Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I will not stoop to calling you names, but again you are asserting a false narrative. At the start of our so-called discussion I responded to your request for the definition of "man".

See http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=3611



I also requested you to answer the original request if you accept Calvin's cpmmentary as true teaching of the Gospel.

Totally a non-answer. YOU used the term MAN in an unqualified sense in asking me a question. Scripture didn't ask the question. Paul didn't ask the question. Calvin didn't ask the question. You did! Plus what Paul means in a specific context, what scripture generally means and what Calvin could mean (although he didn't use the term in an unqualified sense in his commentary anymore than Paul did in the Ephesian 3 passage) could all be very different things. Clearly, your refusal to answer my simple question, for sake of clarification, so that I could in turn answer yours (once I understand what you mean by "man") only speaks volumens to either your duplicity or to the utterly confused and chaotic state of your own mind.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But if everyone shares the "evil" gene -- if that is common among ALL humans, then we cannot say that it is a specific trait. If all our shared, common genes are corrupt with sin, then it is not unique or specific to any one person or groups. Sinning is what we ALL do because sinful is what we ALL ARE by nature.

We all have arms, legs and lungs all controlled by non coded DNA, as well as coded DNA controlling inherited characteristics both described in detail by the

The Human Genome Project (HGP)

https://www.genome.gov/10001772/all-...e-project-hgp/

And genes that control the growth of those arms, legs and lungs have been identified. So yes we can spot non specific generalized DNA

I wrote about in my 2nd last post

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)used to identify disease traits.

SNPs occur normally throughout a person’s DNA. They occur once in every 300 nucleotides on average, which means there are roughly 10 million SNPs in the human genome. Most commonly, these variations are found in the DNA between genes. They can act as biological markers, helping scientists locate genes that are associated with disease. When SNPs occur within a gene or in a regulatory region near a gene, they may play a more direct role in disease by affecting the gene’s function.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/snp

In my

Forget passing "evilness" by coded individual genes that control inherited traits. It would certainly have to be more than one gene.Sounds like a massive amount of data for one gene. It would have to be controlled by a multitude of all those generalized non coding genes like those that help grow autonomic functions or muscle cells that control how you move your arms or legs. And you know if they found anything resembling an "evil gene" it would have been noticed. Certainly by fundies.

I suggested you drop all the non scientific bull and just go back to and Ta-Da god snapped his fingers and let there be evil

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I ask you for several reasons.

1. You avoid giving affirmative responses, as evidenced by the above response. You answered with a question leaving the questioner to answer for you. You answer in questions so you can deny that you meant the answer assumed by the questioner.

2. So you could put words in the other person's mouth. For example:



I never agreed and gave you the reason why your post 3551 did not address the indivisibility of God. However, by avoiding giving direct responsive answers you exercise this method often. This is one example out of hundreds.

If you are going to stand by your words and their meaning give an affirmative answer. You only need to say yes or yes I mean the Kingdom of God cannot be separated from Jesus.

3. You either do not truly understand that what you type do not explain or state positions you claim or you do it on purpose to give you wiggle room. (see post 3551)

For example:



Me knows you did not say Calvin discovered the true Gospel, as every true believer. You never used the words, "as every true believer" as a qualifier.

Also your above type of statement is faulty as it cannot be proven objectively. The above statement is subjective. If it was objectively true, Luther and Calvin would not disagree on major points of the true Gospel.

Your statement violates your oft quoted law of non-contradiction. Since Luther and Calvin disagree both cannot have discovered the true Gospel without violating, your favorite law, the law of non-contradiction.

Either stand by your claim that Calvin discovered the true Gospel and agree with Calvin's commentary teachings, referenced in my posts to you, since according to you Calvin discovered the true Gospel or drop your claim about Calvin discovering the true Gospel. Make your yes mean yes and your no mean no.

The above are some of the reasons why I ask you to confirm with a responsive affirmative answer. I am not mad, only tired of your avoidance of giving affirmative responsive answers.

Now you know some of the reasons for my question asking for an affirmative responsive answer.

Are you ready to affirmatively state yes, the kingdom of God is indivisible from Jesus?

