Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

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.

Well your position contradicts, your beloved law, the law of contradiction. The two are not the same or have equivalency. So your position is logically impossible and false.

Is Calvin correct or not in his teachings contained in his commentary on Ephesians 3?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Well your position contradicts, your beloved law, the law of contradiction. The two are not the same or have equivalency. So your position is logically impossible and false.

Is Calvin correct or not in his teachings contained in his commentary on Ephesians 3?

Here is the difference learn it and live it. Divine illumination reveals no new truthsi.e. Calvin understanding Jesus is the Son of God is not a new truth.

Divine Revelation or Inspiration reveals new truths i.e. God revealing to Peter Jesus is the Son of God.

There is no equality or equivalency. One does not reveal new truths and one reveals new truths.

You not knowing the difference between Divine Revelation (inspiration) and illumination, explains your feeble and erroneous attempt to prove the nation of Israel had knowledge of the Trinity prior to Pentecost.

If you don't understand simple basic doctrines, how can you expect anyone to believe your interpretations? Especially, in light of your tactics to avoid giving a responsive answer about Calvin's commentary.

[Show Me the Wire]

boxcar:

Why are you so reluctant to answer my question on Calvin's commentary? 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 that 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

Well your position contradicts, your beloved law, the law of contradiction. The two are not the same or have equivalency. So your position is logically impossible and false.

You know not the Law of Non-contradiction. Two things can indeed exist and not exist at the same time, as long as it's not in the same sense. And scripture supports both senses of divine revelation.

Is Calvin correct or not in his teachings contained in his commentary on Ephesians 3?

That's not your original question to me. Your original query to me was much narrower in scope. Define "man" that you used in your original question and then I'll answer you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

boxcar:

Why are you so reluntant to answer my question on Calvin's commentary? 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 that 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.

Why are you so reluctant to define "man" for me?

And you still haven't pointed to the place in the commentary wherein Calvin taught that Christ dwells in the heart of man who is a partaker of the Spirit? Where is that in the commentary you quoted?

I see you switched back to "man" after more recently saying "a man". Can't make up your mind, huh? It seems to me you're behaving like a desperate rat caught in a maze. "Man" one time, then "a man", then "man" again. Must be tough having a mind that resembles a labyrinth from which you cannot escape from yourself.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You know not the Law of Non-contradiction. Two things can indeed exist and not exist at the same time, as long as it's not in the same sense. And scripture supports both senses of divine revelation.



That's not your original question to me. Your original query to me was much narrower in scope. Define "man" that you used in your original question and then I'll answer you.

But they do not exist at the same time. You believe Divine revelation (inspiration) ended with the last Apostle, John. So if Divine revelation ended with John, it cannot exist now side by side with illumination.

Are you going to change your position again? Is your new position Divine Revelation continues to this day and God reveals new truths? Is that what you are saying to this day God reveals new truths? Yes or no.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

But they do not exist at the same time. You believe Divine revelation (inspiration) ended with the last Apostle, John. So if Divine revelation ended with John, it cannot exist now side by side with illumination.

You really don't read too swell, Shirley! I said that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time -- two very different things CAN exist at the same time -- but not in the same sense. Divine inspiration is one form of revelation and divine illumination is another. Both are different. But both existed at the same time in the past. Currently, only divine illumination exists, although some evangelicals believe the gift of prophecy is still operative in this post-apostolic church age. Anyhow...both types are revelation are taught in scripture. If you have an issue, take it up with God.

Are you going to change your position again? Is your new position Divine Revelation continues to this day and God reveals new truths? Is that what you are saying to this day God reveals new truths? Yes or no.

See above.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you still haven't pointed to the place in the commentary wherein Calvin taught that Christ dwells in the heart of man who is a partaker of the Spirit? Where is that in the commentary you quoted?

I am not reluctant to define man. I have told you over and over how "man" is defined in the Calvin's commentary. I have repeatedly shown you where to find it.

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.

