Comments for The Silent Holocron

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by Stephen Newell

Stephen Newell — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:58:30 +0000

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you The Angry Theology Geek. Note the inability to interact with the post and comments with anything resembling lucidity, intelligence, calmness, and most importantly Christian grace. It’s people like this that scare non-believers away from Jesus and make most believers tired of blogs.

Please pray for this guy.

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by John Treat AKA Lifesharer

John Treat AKA Lifesharer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:40:04 +0000

Pelagian wasn’t a pelagian, if you actually read his own writings he denied the way they twisted what he said and believed. And it’s only heresy if it is un-biblical, not because a bunch of RCC heretics call it one. When you, like all Calvinist , try to pigeon hole and box someone into a name or stereotype, you show only that you cant make original thoughts so are limited to such infantile techniques to try and gain a upper hand over your antagonist. Such marginalizing is only a tool for those who claim to be ” masters” but are not. James 3: 1 Such actions again prove you have no facility with the actual things i wrote, or YOU wrote. I do not deny a sin nature , just how you and your Calvinist masters taught you to define it. I do not say that Adams actions were merely a bad example: they brought sin into the world and death where none had existed see again ROM 5: 12.
i do not believe in mysticism, but in spirituality as defined in Isaiah 57: 15 and Ezekiel 11: 19 and Deut 30: 6. Ephesians 2: 1 and Rom 2: 29 and hundreds of other passages you obviously do not understand.
i am not now nor ever was a pelagian, so STOP trying to diminish me with your Calvinist tactics. I am a biblicists: the BIBLE is my rule, not the comments of commentators and biblicaly illiterate teachers such as you appear to be.
When Jesus told the pharisees that they were vipers and snakes ..THAT was love. when he told them they were blind guides ..THAT was LOVE. and your attempt to falsely accuse me of not loving my brother because i spoke the truth to you about you infantile theological abilities does not mean i did not LOVE you. Truth is Love even when its not your ecumenical, kiss up, actualy hidden condemnations.
Deu_8:5 Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee.
Heb_12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb_12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
LOL i do not stop loving the petulant and rebellious child so easily so as to think your ” Good day” was well meant nor was it even sincere. LOL. They called Jesus a raving lunatic as well. Oh well. If you had addressed even ONE of my points with the same rule you claim i lack from 1John 4 instead of that abusive and purposefully nicolaitian spirit of domination and Calvinist: “death to all heretics” ! attitude in your first post… you may have actually LEARNED something.
The so called depraved nature of Calvinistic and Catholic , Augustinian descriptions was a product of Augustine’s Manichean and pagan thinking and was adopted by the RCC as foundational church theology and accepted by the neo catholic Calvin as fundamental to Calvinist doctrine. Contrary wise the biblical doctrine of the sin NATURE of a dead spirit cut off from God by sin ( Eph 2: 1 -2) is not such a nature as to make us INCAPABLE of knowing good from evil. Jesus said > “Mat_7:11 If ye then, being evil [unregenerate .. LOOK IT UP], know how to give good gifts unto your children, how …” OBVIOUSLY Jesus did not agree with Augustine or Calvin in their definition of that nature and its ability to do good.
I leave you with this thought: Jas 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that WE shall receive the greater condemnation. Believeth thou this? Must be getting pretty HOT where you are at..LOLOL Do you even KNOW what the bible means by the concept of the putz? It’s a useless bit of flesh left over after the circumcision; which is itself worthless and useless .. BUT thankfully God has decreed that it be a sign of the circumcision of the Covenant. In Moses its outward and about the works of the law by the flesh . In the NEW Covenant, it’s the “heart of flesh” in Ezekiel 11: 19 called circumcision of the heart, in the (s)pirit..” Rom 2: 29. the circumcision of Christ Col 2: 10-12. newness of life Rom 6: 4 and newness of (s)pirit in Rom 7: 4-6. So be Glad i call you one. I am one. Any real christian knows that they are a useless bit of flesh apart from the work of God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Please stop obfuscating what you neither know or understand and just learn of Him . Maybe then you can actually be taught the milk of Gods word instead of your denominations cultic doctrines of men. I speak in LOVE to your chastisement , that perhaps you will humble yourself to Gods holy words rather than genuflect to the mass murderers of the pope and Calvin.