Nor did I ever say Calvin was THE discoverer of the true gospel. You put the word "the" in my mouth, you deceiver! I simply said he discovered the true gospel -- thanks solely to the grace of God, by the way. It wasn't a monumental feat for him (as your worldly, secular, carnal mind suggested either) , anymore than it was a monumental, stupendous feat for Peter to discover the true identity of Jesus. Calvin was no more THE discoverer of the gospel than Peter was THE discoverer of Jesus' true identity.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

We all have arms, legs and lungs all controlled by non coded DNA, as well as coded DNA controlling inherited characteristics both described in detail by the

The Human Genome Project (HGP)

https://www.genome.gov/10001772/all-...e-project-hgp/

And genes that control the growth of those arms, legs and lungs have been identified. So yes we can spot non specific generalized DNA

I wrote about in my 2nd last post In my

Forget passing "evilness" by coded individual genes that control inherited traits. It would certainly have to be more than one gene.Sounds like a massive amount of data for one gene. It would have to be controlled by a multitude of all those generalized non coding genes like those that help grow autonomic functions or muscle cells that control how you move your arms or legs. And you know if they found anything resembling an "evil gene" it would have been noticed. Certainly by fundies.

I suggested you drop all the non scientific bull and just go back to and Ta-Da god snapped his fingers and let there be evil

Well...maybe a massive amount...but on the other hand, it is written that just a little bit of leaven (evil) leavens the whole loaf. This is why the Passover rules strictly forbid the use of any leaven in bread -- but even more than that -- no leaven was allowed to be anywhere in a Jew's house. All leaven had to be purged from the home by Passover. And you think I don't know anything about Judaism?

[Show Me the Wire]

Since my original query to boxcar about the correctness of the afore-mentioned teachings contained in Calvin's commentary on Ephesians, exclusive of today, I asked boxcar 7 times for a responsive answer. A responsive answer being an answer either in the affirmative or negative.


1.

I asked you first. Is Calvin correct in his commentary?

post 3633

2.

If I take you at your word, your word which is dubious, by your above statement you are implying John Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 3 is correct.

post 3636

3.

So let's get back to the substance. Is Calvin's teachings, on Ephesians correct or not?

3643

4.

What is relevant and pertinent is Calvin's teaching on the afore-mentioned commentary on Ephesians. Is his teaching correct or not? Do you accept Calvin's commentary as true or do you reject it as false, as it pertains to Ephesians?

post 3659

5.

Do you agree with Calvin's above teaching? Yes or no.

Post 3665

6.

However, since you admit God is indivisible, then you agree Jesus dwells in a man's soul, when the man is a partaker of the Holy Spirit. Yes or no. (To be clear I am paraphrasing Calvin)

post 3669

7.

Again, here is the original question. Do you accept Calvin's commentary as true or do you reject it as false, as it pertains to Ephesians?

post 3678.

Yet boxcar intentionally avoids giving an affirmative or negative answer . today he claims the question I asked yesterday is not the original question as a dodge to giving a responsive answer.

As it can been seen, by the above quotes, the substance of the question always has been if Calvin is correct in his teachings on Ephesians and if boxcar agrees to its correctness or objects to its correctness.

Calvin in this particular teaching unequivocally states Jesus lives in the heart of a man who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit and Jesus are indivisible..

Now why doesn't boxcar want to affirm Calvin's teaching about Christ living in the heart of a man who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit?

Is Calvin a false teacher and does not understand the Gospel given by Jesus? Does it have to do with the incorrectness of boxcar's teachings? It certainly is interesting why boxcar refuses to either affirm or deny Calvin's teaching about Christ dwelling in the heart of man who is a partaker of the Spirit.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well...maybe a massive amount...but on the other hand, it is written that just a little bit of leaven (evil) leavens the whole loaf. This is why the Passover rules strictly forbid the use of any leaven in bread -- but even more than that -- no leaven was allowed to be anywhere in a Jew's house. All leaven had to be purged from the home by Passover. And you think I don't know anything about Judaism?

As bad as you are in genetics you re a much worse Jew. We do not eat leavened bread as a reminder of wandering without nourishment of spirit .

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nor did I ever say Calvin was THE discoverer of the true gospel. You put the word "the" in my mouth, you deceiver! I simply said he discovered the true gospel -- thanks solely to the grace of God, by the way. It wasn't a monumental feat for him (as your worldly, secular, carnal mind suggested either) , anymore than it was a monumental, stupendous feat for Peter to discover the true identity of Jesus. Calvin was no more THE discoverer of the gospel than Peter was THE discoverer of Jesus' true identity.

