Day 92 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §18

Day 90 gave you a toolkit. Row ① was the name. Today we finally use row ①. Yesterday proved the Spirit is God by what he does. Today proves it by what he is called — and by whose place he takes in the text. Watch the method, because it is one move repeated five times: take a verse where the subject is God, find a parallel verse where the subject is the Spirit, and show that the predicate is the same. Temple of God / temple of the Spirit. Lied to God / lied to the Spirit. The Lord of Hosts spoke / the Spirit spoke. God provoked / the Spirit grieved. Same predicate, two names. If the predicate belongs to God alone, the two names name the same God. That is the argument. Learn to see it and you can read the next ten pages alone.

Second — the best sentence in the paragraph is one where Calvin throws evidence away. I **designedly omit** several passages which the ancient fathers adduced. ⚠️⚠️ The fathers loved Psalm 33:6 — by the breath (Spirit) of his mouth — as a proof that the Spirit created the world. Calvin says: no. Hebrew poetry says the same thing twice. word and breath of his mouth are one idea, not two Persons. that proof was weak A theologian arguing FOR a doctrine refuses a proof text FOR that doctrine. That is not weakness. That is method. Mark it — you will need it every time someone hands you a proof text that proves too much.

Third — the grammar trap of the day is in S11, and it is a monster. that majesty must certainly be divine **which** it is an inexpiable crime to offend or impair. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ The relative clause has been separated from its antecedent — majesty … [five words of main clause] … which. And inside the relative clause sits a dummy it with a delayed infinitive, and the gap for which is the object of offend. If you cannot rebuild that sentence, you cannot answer the question. Formula 3.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Negative-initial inversion: Nor + do/does + S + V. **Nor does** the Scripture, in speaking of him, **withhold** the name of God. ⚠️ Nor at the head of a clause forces operator–subject inversion, exactly like a question. Day 91 S12 was the positive cousin (Most clearly … **does Paul** ascribe). And today brings a third inversion: **were we ordered** to make a temple … = if we were ordered — Day 91's if-less conditional, back in Augustine's mouth. Formula 1.
2. not to A, but to B / not unto A, but unto B — the first limb is DENIED. we are **not to make** a temple to him, **but to be** ourselves that temple · he had **not** lied **unto men**, **but unto God**. ⚠️ Add both to your Day 91 table. No only → A is killed. And the partner construction: how much + comparative + a + NOUN (how much clearer **a proof**) — the adjective jumps in front of the article. Formula 2.
3. The separated relative clause + it is … to V inside it. **that majesty** must certainly be divine **which** it is an inexpiable crime to offend or impair = that majesty which it is an inexpiable crime to offend … must be divine. ⚠️ The gap: offend ___ / impair ___ — which is their object. Never add it after offend. Plus the frame: while … , whereas … , [MAIN CLAUSE] — two subordinate clauses before the main verb appears. Formula 3.

Nor does the Scripture, in speaking of him, withhold the name of God. Paul infers that we are the temple of God, from the fact that “the Spirit of God dwelleth in us,” (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; and 2 Cor. 6:16). Now it ought not to be slightly overlooked, that all the promises which God makes of choosing us to himself as a temple, receive their only fulfilment by his Spirit dwelling in us. Surely, as it is admirably expressed by Augustine (Ad Maximinum, Ep. 66), “were we ordered to make a temple of wood and stone to the Spirit, inasmuch as such worship is due to God alone, it would be a clear proof of the Spirit’s divinity; how much clearer a proof in that we are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that temple.” And the Apostle says at one time that we are the temple of God, and at another time, in the same sense, that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Peter, when he rebuked Ananias for having lied to the Holy Spirit, said, that he had not lied unto men, but unto God. And when Isaiah had introduced the Lord of Hosts as speaking, Paul says, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke (Acts 28:25, 26). Nay, words uniformly said by the prophets to have been spoken by the Lord of Hosts, are by Christ and his apostles ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Hence it follows that the Spirit is the true Jehovah who dictated the prophecies. Again, when God complains that he was provoked to anger by the stubbornness of the people, in place of Him, Isaiah says that his Holy Spirit was grieved (Isa. 63:10). Lastly, while blasphemy against the Spirit is not forgiven, either in the present life or that which is to come, whereas he who has blasphemed against the Son may obtain pardon, that majesty must certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend or impair. I designedly omit several passages which the ancient fathers adduced. They thought it plausible to quote from David, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (Spirit) of his mouth,” (Ps. 33:6), in order to prove that the world was not less the work of the Holy Spirit than of the Son. But seeing it is usual in the Psalms to repeat the same thing twice, and in Isaiah the spirit (breath) of the mouth is equivalent to word, that proof was weak; and, accordingly, my wish has been to advert briefly to those proofs on which pious minds may securely rest.

