DKB's Impassioned Plea For Iranian Branhamite?

[DAII]

Your thoughts ARSHAK????

[DAII]

Another sign of a cultic movement ... when people question your dogma or leave it ... dismiss them as the seed of Satan or murderous mullahs ... as you have done with the Christian Yeghnazar family and Elam Ministries .... while still advocating a strange brand of ecumenicalism under the delusion it is a "consensus".

In some Oneness Pentecostal circles some settle for lightweight terms like "Charismatics" and "Emergents" but the group think is the same ... and the stigma as well.

And yes, we are praying for Iran and the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9IicGlB3k

[Arshak]

Originally Posted by DAII

We know who Barth is but did he also believe in the forced copulation of a "human reptile" beast with a woman would lead to the necessary chromosomal exchange to create little Dans?

If Peter Caroli, a street preacher/priest and professor ... who left the Roman church a handful of times to join the Reformation only to return to the mother church time after time, said Calvin was a modalist than surely its true .... despite the fact that most early reformers were wary of affirming the ancient creeds ... including Luther who was wary of using the term extra-biblical term "trinitas" but Calvin in no way rejected the mystery of the Trinity and used the term in his own writings to express the Godhead.

Please sir ... branch out and read .... you are the William Chalfant and Marvin Arnold of Branhamism.
If you want to believe Calvin was just like you, GO FOR IT, you're free to be WRONG.

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/152474/Pa...an_Debates.pdf

Most, if not all, learned scholars agree that the bulk of Calvin's writing are trinitarian ... even the casual reader of his Institutes can read for themselves... even the quote you believe somehow reflects a rejection of the eternal Sonship is wrought with ambiguity, does not say what you want it to mean, and when juxtaposed to his other writings only shows that this is an argument of convenience.

"Though not mentioned in the paper, Berkhof defends Calvin’s orthodox view of the eternal generation of the Son:

It is sometimes said that Calvin denied the eternal generation of the Son. This assertion is based on the following passage: “For what is the profit of disputing whether the Father always generates, seeing that it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of generating when it is evident that three persons have subsisted in one God from eternity.” Institutes I. 13, 29. But this statement can hardly be intended as a denial of the eternal generation of the Son, since he teaches this explicitly in other passages. It is more likely that it is simply an expression of disagreement with the Nicene speculation about eternal generation as a perpetual movement, always complete, and yet never completed. (Quoted from Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 95-96.)"

Calvin

You cannot compare Berkhoff to Barth. Even if I do not agree with some relativism of Barth, I cannot compare them. Berkhof was quite sectarian. There are very clear statements of Calvin who say that for him "persons are properties" of God. In our oriental theology, we would use the word sifat to express it.

We have no problem with Nicea but with its position as final authority and its further developments, specially in latin churches.

Serpent

Nobody believes that the Nahash was a reptile but God cursed him to become a reptile:

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life"


Adam Clarke noted about the Nahash:" Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text: it is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing less than a sovereign controlling power could induce them to put down hands in every respect formed like those of man, and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed paws prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours."

Before the Fall, the Nahas was as smart as Dan with similar genetic material. Look for the difference, it will be helping.

Adam Clarke questions our translation of Nahas. It is a matter of study.

Y. families

The Y. family runs the FCNN site who claimed that the Church of Iran is a cult. It was the right of our leaders to answer this accusation even if your patron are upset of it. We are not interested about the Y. family, if they do not disturb us.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Arshak

Y. families

The Y. family runs the FCNN site who claimed that the Church of Iran is a cult. It was the right of our leaders to answer this accusation even if your patron are upset of it. We are not interested about the Y. family, if they do not disturb us.

This is hilarious ... you claim they seek the murder of Christian leaders to establish their own reign in collusion with VEVAK ... and you call this an answer and justifiable because they think you're a cult...and you'll cease as long as they don't "disturb us"?

Can you say apples and oranges, Firouz?

Will you admit that such a caustic response was unwarranted and shameful?

[Arshak]

Originally Posted by DAII

This is hilarious ... you claim they seek the murder of Christian leaders to establish their own reign in collusion with VEVAK ... and you call this an answer and justifiable because they think you're a cult... as long as they don't "disturb us"?

Can you say apples and oranges, Firouz?