How false you are. You never used the words, "thanks solely to the grace of God" or "as every true believer"

You claimed claimed Calvin discovered the true Gospel. You did not use any qualifiers. End of discussion.

Quote: boxcar:
All he did was discover the true gospel and systematize the Doctrines of Grace.

If someone discovers something he is the discoverer of the item discovered.

Really, you are now taking the position Divine Revelation is equal to illumination? Can't be as you are violating your favorite law. The law of non-contradiction.

Either Divine revelation ended when the last Apostle passed on from the world or it is till continuing. Both scenario's cannot be true.

Either Calvin discovered the true Gospel through Divine Revelation or not. There is no in-between. We will not accept your faulty premises as an objective truth, because your premise violates the law of non-contradiction and cannot be objectively proved..


Which is it boxcar? You are contradicting yourself. In post 3640 you stated:

Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Deceiver, it is you who have no understanding of these things; for you confuse God-given divine revelation to the writers of scripture with divine illumination or divinely-imparted understanding that is given to all saints who read scripture. The sovereign God of heaven and earth both gives understanding (Ps 119:34, 73, 125, 144, etc., etc., etc. and withholds it as he pleases (Job 17:4; Mat 13:11, etc.)

Which statement of yours is the truth? You are the one one contradicting yourself, one is God given revelation (Peter knowing Jesus is the son of God) Calvin can only be given, per you, illumination of the Spirit. Divine Revelation and illumination are not the same there is no equivalency.

So which position are you taking? Your position articulated in your post 3640 or your newly renewed position stated in this new post?


No surprise about your contradictions. It is difficult to keep track of lies.

Again you rather make an obfuscation with this post to avoid giving a responsive answer to the original question.

Why? Is Calvin a false teacher and does not understand the Gospel given by Jesus? Does it have to do with the incorrectness of boxcar's teachings? It certainly is interesting why boxcar refuses to either affirm or deny Calvin's teaching about Christ dwelling in the heart of man who is a partaker of the Spirit.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Since my original query to boxcar about the correctness of the afore-mentioned teachings contained in Calvin's commentary on Ephesians, exclusive of today, I asked boxcar 7 times for a responsive answer. A responsive answer being an answer either in the affirmative or negative.


1. post 3633

2. post 3636

3. 3643

4. post 3659

5. Post 3665

6. post 3669

7. post 3678.

Yet boxcar intentionally avoids giving an affirmative or negative answer . today he claims the question I asked yesterday is not the original question as a dodge to giving a responsive answer.

As it can been seen, by the above quotes, the substance of the question always has been if Calvin is correct in his teachings on Ephesians and if boxcar agrees to its correctness or objects to its correctness.

Calvin in this particular teaching unequivocally states Jesus lives in the heart of a man who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit and Jesus are indivisible..

Now why doesn't boxcar want to affirm Calvin's teaching about Christ living in the heart of a man who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit?

Is Calvin a false teacher and does not understand the Gospel given by Jesus? Does it have to do with the incorrectness of boxcar's teachings? It certainly is interesting why boxcar refuses to either affirm or deny Calvin's teaching about Christ dwelling in the heart of man who is a partaker of the Spirit.

(emphasis mine)

Three things: You asked Boxcar more than 7 times! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Secondly, How much are you prepared to lose? The original question in your original post directed to me about Calvin had nothing to do with Calvin's commentary generally, but was aimed at one specific point in his commentary. You asked one very specific question on one specific point using the term "man" in that question in an unqualified sense which Calvin did not use in that sense in his commentary. I will not only match what you're prepared to lose, I will double what you wager! $2. for every $1. of yours!

Thirdly, where in your original post to me that contained the original question does Calvin "unequivocally state" that "Jesus lives in the heart of A man who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit"? Point to the specific portion of Calvin's commentary wherein he makes this kind of statement.
In your original post you boldly stated it this way:

From SMTW's original query:

Calvin unequivocally states, Christ dwells in man, since God is indivisible you cannot have the Spirit without Christ or Christ without the Spirit.

O, Deceiver...what a skilled practitioner of equivocation you are! It's one thing to say that Jesus lives in the heart of A man, but quite another to say that he lives in the heart of man. So...which is it? Does Jesus live in the heart of man or does Jesus live in the heart of A man who is..."?