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by Stephen Newell

Stephen Newell — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:09:03 +0000

Since you asked so kindly, sir, I’ll give you one hint. You explicitly endorse a central tenet of the heresy of Pelagianism in your comments. You don’t need to be a Calvinist to see that one from a mile away. Yet I doubt you yourself are a Pelagian in the way Pelagius was.

Until you learn to bridle your tongue as Scripture commands, and until you’ve done as I suggested and meditated on 1 John 4, I’d appreciate if you kept your ravings to yourself. Good day.

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by John Treat AKA Lifesharer

John Treat AKA Lifesharer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:32:51 +0000

sir your a carnal putz and unwilling to show the least admission that anyone might actualy know something better than you LOL i recommend you just repent before you try again to one up me with trite and self serving babble that ignores the actual points for ad Hom attacks
grow up you religious heretic

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by Stephen Newell

Stephen Newell — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:50:49 +0000

Sir, your attitude clearly demonstrates you have not been careful at all. One could be 100 and still be a great deal wrong.

I encourage you to meditate on 1 John 4 before you comment on this blog again.

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by John Treat AKA Lifesharer

John Treat AKA Lifesharer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:23:33 +0000

After 50 years of being a christian , you think i haven’t? I suggest you put Down your doctrines of men and actually allow Gods HS to teach you all truth. The scriptures declares that GOD gave us our human spirit at conception and it goes back to him when we die. Eccl. 12:7 so you want me to accept a babbling proof texting and ignorant idea that is rooted in Augustinian paganism of an inherited sin nature ? I do not care HOW MANY men wrote about it its NONSENSE when you actually understand WHAT the sin nature IS. Nothing in your post actually defined any biblical term you used; correctly. Not you, not them NOTHING. And your answer to the false doctrine of infant regeneration is clearly just a lot of hoopla and babble that clarified nothing because you do not KNOW what the mechanics of these things are. I explained it in 3 sentences why it is impossible. You are still adding more layers of confusion to the subject. because the Blood must be applied to sin before regeneration no child can be regenerated unless they first understand that they sinned and have a faith in Jesus Christ.
IF : God gave us a human spirit at conception, and the SIN NATURE is a dead spirit cut off from God because of sin when biblicaly defined. THEN you must accept that GOD gave us a dead spirit at conception. This is Calvinism and this is heresy. IF the so called sin nature as you understand it is inherited what are the physical mechanism this physical nature uses to pass it on? genetics? some quasi spiritual thing? how can a sin nature be passed on when God said that we have this because we sinned ( Rom 5: 12) and NOT as an inherited nature? IF a regenerated man and woman have a child ( and therefore had their natures changed) do they pass on a nature they DO NOT have any more ?) Why, since sin is a transgression of the law 1 Jn 3: 4, would a JUST GOD demand a innocent infant who never committed a sin Rom 9:11 to have a sin NATURE thus MAKING THEM SIN BY HIS OWN ACTIONS ? This DOCTRINE of inherited sin nature was RCC and Calvinist because JOHN was a follower OF Augustine. And you are just a stooge of the same mentally aberrant cult thinking . SO my biblical position is CLEARLY found in eccl 12:7 rom 5: 12 and in a number of places as a rational and logical conclusion by those who actually UNDERSTAND what they read. something you have failed to do yet.
is John Calvin a ” godly man”? He hand a direct hand in 56 murders of people in heinous fashion. and so your commentators are also guilty of turning a blind eye to the wicked actions of their heroes just like you. how pathetic

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by Stephen Newell

Stephen Newell — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:28:07 +0000

Sir, your response to mine is loaded with irony. I’ll let you figure out what’s ironic about it.