Sentence count: 14 (S1–S14). One paragraph, four movements: the thesis — Scripture gives the Spirit the name of God (S1) · the temple argument, with Augustine (S2–S5) · the speech argument — Ananias, Isaiah, the prophets, "the true Jehovah" (S6–S9) · two closing proofs — grief and blasphemy (S10–S11) · and the method note: a weak patristic proof deliberately dropped (S12–S14).

⚠️ Day 91: 12 sentences. Today: 14 — but lighter per sentence. Six ★★★, six ★★, two ★.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Six features of the printed page, all handled as follows. (i) One hyphen seam rejoined (line-break hyphenation only): blas-|phemed → blasphemed (source lines 5520–5521). (ii) Marginal number 124 removed — it sits at the right edge after of his mouth,” (line 5524). A page-reference to the Latin edition, not prose. ⚠️ The blank line that follows it (5525) is a layout gap, not a paragraph break — S13 reads straight on: of his mouth,” (Ps. 33:6), in order to prove. (iii) Line break inside the Augustine reference — (Ad Maximinum,|Ep. 66) — rejoined with a single space. The reference is quoted as printed; on its accuracy see Period 6. (iv) ⚠️ Beveridge's bracketed glosses are part of the text and are kept: the breath **(Spirit)** of his mouth (S13) and the spirit **(breath)** of the mouth (S14). They are the translator showing you that one Hebrew/Latin word sits under both English words. Delete them and S14's argument loses its hinge. (v) Punctuation kept as printed: the temple of God, from the fact (comma before the from-phrase); a temple, receive (comma between a long subject and its verb — old heavy pointing); said, that he had not lied (comma before a that-clause); are by Christ … ascribed and Lord of Hosts, are (again a comma between subject and verb); in place of **Him** (capital H — reverential capital, kept; Beveridge is not consistent — he was provoked two words earlier is lower case); dwelleth in us,” (1 Cor. (comma inside the quotation mark). ⚠️ 1 Cor 3:16 in the KJV reads dwelleth in you; Beveridge's in us follows the flow of Calvin's sentence (we are the temple). Quoted as printed. (vi) ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §18 = Beveridge printed §15, entire (source lines 5503–5529). The printed marker 16. follows immediately after today's last sentence. Label offset still +3 (because printed §14 was split across Days 90–91). BH's decision remains open (A: keep our labels / B: re-map SCHEDULE.md). Reading order is unbroken.