You have spun quite a little web of deceit here. Now...back it up with your money instead of your endless lies!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

How false you are. You never used the words, "thanks solely to the grace of God" or "as every true believer"

You claimed claimed Calvin discovered the true Gospel. You did not use any qualifiers. End of discussion.



If someone discovers something he is the discoverer of the item discovered.

Really, you are now taking the position Divine Revelation is equal to illumination? Can't be as you are violating your favorite law. The law of non-contradiction.

Either Divine revelation ended when the last Apostle passed on from the world or it is till continuing. Both scenario's cannot be true.

Either Calvin discovered the true Gospel through Divine Revelation or not. There is no in-between. We will not accept your faulty premises as an objective truth, because your premise violates the law of non-contradiction and cannot be objectively proved..


Which is it boxcar? You are contradicting yourself. In post 3640 you stated:



Which statement of yours is the truth? You are the one one contradicting yourself, one is God given revelation (Peter knowing Jesus is the son of God) Calvin can only be given, per you, illumination of the Spirit. Divine Revelation and illumination are not the same there is no equivalency.

So which position are you taking? Your position articulated in your post 3640 or your newly renewed position stated in this new post?


No surprise about your contradictions. It is difficult to keep track of lies.

Again you rather make an obfuscation with this post to avoid giving a responsive answer to the original question.

Why? Is Calvin a false teacher and does not understand the Gospel given by Jesus? Does it have to do with the incorrectness of boxcar's teachings? It certainly is interesting why boxcar refuses to either affirm or deny Calvin's teaching about Christ dwelling in the heart of man who is a partaker of the Spirit.

I qualified Calvin's discovery in other ways, giving Glory to God and his grace! Did I not use Peter as an example of God's grace and draw that parallel to Calvin?

Divine illumination is certainly a form of divine revelation -- but the phrase "divine revelation" is usually understood in a more theologically restrictive sense of divine inspiration. God did not divinely inspire Peter to come to true saving knowledge of Christ. Rather, God opened Peter's heart and mind -- he illuminated Peter's heart and mind so that he could understand who Christ really was. In this narrow sense, God revealed Christ to Peter. So, it was with Calvin and with all other true born again believers. This kind of revelation was taught by Jesus:

Matt 11:27
27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
NIV

Paul, too, wrote about this kind of revelation:

Gal 1:13-17
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
NIV

Finally, one can discover something and be but one of many such discoverers. Therefore, it cannot logically be said that that that person was THE discover of this, that or some other thing -- but only a discoverer. Do you think Peter was THE discoverer of Christ's identity?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

(emphasis mine)

Three things: You asked Boxcar more than 7 times! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Secondly, How much are you prepared to lose? The original question in your original post directed to me about Calvin had nothing to do with Calvin's commentary generally, but was aimed at one specific point in his commentary. You asked one very specific question on one specific point using the term "man" in that question in an unqualified sense which Calvin did not use in that sense in his commentary. I will not only match what you're prepared to lose, I will double what you wager! $2. for every $1. of yours!

Thirdly, where in your original post to me that contained the original question does Calvin "unequivocally state" that "Jesus lives in the heart of A man who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit"? Point to the specific portion of Calvin's commentary wherein he makes this kind of statement.
In your original post you boldly stated it this way:

From SMTW's original query:


O, Deceiver...what a skilled practitioner of equivocation you are! It's one thing to say that Jesus lives in the heart of A man, but quite another to say that he lives in the heart of man. So...which is it? Does Jesus live in the heart of man or does Jesus live in the heart of A man who is..."?

You have spun quite a little web of deceit here. Now...back it up with your money instead of your endless lies!

Stop your b.s. You introduced the word "man" as a red herring. You asked for my definition, I told you the definition is in Scripture. If you actually understand the commentary it was defined in the commentary for the relevant Scripture.

Do you understand the difference between a statement, an assertion and a question, a query?

You are quoting an assertion.

Quote:
Calvin unequivocally states, Christ dwells in man, since God is indivisible you cannot have the Spirit without Christ or Christ without the Spirit.

My above quote is a statement of fact.

as·ser·tion
əˈsərSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

Hand over all your money now. An assertion is not a query. Only,someone like you would try to establish the equivalency of an assertion to an inquiry to avoid a responsive answer to a question.