You are demonstrably wrong on most of your points. For example, my post on original sin referenced in the post above refutes your claim that we are born without sin. Indeed, Scripture contradicts your assumption, which can be found nowhere in the Bible!

The only point on which I agree with you is that Satan does, indeed, work to blur the truth – not only to Eve, but to all humanity, especially those who believe.

I would encourage you to prayerfully consider what Scripture says, and on what godly men throughout history have written. Maybe pick up a few good books on theology and read them carefully and prayerfully as well.

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by John Treat AKA Lifesharer

John Treat AKA Lifesharer — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:26:30 +0000

Well SIR , if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck??? is it a duck? Secondly , ad Hominem attacks are not scholarly dialogue nor rebuttal to the errors i saw. I read your post and if that’s the best you can do to explain your self that i totally misunderstood everything you said… why are you trying to write theological statements?
The points i make IF TRUE you should receive gladly. if wrong you should apply the principles to correct with humbleness .
Calvinism is a completely heretical cult with another gospel , another atonement, another Jesus, another salvation, another God. why shouldn’t i “bash” as you so arrogantly call my exposing it’s foibles since you claim to not be one? i find that curious. Your reply to me is unsatisfactory and shows an inability to understand what you read. Further you reveal a petty and rather arrogant attitude.
Your post is wrong in defining the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and you mislabeled it. You were wrong in every point you made Thereafter, you did not unravel anything but added a new layer of confusion to the entire subject. You further your sin by taking my clarifications for some offense and turning like a dog to rend me instead of seeking to understand what I posted and see if it gave a little light to your otherwise goulash doctrines. You seem to think you grew up in a theological vacuum, but your entire post stank of Calvinist presuppositions and arguments.
I will pray that you actually learn to think for yourself and to rightly divide the word of truth. OH and to clarify your words so a reasonably intelligent man can grasp what you say. Since i could not apparently, because your so poorly written statement shows no clarity.
BTW a child is not born WITH SIN , sin is an action, a transgression of God’s LAW ( do you remember the scripture?) not a disease. the sin nature is NOT inherited its acquired Rom 5: 12 Thus a child remains in innocence until they sin and can be saved WITHOUT regeneration or the indwelling of the HS. It’s generally called the age of accountability in Jewish tradition.Jesus said their “angels do always behold the face of the Father”. You really don’t understand what you read do you? Ye blind guide.

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by Stephen Newell

Stephen Newell — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:21:55 +0000

First of all, sir, your reply is ample evidence you've ignored a few things. First of all, you ignore that I am not a Calvinist. You also ignore virtually my entire post. You did not read what I wrote with any degree of understanding, or you would not have written at least 99% of what you did, except to bash Calvinism. For example, where did I claim that being filled with the Holy Spirit equals regeneration? I claim no such thing. In fact, if you go back and read it again you will see that you were embarrassingly lazy in reading what I actually wrote. It's amusing to me that you can be this lazy reading this post and claim to "help me identify what God has said." I will pray that you take the time to read things carefully and prayerfully in the future.

Comment on Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1 by John Treat AKA Lifesharer

John Treat AKA Lifesharer — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:34:07 +0000

