Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

I wonder how come boxcar, with all of his preaching on the Kingdom of God, failed to discuss the actual definition of the Kingdom of God contained in the N.T.?

17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:17

John Calvin commentary on Romans 14:17

........But righteousness and peace, etc. He, in passing, has set these in opposition to meat and drink; not for the purpose of enumerating all the things which constitute the kingdom of Christ, but of showing, that it consists of spiritual things. He has at the same time no doubt included in few words a summary of what it is; namely, that we, being well assured, have peace with God, and possess real joy of heart through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But as I have said, these few things he has accommodated to his present subject. He indeed who is become partaker of true righteousness, enjoys a great and an invaluable good, even a calm joy of conscience; and he who has peace with God, what can he desire more?..............

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans 14 [emphasis added]

Calvin uses the pronoun "we" (for those who don't understand pronouns and their usage, boxcar). "We" is a pronoun, first person plural in the nominative case. boxcar, "we" is used to indicate to refer to yourself (in this case Calvin is referring to himself) and other people (being the subjects have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us). "Us" is a pronoun, first person plural in the objective case (receiving the action) and once again refers to yourself (Calvin in this instance) and others through the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in "us" ( the common noun men since Calvin is a man, an individual and so are the others) have real joy of heart.

Hmm let's see Calvin in his commentary on Ephesians 3 states the indivisibility of the Holy Spirit and Christ. If one obtains the Spirit one must obtain Christ.

ob·tain
əbˈtān,äbˈtān/Submit
verb
1.
get, acquire, or secure (something).
"an opportunity to obtain advanced degrees"
synonyms: get, acquire, come by, secure, procure, come into the possession of, pick up, be given; More
2.
formal
be prevalent, customary, or established.
"the price of silver fell to that obtaining elsewhere in the ancient world"
synonyms: prevail, be in force, apply, exist, be in use, be in effect, stand, hold, be the case
"rules obtaining in other jurisdictions"

If the Holy Spirit dwells in "us" (again men, since Calvin is a man) and Christ is inseparable from the Holy Spirit Christ must dwell in "us".

However, in his Ephesians 3 commentary Calvin limits the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit to those "who" (relative / interrogative pronoun, in the nominative case) in this instance it means the common noun "man" (Calvin is a man).

Understand so far boxcar?

[Show Me the Wire]

boxcar
It's no wonder you tried desperately to box me in to a corner by restricting my answer to only a "yes" or "no. But you have to get up much, much earlier in the morning to ever fool me, Deceiver.

Also, I can't help it if a lab rat has superior communication skills to yours.

Personal attacks desperate actions of a person who will do anything to avoid giving a responsive answer.

How is your new b.s. theory that Christians need to test the Apostle's teachings? You are correct there is a test for teachers, stated in Scripture, which Christians must use.

Since the inception of this thread you have avoided giving a responsive answer to repeated queries about who sent you? If a Christian does not know who sent a teacher, they should reject that teacher.

Commentary by John Calvin on Romans 10:15

15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? Rom 10:15

15.How shall they preach except they be sent? etc. He intimates that it is a proof and a pledge of divine love when any nation is favored with the preaching of the gospel; and that no one is a preacher of it, but he whom God has raised up in his special providence, and that hence there is no doubt but that he visits that nation to whom the gospel is proclaimed. But as Paul does not treat here of the lawful call of any one, it would be superfluous to speak at large on the subject. It is enough for us to bear this only in mind, that the gospel does not fall like rain from the clouds, but is brought by the hands of men wherever it is sent from above.

As it is written, How beautiful, etc. We are to apply this testimony to our present subject in this manner, The Lord, when he gave hope of deliverance to his people, commended the advent of those who brought the glad tidings of peace, by a remarkable eulogy; by this very circumstance he has made it evident that the apostolic ministry was to be held in no less esteem, by which the message of eternal life is brought to us. And it hence follows, that it is from God, since there is nothing in the world that is an object of desire and worthy of praise, which does not proceed from his hand.

Interesting, Calvin a discoverer of the true Gospel, states clearly no one can be a preacher of the Gospel, unless he is raised up in God's special providence.

For the benefit of boxcar:

spe·cial
ˈspeSHəl/Submit
adjective
1.
better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.
"they always made a special effort at Christmas"
synonyms: exceptional, unusual, singular, uncommon, notable, noteworthy, remarkable, outstanding, unique More

For the benefit of all, tell us, who sent you to demonstrate you were raised up in the special providence of God.

(pay attention boxcar, the following is an assertion)

You, personally, do not recieve any special providence from God through the Gospel itself. As you said, any believer can discover the true Gospel. By definition the word "any" precludes being special and Scripture does not mention you, personally, multiple times to prove you are an Apostle or a preacher who is raised up in God's special providence. (end of assertion)

(the following is an inquiry)

If you are one among all believers and are not mentioned multiple times in the Bible as an Apostle, what is your claim, through who sent you, which objectively factually proves, that you were raised up in God's special providence?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

[emphasis added] BTW you need to layoff the coffee, the caffeine is making you delusional.