The question posed was and is and will be: Is Calvin correct in his commentary teaching on Ephesians 3? Do you see the question mark, at the end of the prior sentence, indicating an inquiry of you?

All you are doing is demonstrating that you are avoiding, by any means, answering, what seems to be too tough questions to you.

Calling people names does not help your position.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I qualified Calvin's discovery in other ways, giving Glory to God and his grace! Did I not use Peter as an example of God's grace and draw that parallel to Calvin?

Divine illumination is certainly a form of divine revelation -- but the phrase "divine revelation" is usually understood in a more theologically restrictive sense of divine inspiration. God did not divinely inspire Peter to come to true saving knowledge of Christ. Rather, God opened Peter's heart and mind -- he illuminated Peter's heart and mind so that he could understand who Christ really was. In this narrow sense, God revealed Christ to Peter. So, it was with Calvin and with all other true born again believers. This kind of revelation was taught by Jesus:

Matt 11:27
27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
NIV

Paul, too, wrote about this kind of revelation:

Gal 1:13-17
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
NIV

Finally, one can discover something and be but one of many such discoverers. Therefore, it cannot logically be said that that that person was THE discover of this, that or some other thing -- but only a discoverer. Do you think Peter was THE discoverer of Christ's identity?

Now your position is Peter did not receive Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation and illumination are not equal or equivalent. Stop throwing sh*t at the wall trying to make something stick. You must be, in trouble, because you are trying anything to avoid giving a responsive answer.

Is that why you did a discourse about Israel having knowledge of the Trinity, before the Divine Revelation of Pentecost? You don't know the difference, do you?

That is why you contradict yourself.

Let's see you don't know the difference between an assertion and a question (query), and you don't know the difference between Divine Revelation and illumination. That is why you equivocate and embrace truth as relative and not objective (this is an assertion, not an query).

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

As bad as you are in genetics you re a much worse Jew. We do not eat leavened bread as a reminder of wandering without nourishment of spirit .

Let's add poor Christian to the above. He is failing to give responsive answers to questions, with meekness and fear. (Peter 3:15) boxcar only gives bold insults and false narrations.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Stop your b.s. You introduced the word "man" as a red herring. You asked for my definition, I told you the definition is in Scripture. If you actually understand the commentary it was defined in the commentary for the relevant Scripture.

Do you understand the difference between a statement, an assertion and a question, a query?

You are quoting an assertion.



My above quote is a statement of fact.



Hand over all your money now. An assertion is not a query. Only,someone like you would try to establish the equivalency of an assertion to an inquiry to avoid a responsive answer to a question.

The question posed was and is and will be: Is Calvin correct in his commentary teaching on Ephesians 3? Do you see the question mark, at the end of the prior sentence, indicating an inquiry of you?

All you are doing is demonstrating that you are avoiding, by any means, answering, what seems to be too tough questions to you.

Calling people names does not help your position.

No, you introduced "man" in your original question to me. I need to understand what YOU mean by the term "man". Why are you so hesitant in answering an honest question so that I can get on with the business of answering your very specific question with this key term in it. The term "man" is used only once in Eph 3:16 and it's qualified with the word "inner". Are you talking about this kind of man? Is "man" all the saints of God? Is "man" the Church of God? Is "man" just the Ephesian church that Paul was addressing? Is "man" only the apostles? Is "man" everyone under the sun, as in all mankind? What or who is "man"?

Calvin did not use the term "man" at all in the portion of the commentary you quoted. Hence, another one of your lies. Calvin made no such "unequivocal" statement about man. It's not a statement of fact. It's another lie of yours. Now...you can prove me wrong by pointing to the place in Calvin's commentary that would support your claim.

Therefore, it all comes down to you because you must know what you meant at that time since you employed the term "man" in your question -- either that of you're a blathering, clueless, mindless lost soul who spouts nonsense.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Now your position is Peter did not receive Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation and illumination are not equal or equivalent. Stop throwing sh*t at the wall trying to make something stick. You must be, in trouble, because you are trying anything to avoid giving a responsive answer.

Is that why you did a discourse about Israel having knowledge of the Trinity, before the Divine Revelation of Pentecost? You don't know the difference, do you?

That is why you contradict yourself.