Mr Newell,
I find much of your writing to be confused and divided along strange lines. The concept of the regeneration ( literal human’s spirit rebirth ) of an individual, is entirely DIFFERENT from the concept of baptismal SALVATION or Salvation proper itself. The Doctrine of baptismal REGENERATION wherein God regenerates us at that time and NOT by water or incantations but by His own power ( Deut 30: 6, John 3:6 and Rom 6: 3-6 & Col 2: 10-13, is to be seen as clearly biblical.
Where they ERR is in ADDING the concept of water baptism AS salvation or salvific. Now Infant Baptism is NOT salvific OR able to regenerate a infant since the blood of Christ must be FIRST applied to that life by grace through the individual’s faith. This is the same reason Calvinist pre-salvation regeneration is heretical. No matter how infinitesimal a time you interpret that regeneration precedes salvation, it MUST precede it, and thus the lack of the covering of the blood shall produce the same results of a loss of regeneration before the blood could be applied . SIN caused the sin nature of a dead spirit, and its instantaneous. It’s a irreconcilable paradox: no regeneration: no faith; … no faith: no blood, … no blood; no regeneration, ….no regeneration; no faith … and on and on.. it must be a real headache to have to constantly redacting your doctrines to try and cover the many biblical objections to it.
Justin Martyr taught baptismal regeneration in 150 AD in his first apology section 61, but the addition of the heretical “baptismal salvation” doctrine was a product of the Nicolaitian spirit of the RCC some time AFTER Constantine. BTW Calvin taught baptismal regeneration as does many of the so called “reformed” regurgitated catholic cults. IN Calvinist Institutes in book 4. chapter 17 (possibly 16). article 1 : ” For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word. ” What he MEANS by the terms regenerates and” ingrafts us” is open to speculation, BUT since he is referring to biblical concepts; hopefully rightly divided, we must presume for the sake of intellectual validity he has some grasp of the BIBLICAL meaning of those terms, however poorly he eisogetes the scriptures otherwise. Calvin ALSO taught Infant Baptism… but i leave you to say: … WHY?
Your mistake is to buy into the lie of it all by not rightly dividing these two doctrines and then agreeing with Gods word as to WHEN God says he will regenerate us.
I fully deny the heretical doctrine of baptismal salvation on the works foundation of Eph 2: 8-9, but FULLY uphold the clear doctrine of regeneration at the time of water baptism. IF you find fault with this you are probably miss defining the concept of regeneration as being the linguistic equal to the concept of salvation. A patently confused scholarship and muddying of the word of God.
You have already revealed that you HAVE read into the text with what you call ordo salutis as pre salvation regeneration: A ridiculous presumption at best. While i concur that infant baptism or regeneration is not biblical. I find your unwillingness to rightly divide these terms as a sad commentary on modern scholarship and indoctrinated thinking.
god saving anyone? That’s not a mystery at all if you are not caught in Calvinist presumptions. John 3: 16 God so LOVED the world ( and all men 2 peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4) that he gave his only begotten son , that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not perish , but have everlasting life.
John Calvin would disagree with you again on how he chose some of those “children of wrath” for salvation: Calvins limited atonement “. . . their doom was fixed from all eternity and nothing in them could transfer them to the contrary class . . .” (Calvin’s Institutes III, iii, Page 4). “FIXED from all eternity” does not sound at all like what you said. But what can you expect from such a man who idolized the pagan Augustine the father of the RCC Church theology?
Scriptural evidence for infant regeneration is found primarily in the story of John the Baptist.
You claimed that infant REGENERATION was revealed in this verse:
Luke 1:15: “For he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Based on your claim that being filled with the HS IS regeneration ( a completely false definition of it as seen in Deut 30:6, Ezekiel 11: 19 or in Acts 10: 44-47 wherein the indwelling of GOD as the person of the HS is NOT the same as the rebirth of our human spirit BY the HS, nor is EITHER of those the same as salvation ( John 8: 14-17.) I see you are also not rightly dividing regeneration FROM the indwelling of the HS from the meaning of salvation as the privileged to spend eternity with God SAVED from hell, hence: SALVATION. This knee jerk over reaction to the Biblical doctrine called “baptismal regeneration” joined to the false baptismal salvation doctrine ( when rightly separated from catholic and many protestant old line church’s doctrines of baptismal salvation) has created a monstrosity of theology where a Frankenstein of many different parts/concepts are loosely and rather crudely stitched together to create what can only be called: “neo evangelical salvation as regeneration as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit heretical theology”. Its nothing but spam and goulash and wresting of scriptures to someones damnation!
We are told to ” Rightly DIVIDE the word of truth…” Satan was the one who blurred its distinctive sense and tenses and concepts to Eve. ( you will not surely die) Now start again from the beginning: Salvation IS? Regeneration IS … the holy Spirit IS..? And if i can help you identify these things or others, please ask me and i will show you what God has said.