                 ─── I. THESIS: THE NAME (S1) ───
[INVERSION]      S1    "NOR DOES the Scripture … WITHHOLD the NAME OF GOD"
                        ⚠ Day 90 toolkit row ① — finally applied to the Spirit
                 ─── II. THE TEMPLE ARGUMENT (S2–S5) ───
[INFERENCE]      S2    Paul INFERS [we = temple of God] FROM [the Spirit dwells in us]
                        ⚠ premise = indwelling; conclusion = temple of GOD
[PROMISES]       S3    ALL the promises … RECEIVE their ONLY fulfilment
                        BY his Spirit dwelling in us
[AUGUSTINE]      S4    "WERE WE ORDERED to make a temple … to the Spirit → proof;
                        HOW MUCH CLEARER A PROOF … NOT to make a temple, BUT to BE one"
[PARALLEL]       S5    temple of GOD  ≡  temple of the HOLY SPIRIT ("in the same sense")
                 ─── III. THE SPEECH ARGUMENT (S6–S9) ───
[ANANIAS]        S6    lied to the HOLY SPIRIT = "NOT unto men, BUT unto GOD"
[ISAIAH]         S7    Lord of Hosts speaking (Isa 6) → "IT WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT SPOKE"
[GENERALIZE]     S8    "NAY" — words of the Lord of Hosts, UNIFORMLY → ascribed to the Spirit
[CONCLUSION]     S9    HENCE the Spirit = "the TRUE JEHOVAH who dictated the prophecies"
                 ─── IV. TWO CLOSING PROOFS (S10–S11) ───
[RESET #5]       S10   "AGAIN" — God provoked … IN PLACE OF HIM … Spirit GRIEVED
[CLINCHER]       S11   "LASTLY, WHILE … WHEREAS …, THAT MAJESTY must be divine
                        WHICH it is an inexpiable crime TO OFFEND"
                 ─── V. METHOD: THE REJECTED PROOF (S12–S14) ───
[OMISSION]       S12   "I DESIGNEDLY OMIT" the fathers' passages
[THE TEXT]       S13   Ps 33:6 "by the BREATH (SPIRIT) of his mouth" → creation by the Spirit
[VERDICT]        S14   "SEEING" parallelism + Isaiah usage → "THAT PROOF WAS WEAK"
                        → only proofs "on which pious minds may SECURELY rest"

The spine in one line: Scripture calls the Spirit God → his indwelling makes us God's temple → lying to him is lying to God; his speaking is the Lord of Hosts' speaking — he is the true Jehovah → grieving him is provoking God; offending him is unforgivable → and a weak proof is dropped, so that faith rests only on solid ones.

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Four traps. (1) Direction of S2. Premise: the Spirit of God dwells in us. Conclusion: we are the temple of God. Any option saying Paul infers that the Spirit dwells in us from the fact that we are God's temple has flipped the inference. ⚠️ And the argument's hidden premise — only God has a temple — is what makes the Spirit God. (2) S6 not lied unto men, but unto God. ⚠️ The denied limb is men, not the Holy Spirit. Any option saying Ananias lied to God rather than to the Spirit has set the Spirit against God — the exact opposite of Calvin's point (the lie to the Spirit is the lie to God). (3) S11 — the Son-pardon clause. ⚠️⚠️ Scope trap. he who has blasphemed against the Son may obtain pardon does not mean the Spirit ranks above the Son. Calvin's conclusion is only that majesty must certainly be divine — not more divine. An option that ranks the Persons has over-read (see Period 6). (4) S12–S14 — the rejected proof. ⚠️⚠️ Calvin does NOT deny that the Spirit created the world. He denies that Ps 33:6 proves it. Any option saying Calvin rejects the Spirit's role in creation confuses a weak argument with a false conclusion — and Day 90 (Gen 1:2) already gave the Spirit a creation role.

Formula 1 — Inversion after a fronted negative (+ the if-less conditional) · plus the gerund-subject table

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) NEGATIVE FRONTED  →  OPERATOR + SUBJECT + VERB                  │
│      Nor / Neither / Never / Not only / Little / Seldom / No sooner  │
│      NOR  DOES  the Scripture  WITHHOLD  the name of God       (S1)  │
│         ✗ Nor the Scripture withholds …                              │
│         ✗ Nor the Scripture does withhold …                          │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) IF DELETED  →  WERE / HAD / SHOULD + SUBJECT                    │
│      WERE we ordered to make a temple …, it WOULD be …         (S4)  │
│      = If we were ordered …                                           │
│         ✗ If were we ordered …   (inversion REPLACES if)             │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) GERUND SUBJECT — two forms                                       │
│      by HIS dwelling in us           (pronoun → possessive)  Day 91  │
│      by HIS SPIRIT dwelling in us    (noun phrase → plain case) S3   │
│      (by his Spirit's dwelling — also grammatical, heavier)          │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. (A) and (B) both use operator-first order, but (A) is triggered by a negative word, (B) by the deletion of if. Never keep if with (B).