If it is repeated it is not new by definition. Divine Inspiration is the revealing of a new truth and divine Illumination is understanding a revealed truth.

It is your lack of understanding of the doctrines of Divine Inspiration and Divine Illumination is the reason for your ludicrous attempt to attribute Divine Inspiration to the nation of Israel regarding the Trinity, before Pentecost.

Again Divine Inspiration ended with the last Apostle. Are you saying we have to test the Apostle's words to make sure they are true? You just invented this b.s.

So we shouldn't believe Paul about his road to Damascus experience, as two or three other people, including the other Apostles, did not witness, the resurrected, Jesus in his exchange with Paul?

Where do you think these multiple Scriptural references come from? I will give you a hint, it comes from the Apostles, who received new truths from God. Calvin did not receive new truths from God, I did not receive new truths, but it sure sounds like you are proposing that you are receiving new truths from God.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your ridiculous statements.

So, by your own definition, then, repeated truths (which by definition are not new and cannot be new as truly new news) that are included in the canon of scripture are not divinely inspired.

Also, where in scripture is your personal definition of "divine inspiration"? Where does it say in the bible that in order for revelation to be divinely inspired, it must be new?

Also, when someone understands something for the first time, it is new to that person. What do you think Jesus meant when he said:

Luke 10:22
22 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."?
NASB

Isn't Jesus to this day still revealing his Father to his elect? Shirley, you don't believe Jesus had divine inspiration in mind in the above passage when he used the term "reveal", do you?

By the way, I have only ever attributed divine inspiration to the source, which is the Triune God. Quit lying about me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Personal attacks desperate actions of a person who will do anything to avoid giving a responsive answer.

How is your new b.s. theory that Christians need to test the Apostle's teachings? You are correct there is a test for teachers, stated in Scripture, which Christians must use.

Since the inception of this thread you have avoided giving a responsive answer to repeated queries about who sent you? If a Christian does not know who sent a teacher, they should reject that teacher.

Commentary by John Calvin on Romans 10:15



Interesting, Calvin a discoverer of the true Gospel, states clearly no one can be a preacher of the Gospel, unless he is raised up in God's special providence.

For the benefit of boxcar:



For the benefit of all, tell us, who sent you to demonstrate you were raised up in the special providence of God.

(pay attention boxcar, the following is an assertion)

You, personally, do not recieve any special providence from God through the Gospel itself. As you said, any believer can discover the true Gospel. By definition the word "any" precludes being special and Scripture does not mention you, personally, multiple times to prove you are an Apostle or a preacher who is raised up in God's special providence. (end of assertion)

(the following is an inquiry)

If you are one among all believers and are not mentioned multiple times in the Bible as an Apostle, what is your claim, through who sent you, which objectively factually proves, that you were raised up in God's special providence?

I see you switched horses again: Now Calvin is a discover of the true gospel; originally you said THE discover. Or are the articles "the" and "a" now synonymous terms, babbler?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I wonder how come boxcar, with all of his preaching on the Kingdom of God, failed to discuss the actual definition of the Kingdom of God contained in the N.T.?

17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:17

John Calvin commentary on Romans 14:17

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans 14 [emphasis added]

Calvin uses the pronoun "we" (for those who don't understand pronouns and their usage, boxcar). "We" is a pronoun, first person plural in the nominative case. boxcar, "we" is used to indicate to refer to yourself (in this case Calvin is referring to himself) and other people (being the subjects have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us). "Us" is a pronoun, first person plural in the objective case (receiving the action) and once again refers to yourself (Calvin in this instance) and others through the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in "us" ( the common noun men since Calvin is a man, an individual and so are the others) have real joy of heart.

Hmm let's see Calvin in his commentary on Ephesians 3 states the indivisibility of the Holy Spirit and Christ. If one obtains the Spirit one must obtain Christ.



If the Holy Spirit dwells in "us" (again men, since Calvin is a man) and Christ is inseparable from the Holy Spirit Christ must dwell in "us".

However, in his Ephesians 3 commentary Calvin limits the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit to those "who" (relative / interrogative pronoun, in the nominative case) in this instance it means the common noun "man" (Calvin is a man).

Understand so far boxcar?

But "men" is unqualified. Again, what is your meaning: All, some, many "men"? Christian men or unrepentant men? Saints or sinners? Believing men or unbelieving men? Both groups of men, maybe? Clarify.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Did I say personal pronouns = man, always, every time. Let's begin our basic grammar lesson. Why do" we" use personal pronouns? Personal pronouns are are used as substitutes for nouns and are commonly used in the English language. They can be spoken in the first, second or third person. "Man" is a common noun. According to the rules of usage "a" personal pronoun may be used in the place of the common noun,"man". Meaning, yes indeed a personal pronoun can equal the common noun "man".

I don't presume. Your above assertion proves you do not understand basic rules of grammar.

So then...if you're going to substitute "we" for "man" or vice versa, then you must be saying that "we" are all mankind?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I see you switched horses again: Now Calvin is a discover of the true gospel; originally you said THE discover. Or are the articles "the" and "a" now synonymous terms, babbler?