According to Calvin, Paul defines man as having an inner and outer qualities. Inner man is the soul and whatever relates to the spiritual life of the soul:


and

as the outward man denotes the body, with everything that belongs to it, -- health, honors, riches, vigor, beauty, and everything of that nature.



According to the commentary Man is defined as having a soul and a body. Do you have a problem with that definition? Let us know if you do.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You really don't read too swell, Shirley! I said that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time -- two very different things CAN exist at the same time -- but not in the same sense. Divine inspiration is one form of revelation and divine illumination is another. Both are different. But both existed at the same time in the past. Currently, only divine illumination exists, although some evangelicals believe the gift of prophecy is still operative in this post-apostolic church age. Anyhow...both types are revelation are taught in scripture. If you have an issue, take it up with God.



See above.

I never denied both existed. So why have you been trying to equate them. The experience of having a new truth revealed is different than understanding an existing revealed truth. Illumination is understanding an already revealed truth, there is no new discovery of a truth but solely an understanding of what has been previously revealed.

You do not understand so well. It is your use and conflating of the two different experiences, which is the violation of the law of non-contradiction. You cannot have a new truth revealed as the understanding of an already revealed truth.

They are not equal or equivalent and you cannot logically hold the position you previously stated:

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.

By the above you are asserting that Peter did not receive a new truth from God the Father, but received illumination as to an already revealed truth. A truth cannot be new and already revealed at the same time and in the same sense. it is either a new truth or a previously revealed truth.

You truly do not understand the b.s. you write.

Keep on demonstrating your lack of understanding of basic doctrine and what you actually write versus what you think you are saying through non-existent distinctions.

Based on the above I ask again:

Quote:
Are you going to change your position again? Is your new position Divine Revelation continues to this day and God reveals new truths? Is that what you are saying to this day God reveals new truths? Yes or no.

[Show Me the Wire]

Okay boxcar:

I gave you the definition of man, per Calvin's words describing Paul's teaching, which is in accord with Scripture. My definition of "man" is the same. I told you my personal definition of the word "man" was irrelevant to the issue.

Now answer the question about Calvin's teaching on Ephesians 3. Is Calvin's teaching on Ephesians 3 correct? Yes or no.

[Show Me the Wire]

boxcar:

Upon reflection, I may as well answer your next objection based upon a non-existent distinction. You are going to ask me to define "a man", which you raised in a earlier post.

To answer you, I guess I have to teach you basic grammar. The use of an indefinite does not change the definition of the singular noun, which is is this instance is "man'.

For singular nouns the indefinite article "a" or "an" is used to refer to something for the first time or to refer to a particular member of a group or class.

In my previous posts I used the indefinite article "a" with the singular noun "man" to refer to a particular member of a group or class. The indefinite article "a" does not change the definition of "man". The use of "a", in my posts, is to refer to a particular member of group or class.

Can you guess which group or class? FYI, the group or class is clearly described in Calvin's commentary.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

boxcar:

Upon reflection, I may as well answer your next objection based upon a non-existent distinction. You are going to ask me to define "a man", which you raised in a earlier post.

To answer you, I guess I have to teach you basic grammar. The use of an indefinite does not change the definition of the singular noun, which is is this instance is "man'.

For singular nouns the indefinite article "a" or "an" is used to refer to something for the first time or to refer to a particular member of a group or class.

In my previous posts I used the indefinite article "a" with the singular noun "man" to refer to a particular member of a group or class. The indefinite article "a" does not change the definition of "man". The use of "a", in my posts, is to refer to a particular member of group or class.

Can you guess which group or class? FYI, the group or class is clearly described in Calvin's commentary.

Hmmm...let me put this to you gently as I can. The phrase "a man" was not used in your original question to me. Only "man" with no article. In fact, no qualifying adjective either. So...define "man" that you used in your original question. The phrase "a man" speaks to an individual human -- one man, as opposed to many. Whereas "man" is often defined as the entire human race (a/k/a mankind). Define "man" that you used in your question.