Transformation drill. Rewrite with Nor + inversion: Scripture does not call the Spirit a creature. It does not deny him worship either.

Model: Scripture does not call the Spirit a creature, nor does it deny him worship.

Formula 2 — not A, but B (A DENIED) · how much + comparative + a + N

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) NOT A, BUT B   →  A is FALSE, B is TRUE                          │
│      we are NOT to make a temple to him, BUT to be … that temple (S4)│
│      he had NOT lied unto men, BUT unto God                     (S6) │
│      ⚠ vs. NOT ONLY A, BUT (ALSO) B → A and B BOTH TRUE     (Day 90)│
│        → look for ONLY                                                │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) HOW / SO / TOO / AS + ADJ + A + NOUN                             │
│      how much clearer  A  proof                                 (S4) │
│      so great  a  salvation   ·   too heavy  a  burden               │
│         ✗ how much a clearer proof                                    │
│      (exclamation may drop the verb: "how much clearer a proof      │
│       [is it] in that …")                                             │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) IN THAT + clause  = because / in the fact that                   │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. In he had not lied unto men, but unto God, the denied term is men — the Spirit is on the B side (v. 3 = v. 4). Any paraphrase that puts the Spirit on the A side flips Calvin.

Transformation drill. Combine with not A, but B and how much + comparative + a + N: We are not asked to give the Spirit a house. We are asked to be his house. That is a much greater honour.

Model: How much greater an honour it is, that we are not to give the Spirit a house, but to be his house ourselves!

Formula 3 — Separated relative clause + it is … to V with a gap · while …, whereas …, MAIN

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  BASE:     that majesty [which it is a crime to offend ___] is divine│
│  EXTRAPOSED:                                                          │
│            that majesty  must certainly be divine                     │
│                          [which it is an inexpiable crime             │
│                           to offend ___ or impair ___]         (S11) │
│                                                                       │
│  ① antecedent (majesty) ……… predicate ……… WHICH                      │
│     → if WHICH can't attach to the nearest word, look BACK           │
│  ② inside: it is + N/ADJ + to V ___   (WHICH = object of V)          │
│         ✗ … which it is a crime to offend IT                          │
│  ③ frame:  WHILE [premise], WHEREAS [contrast], MAIN CLAUSE          │
│     both WHILE and WHEREAS are subordinate — wait for the main verb  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. The resumptive pronoun (to offend it) is the most common error in this construction. The gap is the point.**

Transformation drill. Build one sentence with an extraposed relative and it is … to V: No one can resist the Spirit's work without guilt. That work must be God's work.

Model: That work must be God's own which it is guilt to resist.

Where we are. Our §§16–20 are the case for the Spirit's deity. Day 90 set the method (the same sources) and called Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 48:16. Day 91 gave the argument from works and will. Today gives the argument from name — and closes with a method note. What's left in the Spirit section is short; after it Calvin turns to how the three Persons are distinguished within the one essence.

The argument form: identity by shared predicate. Every proof today has the same shape: Scripture says X of God in one place and X of the Spirit in another, where X belongs to God alone (a temple, the target of a lie that is "not to men", the speaking of prophecy, being provoked/grieved by Israel's rebellion, an unforgivable offence). ⚠️ Guardrail: this does not prove that every sentence about God is about the Spirit as distinct Person. It proves the Spirit is included in the one God named Jehovah. Calvin already proved the Son is Jehovah (§§7–10). One name, one essence — the Persons are distinguished elsewhere (from §21 of ours on).

