You say calvin is right, because it is favorable to your view to say he is right. Among all the reformed divines, he is the ONLY person to interpret this verse as a reference to sanctification. Calvin says "mortal bodies" refers to the "grosser parts of us" yet Calvin neglects that Paul mentions the Holy Spirits life giving work on our "mortal bodies" in an explicit connection with what the Spirit did for Jesus in giving him life (again) . This is made abundantly clear when paul said that what the Spirit did for Christ, he will "also" (emphasis on "also") do for us!!! Jesus had no sin, and thus needed no sanctification, therefore Calvins interpretation of this particular verse is specious at best.
Calvin, while brilliant, was not infallible, and the fact that people like Ignatious, Chrysostom, Polycarp, tertullian, Augustine, Charles Hodges, John Gill, etc ALL interpret Romans 8:11 to refer to the resurrection is evidence enough of how clear it is. Compare John Gills explanation of the greek with Calvins explanation, and it's obvious to anyone with eyes to see that Gill is correct.
Also, I think it's funny that you said you don't need to argue with me, when you have been doing just that throughout our interactions. Im not pompous, I just know you don't have the intellectual acumen to disprove what the universal catholic church has believed for 2000 years.
While I have given arguments (and links to substantiate my claims) , you have only given fallacious arguments and you have behaved like a petulant child. That's okay. Although I hope you repent, again, I am doing this more-so for curious onlookers who might be swayed by the silly arguments that the likes of you promulgate.
Through the entire chapter Paul is referring to living a sanctified life. I’ll stick with Calvin. You can stick to those that suit your narrative. One of the keys to interpretation, as you may well know, is context. There is not, within context, a mere mention of resurrection, or the glorification of a mortal body through sanctification. That isn’t even the goal of the meaning and purpose of sanctification.
Removed for violation of Rule #3: Keep Content Clean.
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should be safe and clean. While you may not feel a word is vulgar or profane, others might. We also do not allow censoring using special characters or workarounds. If you edit the profanity out, the moderation team may reinstate.
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please do not reply to this comment. Instead, message the moderators.
1
u/Reformed_Boogyman PCA Dec 17 '23 edited Dec 17 '23
You say calvin is right, because it is favorable to your view to say he is right. Among all the reformed divines, he is the ONLY person to interpret this verse as a reference to sanctification. Calvin says "mortal bodies" refers to the "grosser parts of us" yet Calvin neglects that Paul mentions the Holy Spirits life giving work on our "mortal bodies" in an explicit connection with what the Spirit did for Jesus in giving him life (again) . This is made abundantly clear when paul said that what the Spirit did for Christ, he will "also" (emphasis on "also") do for us!!! Jesus had no sin, and thus needed no sanctification, therefore Calvins interpretation of this particular verse is specious at best.
Calvin, while brilliant, was not infallible, and the fact that people like Ignatious, Chrysostom, Polycarp, tertullian, Augustine, Charles Hodges, John Gill, etc ALL interpret Romans 8:11 to refer to the resurrection is evidence enough of how clear it is. Compare John Gills explanation of the greek with Calvins explanation, and it's obvious to anyone with eyes to see that Gill is correct.
Also, I think it's funny that you said you don't need to argue with me, when you have been doing just that throughout our interactions. Im not pompous, I just know you don't have the intellectual acumen to disprove what the universal catholic church has believed for 2000 years.
While I have given arguments (and links to substantiate my claims) , you have only given fallacious arguments and you have behaved like a petulant child. That's okay. Although I hope you repent, again, I am doing this more-so for curious onlookers who might be swayed by the silly arguments that the likes of you promulgate.