I could not find this sermon anywhere on the internet so whatever John Calvin said cannot be substantiated either way.

I guess the next best thing is to go to his commentary on Gal 1:3-5.

[QUOTE]There was a literal man standing before them claiming he was Messiah and he was doing real miracles that they had to admit must be performed by God. How much more literal can one be?[/QUOTE]Of course they expected a literal person, silly.. but their messiah was not a spiritual messiah dealing with sin etc. but an earthly king who would subdue all their enemies and exalt Israel!!

[QUOTE]The gospel is simple but you make it hard by changing words and their meanings[/QUOTE]As I said you take simple declarative statements and read in whatever the heck you want and call is exegesis. Let me give you an illustration .. in the OT God commanded the Israelites to observe the 10 commandments perfectly.. why? You would say that because they could.. well the NT gives the lie to that.. they were never given to justify anyone because God knew perfectly well that no one could observe them perfectly.

JD wrote:
As usual ..... You made that up. But when is it -good- scholarship to make the prophetic Scriptures into a giant allegory and then assign arbitrary rules of interpretation that are designed to advance a particular preconception that no text or context will support? This is the MO for MurrayA. The trouble comes when scholarship exalts itself against simplicity. ....

2. I did not make it up. I have been following the threads for a long time.. just because I have only just entered the lists does not mean that I am ignorant of what has transpired before.

3. MurrayA has been arguing for the "spiritual" fulfillment view, which is apparently as much beyond your capacity to understand as it was the Jews of Christ's own days. They missed the true Messiah because they too were overtly literal in their prophetic interpretations of him and his office.

JD wrote:
MurrayA may not call himself Dr on here but all who have read his comments for very long knows it because he has made sure of it so I hope no one is too quick to give him the humble man of the year award.
Here is an example of his "humble" ad hominems; "However, JD and Yamil need not correspond! I don't intend to engage in fruitless correspondence with hardheads."
MurrayA's adopted view of God has forced him to assign most of his word to allegory without any established rules for interprtation except his subjective whims. Knowing more than God is not a sign of humility, IMO.
Now, what would a humble PhD say the world in Jn 3:16 means?

He does not take titles to himself to which he has not right. In other words he does not lie!

Wayne M. wrote:
To get the italics quote, you must click on "Reply to comment" instead of "Add new comment" on the left column. Regards.
Sorry, I just noticed Abigail already answered your question.

Another heretic to whom we must turn to get instruction!!

[Can someone please explain to me how to get the above quote highlighted and in italics? Thank you]