Augustine (S4). The temple argument is a standard Western anti-Arian proof. Augustine uses it against the Arian bishop Maximinus (the Collatio and Contra Maximinum, c. 427–428). ⚠️ Beveridge prints the reference as Ad Maximinum, Ep. 66. Modern editions number Augustine's letters differently, and the argument as Calvin paraphrases it is usually located in the anti-Maximinus writings rather than a letter. We quote Beveridge's reference as printed; don't treat the letter number as settled. The same temple argument appears earlier in Athanasius (Letters to Serapion) and in Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit) — Calvin is standing in a long line.

Ananias (S6) and the Isaiah 6 transfer (S7). Both are old patristic proofs — Basil and Ambrose use Acts 5:3–4. One detail worth knowing: John 12:39–41 applies the same Isaiah 6 passage to Christ's glory ("These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory"), while Acts 28:25 attributes its words to the Spirit. Isaiah saw the LORD of hosts; John says it was the Son's glory; Paul says the Spirit spoke. Later Reformed writers made much of this triple application. ⚠️ Calvin does not draw that out here — don't put it in his mouth for this section.

dictated the prophecies (S9). ⚠️ Over-reading guardrail. Calvin elsewhere uses "dictation" language for Scripture (the Latin dictare family). Whether he meant a mechanical process (the prophet as a passive stenographer) or used it as a figure for divine authorship is a live scholarly debate — both readings have serious defenders, and his commentaries clearly attend to the human authors' styles and circumstances. In this sentence the only claim needed is: the words of the prophets are the Spirit's words. Stop there.

The unforgivable sin (S11). Matt 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–29; Luke 12:10. Calvin uses it here only as a majesty argument: an inexpiable offence implies a divine object. ⚠️ Guardrails: (1) no ranking of Persons — his conclusion is divine, not greater than the Son; (2) his fuller account (Book III.3.21–24) defines the sin as deliberate, malicious resistance to truth the Spirit has made plain — so the Son-pardon clause concerns ignorance about Christ (e.g. those who opposed him before they understood), not a lower dignity of the Son.

The rejected proof (S12–S14). Psalm 33:6 was a favourite of the fathers — Irenaeus (who calls the Word and Spirit God's "two hands") and Basil (On the Holy Spirit) both read the verse's word and breath as the Son and the Spirit. Calvin rejects the argument, not the doctrine: Hebrew parallelism makes breath of his mouth restate word of the Lord. This is Calvin the humanist exegete: grammar and genre over tradition, even when tradition is on his side. He does the same with Gen 1:26's plural and other favourite Trinitarian proof texts in his commentaries — refusing proofs he thinks won't bear weight, so that opponents cannot mock the doctrine by refuting its weakest supports. ⚠️ Guardrail: Calvin is not saying the Spirit had no part in creation — Day 90 (Gen 1:2, the Spirit … moved upon the face of the waters) already gave him one.

Reception. Calvin's refusal of weak proof texts drew criticism in his own time — some Lutheran opponents (notably Aegidius Hunnius, Calvinus Judaizans, 1593) accused him of "Judaizing" by surrendering classic Trinitarian texts. Modern evangelical and Reformed exegesis largely vindicates his method; the principle those proofs on which pious minds may securely rest became a standard caution against proof-texting.

The one-line takeaway. ⚠️ Today proves the Spirit is God by name and identity of predicate — and shows that a strong doctrine needs strong texts, not many texts.

