teaches that,do you also acknowlege that we as believers are still called upon to urge,plead,command them in the Name of the Lord to believe and repent?

 

[Yeshua1]

Note the verse (1 Corinthians 2:14) does not say, as some claim, all the things of the Spirit of God. It also does not say, some of the things of the Spirit of God. Thus we must look at the context to discern which of these two interpretations is correct. 1 Corinthians 3:1 say Paul had to speak the the new born Christians, already indwelt, as men of flesh. Thus teaching spiritual meat cannot be understood by babes in Christ or men of flesh, but spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel, can be understood by babes in Christ and men of flesh.

Clearly then the [spiritual meat] things of the Spirit of God is in view in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Actually, NO!

To paul , a natural man is what all are outside of jesus and being saved by Him, the folfs adressed about eating milk, not meat were carnal christians, saints saved by the Lord, but acting immature, living out of their flesh and NOT out of the Holy spirit in them!

 

[salzer mtn]

A Calvinist does have a message to the lost and that message is, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all ecceptations that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners. A sinner by name is one thing but a sinner by understanding is another. Either by preaching in the pulpit or winessing to someone, to convince a person they have offended God in thought, word and deed and God is angry with the wicked every day and his wrath abideth on them and God will not at all acquit the wicked, but the soul that sinneth, it must die. If you can convince a person of these things you have done more in the way of salvation than preaching love, love, love to him all day.

Arminians put the cart before the horse. They start off telling a lost person how much God loves them and that he died for them when in fact God said, he hateth the workers of iniquity. You preach or tell of the love of Christ to a man that has already been broken by the law and the Spirit has made him to see he is a total depraved, unworthy, helpless, hopeless sinner. This is who Christ Jesus came into the world to save, SINNERS, 1 Tim 1:15. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us Rom 5:5.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Ach



:laugh: Well now....once again you cannot respond scripturally to my post as you cannot respond to the confessions of faith or calvinism itself.You show that once again.



You have no "rank'....maybe you are a legend in your mind...but this shows nothing...you are a name on a computer screen.



That you claimed to have studied, etc...when you demonstrate no understanding shows nothing. It is another vain boast by you....The fact is you answer nothing...it is you who make the personal attacks when you cannot respond.

I guarantee you cannot answer me...if you could, you would have tried and shown it to be so easy.You cannot. I knew when you slandered James White and called him dishonest that you were empty and vain.You make charges against Dr.White, and you cannot begin to address him honestly...much less anyone on here. All your vain boasting and you cannot establish anything doctrinally.

.

:laugh: You ignore my posts because they expose your lack of knowledge on these truths.It is obvious that you have nothing.You have not responded anywhere to any of the verses.....I understand.

I asked you to respond to the confession of faith.....you cannot because we all know your response will show you know less than nothing, yet you are quite ready to attempt to speak down to us......as if.....you are some authority.:thumbs:



Nice excuse...you cannot answer so...it must be that you are the "victim"



You slander Dr.White...call the dividing line and speak to him direct,and we can all see how you will "set him straight"



Unfounded charges and no scripture is not much to respond to.....

wasting your time....another excuse to avoid answering...

ignores the arguments....you have not made one.



You are nothing as far as your posts are concerned.Anyone can claim anything.Cults have "doctors" also.




While God does withhold truth from the proud, the fact that you would use God's name in vain in such a light and frivolous way tells me what i need to know about your supposed "doctorate"

.
I am not arguing at all, just exposing you for the false "ideas" you inflict on us.



The fact is you cannot believe unless God allows you to.Looks as if that has not happened yet.



Sure...lol ...you cannot answer at all...so you retreat like a turtle into a shell.
You have no credibility at all.

the other post which you cannot answer and will avoid still stands:
.

I answered you in several other posts, and when you responded, you scattered your response over about 10 different posts, and ignored 50% of what I said, and even others noticed that you failed to respond to a majority of what I argued.

And even on the James White issue, when I gave my second reply showing you where you and one other missed where I did respond about him, and even gave you the post # to where the response was at, you still failed to respond.

It was after that that I choose not respond to anymore of your arguments because you begin with the assumption that those who disagree with you are 1) Stupid 2) uninformed 3)don't understand anything they read.

Thus I choose to respond to you differently than I choose to respond to rationally minded people on here. There are numerous people on this forum that I disagree with, yet we have discussions without the condescending rhetoric that you offer in any post, which you follow up with blatant equivocation and outright lying about responses you were given.

So when I say I'm the doc and you are wrong, that is my way of saying that you have lost the opportunity to discuss any Biblical topic with me because I draw the line at being right, and being offensive in demeaning other believers because they disagree with you. When a person simply argues to prove they are right instead of promoting meaningful discussion that may aid in another persons better understanding of the Bible, the recipient of such vitriol is under no obligation to respond.

If my failure to respond to arguments I've already responded to makes you feel like a winner, congratulations, you win:applause:. My duty as a Christian isn't to win debates by slandering other believers, it's to present the truth based on solid Biblical principles and doing so without being venomous to the opponents who may not agree with my position. When you respond in such fashion, I treat you the same way I would an atheist that deliberately attempts to sabotage the faith of other believers.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4-5

 

[salzer mtn]

Note the verse (1 Corinthians 2:14) does not say, as some claim, all the things of the Spirit of God. It also does not say, some of the things of the Spirit of God. Thus we must look at the context to discern which of these two interpretations is correct. 1 Corinthians 3:1 say Paul had to speak the the new born Christians, already indwelt, as men of flesh. Thus teaching spiritual meat cannot be understood by babes in Christ or men of flesh, but spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel, can be understood by babes in Christ and men of flesh.

Clearly then the [spiritual meat] things of the Spirit of God is in view in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Van natural man is not a carnal christian. In other places in the bible the word natural is referred to as sinful, 1 Cor 15:44 It is sown in a natural body; it is raised in a spiritual body. There is a natural body (sinful body) and ther is a spiritual body. 1 Cor 15:46-47 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. James 1:23-24 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face (sinful face) in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

 

[DrJamesAch]

But you specifically named George Whitefield as a "partial Calvinist." He not only believed in the so-called five points,but had a more full-orbed view of biblical doctrines known as Calvinism.

When I get home, I will get my Whitefield sermon book out and list some of the sermons where Whitefield was not in agreement with Calvinism.

You are an Arminian. Embrace your position,don't try to be evasive.

I believe that once a person is saved, they are always saved (eternal security). Last I checked, Arminians disagree (Article 5 of the Remonstrance).

And just what were some of the errors of Calvinism he did not embrace?

Spurgeon believed that men could come to Christ of their own free will.

And how would you like to characterize where they are at?

This is already explained in the comment

No,it wasn't removed. The TR added it.

Not true. Acts 8:37 is contained in manuscripts E, 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598 and Elzevir 1633.

Early church leaders that quote this verse, include:

Irenaeus 178 A.D., "Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." (Against Heresies 3.12)

Cyprian 258, "In the Acts of the Apostles Treatise 12:3: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Phillip, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian )

Augustine 430,"The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water."


as well as Ambrosiaster 384, Ambrose 397 and, Tertullian 220.

Even John Calvin believed it was inspired.

Funny thing is the NIV removes it in English, but includes it in their 2000 Portuguese version (Nova Versão Internacional).

Those who disagree are merely repeating the "scholars" who didn't like the TR readings and re-classified some of the mss into different familes to make it appear that any of the TR readings were in the minority.