Let's see you don't know the difference between an assertion and a question (query), and you don't know the difference between Divine Revelation and illumination. That is why you equivocate and embrace truth as relative and not objective (this is an assertion, not an query).

No, my position is that Peter did not receive divine inspiration (one form of divine revelation) as the precursor to knowing the identity of Christ. But he did receive revelation as Paul said he did in Galatians 1. And as Christ taught how he reveals the Father to the elect.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Totally a non-answer. YOU used the term MAN in an unqualified sense in asking me a question. Scripture didn't ask the question. Paul didn't ask the question. Calvin didn't ask the question. You did! Plus what Paul means in a specific context, what scripture generally means and what Calvin could mean (although he didn't use the term in an unqualified sense in his commentary anymore than Paul did in the Ephesian 3 passage) could all be very different things. Clearly, your refusal to answer my simple question, for sake of clarification, so that I could in turn answer yours (once I understand what you mean by "man") only speaks volumens to either your duplicity or to the utterly confused and chaotic state of your own mind.

The text below speaks volumes.

Quote:
... By the inner man, Paul means the soul, and whatever relates to the spiritual life of the soul; as the outward man denotes the body, with everything that belongs to it, -- health, honors, riches, vigor, beauty, and everything of that nature. "Though our outward man perish, yet our inward man is renewed day by day;" that is, if in worldly matters we decay, our spiritual life becomes more and more vigorous. (2 Corinthians 4:16) The prayer of Paul, that the saints may be strengthened, does not mean that they may be eminent and flourishing in the world, but that, with respect to the kingdom of God, their minds may be made strong by Divine power.

17. That Christ may dwell. He explains what is meant by "the strength of the inner man." As

"it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell," (Colossians 1:19,)

so he who has Christ dwelling in him can want nothing. It is a mistake to imagine that the Spirit can be obtained without obtaining Christ; and it is equally foolish and absurd to dream that we can receive Christ without the Spirit. Both doctrines must be believed. We are partakers of the Holy Spirit, in proportion to the intercourse which we maintain with Christ; for the Spirit will be found nowhere but in Christ, on whom he is said, on that account, to have rested; for he himself says, by the prophet Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me." (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18.) But neither can Christ be separated from his Spirit; for then he would be said to be dead, and to have lost all his power.

Justly, therefore, does Paul affirm that the persons who are endowed by God with spiritual vigor are those in whom Christ dwells. He points to that part in which Christ peculiarly dwells, in your hearts, -- to show that it is not enough if the knowledge of Christ dwell on the tongue or flutter in the brain.

May dwell through faith. The method by which so great a benefit is obtained is also expressed. What a remarkable commendation is here bestowed on faith, that, by means of it, the Son of God becomes our own, and "makes his abode with us!" (John 14:23.) By faith we not only acknowledge that Christ suffered and rose from the dead on our account, but, accepting the offers which he makes of himself, we possess and enjoy him as our Savior. This deserves our careful attention. Most people consider fellowship with Christ, and believing in Christ, to be the same thing; but the fellowship which we have with Christ is the consequence of faith. In a word, faith is not a distant view, but a warm embrace, of Christ, by which he dwells in us, and we are filled with the Divine Spirit.

That ye may be rooted and grounded in love. Among the fruits of Christ's dwelling in us the apostle enumerates love and gratitude for the Divine grace and kindness exhibited to us in Christ. Hence it follows, that this is true and solid excellence; so that, whenever he treats of the perfection of the saints, he views it as consisting of these two parts. The firmness and constancy which our love ought to possess are pointed out by two metaphors. There are many persons not wholly destitute of love; but it is easily removed or shaken, because its roots are not deep. Paul desires that it should be rooted [136] and grounded, -- thoroughly fixed in our minds, so as to resemble a well-founded building or deeply-planted tree. The true meaning is, that our roots ought to be so deeply planted, and our foundation so firmly laid in love, that nothing will be able to shake us. It is idle to infer from these words, that love is the foundation and root of our salvation. Paul does not inquire here, as any one may perceive, on what our salvation is founded, but with what firmness and constancy we ought to continue in the exercise of love.

John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries on Ephesians 3:16-17
[emphasis added]


All your buzz words were already present, in post 3533, as is the definition of "man" before you asked for one.

Do you want to keep coming back to your red-herring and false narrative, about needing my definition of man?

Anything to avoid giving a responsive answer, right boxcar?