In deference to your assertion, especially how it relates to post 3738. As I repeatedly tell you there is no difference. If someone discover's something they are a discoverer.

For the language usage impaired. Discoverer is a noun, a common noun. Discovered is a verb, the action done. Since Calvin discovered (an action) he is properly referred to as a discoverer when I refer to him with a common noun.

You are not Humpty Dumpty, when you use a word to declare, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Seriously did you attend primary school? You really don't understand common nouns, pronouns, verbs, sentence structure?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So then...if you're going to substitute "we" for "man" or vice versa, then you must be saying that "we" are all mankind?

No boxcar, we are not in Humpty Dumpty land. "We refers to the individual using it and other individuals in the group. I already gave you the rules of usage. Calvin is not mankind, Calvin is a man. When Calvin used the pronoun we he referred to himself personally, not as all mankind. "We" is a personal pronoun, in fact it is first person plural. I don't know what personal means in your Humpty Dumpty existence, but in the real world it means this:

per·son·al
ˈpərs(ə)n(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else.
"her personal fortune was recently estimated at $37 million"
synonyms: direct, empirical, firsthand, immediate, experiential
"I have personal knowledge of the family"
2.
of or concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions rather than matters connected with one's public or professional career.
"the book describes his acting career and gives little information about his personal life"
synonyms: private, intimate; More

[emphasis added]

Calvin is a particular person, Period.

[Show Me the Wire]

Instead of playing games, just come out and say the truth about what you believe. You do not believe Christ dwells, inside individuals (a person) alongside the holy Spirit . Just say it and spare all of us your ludicrous posts.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But "men" is unqualified. Again, what is your meaning: All, some, many "men"? Christian men or unrepentant men? Saints or sinners? Believing men or unbelieving men? Both groups of men, maybe? Clarify.

The meaning applied through basic grammar. Why do you want to keep demonstrating that you can't grasp (understand) primary school grammar?

Read Calvin for his description "who" is a partaker of the Holy Spirit.

Stop the buffoonery and admit you don't believe in the in-dwelling of Christ in individual persons and thus deny the indivisibility of God and reject Scripture's definition of the Kingdom of Heaven.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

No boxcar, we are not in Humpty Dumpty land. "We refers to the individual using it and other individuals in the group. I already gave you the rules of usage. Calvin is not mankind, Calvin is a man. When Calvin used the pronoun we he referred to himself personally, not as all mankind. "We" is a personal pronoun, in fact it is first person plural. I don't know what personal means in your Humpty Dumpty existence, but in the real world it means this:

[emphasis added]

Calvin is a particular person, Period.

Why couldn't "we" include all the individuals in the world in the group, including Calvin, as speaking for man? We, then, would = man (a/k/a mankind). What rule says that this can't be so?

[Show Me the Wire]

BTW boxcar, not surprising though you are using the term "qualifier" incorrectly.

A qualifier in English grammar, is a word or phrase (such as very) that precedes an adjective or adverb, increasing or decreasing the quality signified by the word it modifies. We do not use qualifiers on common nouns. Grammatically, "man" is a common noun, not a verb.

Common nouns are modified by adjectives. You are one confused individual, no wonder why you have problems comprehending written text. I guess this explains your inability to digest what is written in a post and why you respond to posts, as you do.

There truly is a failure to communicate. You do not understand basic grammar. Is English your first language?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Instead of playing games, just come out and say the truth about what you believe. You do not believe Christ dwells, inside individuals (a person) alongside the holy Spirit . Just say it and spare all of us your ludicrous posts.

I thought you said earlier in 3605 that Christ dwells in man, as in mankind? That's how you put it to me in your question, remember?

SMTW wrote in part:
Simple question boxcar, requiring a simple yes of no answer. Understanding that Calvin's commentary does not apply to the reprobates and deniers, is Calvin's teaching correct, does Christ dwell in man? Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Also, Mr. wanna-be grammarian, individuals (plural) do not = a person (singular).

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why couldn't "we" include all the individuals in the world in the group, including Calvin, as speaking for man? We, then, would = man (a/k/a mankind). What rule says that this can't be so?

Due to the rules of grammar as applied to Calvin's text. See my prior posts

Just like qualifiers do not apply to nouns per the rules of grammar.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I thought you said earlier in 3605 that Christ dwells in man, as in mankind? That's how you put it to me in your question, remember?

SMTW wrote in part:
Simple question boxcar, requiring a simple yes of no answer. Understanding that Calvin's commentary does not apply to the reprobates and deniers, is Calvin's teaching correct, does Christ dwell in man? Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Also, Mr. wanna-be grammarian, individuals (plural) do not = a person (singular).

Maybe in Humpty Dumpty land, but not here.

Again it applies to the individuals in a group? Is Calvin an individual or is he a group. They are called personal pronouns for a reason.

We (referring to an activity I did) walked along the trail? According to your interpretations mankind walked along the trail. complete b.s. Mankind did not walk along the trail, individuals in a group walked along the trail.

Maybe you should learn basic rules of grammar or think how buffoonish you sound before you post your gibberish again.