We have our sources that we are not to disclose. But be sure that Y. will be judged for that

[DAII]

Originally Posted by DAII

Your thoughts ARSHAK????

Your thoughts?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Arshak

We have our sources that we are not to disclose. But be sure that Y. will be judged for that

Sounds like hearsay, innuendo and calumnious drivel .... that makes this horrible situation .... worse. Unfortunately you have exacerbated it with these heinous uncorroborated charges against brethren in Christ simply to justify your standing.

I can totally understand suspicions and emotions are running high .... but such a serious charge better be substantiated and verifiable before publishing on the internet.

[DAII]

From Calvin's smackdown of P. Caroli in his "Adversus P. Carol; Calumnias," Calvin insists upon the real distinctions in the Godhead:

Yet in that one essence of God we acknowledge the Father, with His eternal Word and Spirit... nor yet do we understand them to be mere:
epithets (lluda epitheta) by which God is variously designated, according to His operations; but, in common with the ecclesiastical writers,
we perceive in the simple unity of God these three hypostases, that is,
subsistences, which, although they coexist in one essence, are not to be
confused with one another. Accordingly, though the Father is one God
with His Word and Spirit, the rather is not the Word, nor the Word the
Spirit.

He equally found heretics, like Servetus and Gentilus, to be those who denied His threeness and oneness.

While affirming tradtional Trinitarian outcomes.

A good read .... http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov1989.pdf

http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov1989.pdf

It is characteristic of Calvin that he states the profound doctrine of the
Trinity in a simple and clear manner. This not only says something about
Calvin's mind, but it also indicates Calvin's purpose. namely, that unlearned believers grasp this truth for their edification.
if only... this faith were agreed on:

' that Father and Son and Spirit . . .
are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but
that they are differentiated by a peculiar quality (I, xiii, 5).

Again:

Therefore, let those who dearly love soberness, and who will be content
with the measure of faith, receive in brief form what is useful to know:
namely, that, when we profess to believe in one God, under the name
of God is understood a single, simple essence, in which we comprehend three persons, or hypostases.( 0, xiii, 20).

The Heidelberg Catechism shows its dependency on Calvin in the
striking simplicity, brevity. and clarity of its treatment of the Trinity in
Q. 25:

"Since there is but one only divine essence, why do you speak of
Father, Son. and Holy Spirit? A. Because God has so revealed himself in
his word, that these three distinct persons are the one only true and
eternal God."

Basic to this doctrine is God's oneness. This is the numerical oneness
of God's essence, or being, or substance.

[DAII]

Arshak, your confusion as to Trinitarian men like John Calvin, Walter Martin, Adam Clarke ... is that they seemingly reject various aspects the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son as in the Nicene creed "God from God" but do not reject the Eternal Sonship and/or the Eternal Logos.

This article is helpful in seeing the distinctions made by many Trinitarian theologians, some who accept eternal generation ... and some who find problems with how it is expressed in early creeds .... this does not make them "timid Oneness" ... this deals mainly with sub-ordinationism:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/20...on-of-son.html

What this proves is there is no uniform consensus ... among Trinitarians as there is not among Oneness ....

[Bullwinkle]

Originally Posted by Arshak

Calvin

You cannot compare Berkhoff to Barth. Even if I do not agree with some relativism of Barth, I cannot compare them. Berkhof was quite sectarian. There are very clear statements of Calvin who say that for him "persons are properties" of God. In our oriental theology, we would use the word sifat to express it.

We have no problem with Nicea but with its position as final authority and its further developments, specially in latin churches.

Serpent

Nobody believes that the Nahash was a reptile but God cursed him to become a reptile:

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life"


Adam Clarke noted about the Nahash:" Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text: it is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing less than a sovereign controlling power could induce them to put down hands in every respect formed like those of man, and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed paws prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours."

Before the Fall, the Nahas was as smart as Dan with similar genetic material. Look for the difference, it will be helping.

Adam Clarke questions our translation of Nahas. It is a matter of study.

Y. families

The Y. family runs the FCNN site who claimed that the Church of Iran is a cult. It was the right of our leaders to answer this accusation even if your patron are upset of it. We are not interested about the Y. family, if they do not disturb us.

So, I guess my question is - does the "church of Iran" believe that some humans are the descendents of the serpent's seed?

Would this be a widespread position among the Church of Iran?