Again, Deceiver, Calvin did not use the term "man" in an unqualified sense in his commentary. Why can't you stop lying? The fact that you can't point to such use in his commentary only reinforces the fact that you're a serial liar.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I never denied both existed. So why have you been trying to equate them. The experience of having a new truth revealed is different than understanding an existing revealed truth. Illumination is understanding an already revealed truth, there is no new discovery of a truth but solely an understanding of what has been previously revealed.

You do not understand so well. It is your use and conflating of the two different experiences, which is the violation of the law of non-contradiction. You cannot have a new truth revealed as the understanding of an already revealed truth.

They are not equal or equivalent and you cannot logically hold the position you previously stated:



By the above you are asserting that Peter did not receive a new truth from God the Father, but received illumination as to an already revealed truth. A truth cannot be new and already revealed at the same time and in the same sense. it is either a new truth or a previously revealed truth.

You truly do not understand the b.s. you write.

Keep on demonstrating your lack of understanding of basic doctrine and what you actually write versus what you think you are saying through non-existent distinctions.

Based on the above I ask again:

When God opens someone's understanding for the first time to a spiritual truth, it is NEW to them. Jesus was always the Messiah way before He called Paul to himself on the road to Damascus. But nonetheless during that experience, God REVEALED to Paul for the first time Christ within him. So, for Paul it was a new revelation of an old or existing truth. Paul discovered Christ for the first time on the Road to Damascus, thanks to God's revelation to him -- not revelation in the sense of divine inspiration but revelation in the sense of divine illumination -- an opening up of the mind and soul that was previously closed to truth. Likewise with Peter. When God revealed Christ to Peter, it was a new truth to Peter -- a truth that God applied to Peter's heart, mind and soul.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I am not reluctant to define man. I have told you over and over how "man" is defined in the Calvin's commentary. I have repeatedly shown you where to find it.

"Man" in Calvin's commentary is used is used in the qualified sense, i.e. "INNER man". But that's not how you used "man" in your question to me. Also, Calvin never used "man" the way you did in your original question.

According to Calvin, Paul defines man as having an inner and outer qualities. Inner man is the soul and whatever relates to the spiritual life of the soul:


and

as the outward man denotes the body, with everything that belongs to it, -- health, honors, riches, vigor, beauty, and everything of that nature.



According to the commentary Man is defined as having a soul and a body. Do you have a problem with that definition? Let us know if you do.

I don't see what you see in his commentary. I see nothing about the outward man. But Calvin does agree with me that Christ and the Holy Spirit are one. Kool, huh?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

When God opens someone's understanding for the first time to a spiritual truth, it is NEW to them. Jesus was always the Messiah way before He called Paul to himself on the road to Damascus. But nonetheless during that experience, God REVEALED to Paul for the first time Christ within him. So, for Paul it was a new revelation of an old or existing truth. Paul discovered Christ for the first time on the Road to Damascus, thanks to God's revelation to him -- not revelation in the sense of divine inspiration but revelation in the sense of divine illumination -- an opening up of the mind and soul that was previously closed to truth. Likewise with Peter. When God revealed Christ to Peter, it was a new truth to Peter -- a truth that God applied to Peter's heart, mind and soul.

No matter how you much sh*t you throw at the wall, it does not change the objective fact, the truth revealed is a new truth or not a new truth. The understanding maybe a new experience, but the truth is not new. Learning 2+2-4 for the first time does not make the fact 2+2=4 is a new truth.

Paul Divine have illumination by the Spirit, Paul had an actual physical experience. He met the resurrected Jesus. Boy you are really fishing, and you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of basic doctrines and concepts. Stop trying to make distinctions, where no distinctions exists. A truth is either new or not.

Again, all you post is made up b.s. You make a big deal out of the law of non-contradiction and you are its biggest violator, in this thread, with all your contradictory positions.

Answer the question about Calvin's commentary, which I posed to you numerous times. I answered your ludicrous question about the definition of "man". Now man up and answer the question with a responsive answer.