1. 1 Corinthians 3:16 — S2, cited. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Gk. ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. ⚠️ ναός = the inner sanctuary (the dwelling itself), not ἱερόν (the temple precincts). How Calvin uses it: premise (indwelling) → conclusion (God's temple).
2. 1 Corinthians 6:19 — S2, S5. Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God. How Calvin uses it: the "at another time" of S5 — temple of the Spirit in the same sense as temple of God (3:16).
3. 2 Corinthians 6:16 — S2, S3. Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them (quoting Lev 26:11–12; Ezek 37:27). How Calvin uses it: these are the promises which God makes of choosing us to himself as a temple (S3) — fulfilled only by the Spirit's indwelling.
4. Acts 5:3–4 — S6. Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? … thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. ⚠️ v. 3 ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον / v. 4 οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ τῷ θεῷ. How Calvin uses it: one lie, two names for its object.
5. Isaiah 6:3, 5, 8–10 — S7. Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts … mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts … Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not. How Calvin uses it: the speaker in Isaiah is the LORD of hosts.
6. Acts 28:25–26 — S7, cited. Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people… How Calvin uses it: Paul names the Holy Spirit as the speaker of Isaiah 6. (Cf. John 12:41 — see Period 6.)
7. Mark 12:36; Hebrews 3:7; 10:15–16 — behind S8. David himself said by the Holy Ghost (Christ on Ps 110) / as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice (Ps 95) / the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us … This is the covenant (Jer 31). How Calvin uses it: the pattern of S8 — by Christ and his apostles ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
8. 2 Peter 1:21 — behind S9. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. How Calvin uses it: the Spirit is the author of prophecy — who dictated the prophecies.
9. Isaiah 63:10 — S10, cited. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit. Heb. וְעִצְּבוּ אֶת־רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ (ʿiṣṣəbû = grieved, pained). How Calvin uses it: where God elsewhere is "provoked" (e.g. Ps 78:40–41, 56; Num 14:11), Isaiah writes his Holy Spirit. Echo: Eph 4:30 grieve not the holy Spirit of God — λυπεῖτε.
10. Matthew 12:31–32 (Mark 3:28–29; Luke 12:10) — S11. Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. How Calvin uses it: an inexpiable offence → a divine majesty offended.
11. Psalm 33:6 — S13, cited. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Heb. בִּדְבַר יְהוָה … וּבְרוּחַ פִּיו — dəbar (word) ‖ rûaḥ pîw (breath of his mouth). How Calvin uses it: as the example of a weak proof — synonymous parallelism.
12. Isaiah 11:4; 59:21 — behind S14 (in Isaiah the spirit (breath) of the mouth is equivalent to word). He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked / My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth. ⚠️ Calvin cites no verse; these are the likeliest candidates, not his named sources. How Calvin uses it: Isaiah pairs breath/spirit of the mouth with word — so Ps 33:6 need not name a second Person.

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어색한 것 하나

(A) Nor does the Scripture withhold the name of God from the Spirit. All the promises which God makes of choosing us to himself as a temple (B) receive their only fulfilment by his Spirit dwelling in us. Words (C) said by the prophets to have been spoken by the Lord of Hosts are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. So that majesty must certainly be divine (D) which it is an inexpiable crime to offend it.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (D).

출제 의도. ⚠️ Formula 3 — the gap. which is already the object of offend; adding it fills the gap twice (resumptive pronoun). ✗. Correct: which it is an inexpiable crime to offend. ⚠️ The trap: the dummy it earlier in the clause makes a second it feel "balanced". It isn't. Why the others are sound. (A) fronted Nor + operator inversion — Formula 1(A). (B) plural receive agrees with promises, not the decoy temple right before it. (C) reduced relative + perfect passive infinitive (said … to have been spoken) — ⚠️ the "feels wrong, is right" option.

② 내용일치 — 다음 중 §18의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

(1) Calvin argues that because blasphemy against the Son can be pardoned but blasphemy against the Spirit cannot, the Spirit is of higher rank than the Son. (2) Calvin endorses the fathers' use of Psalm 33:6 as a sound proof that the Spirit created the world. (3) From the fact that the Spirit of God dwells in us, Paul infers that we are the temple of God — an inference that presupposes the Spirit's deity. (4) According to Calvin, Peter told Ananias that he had lied to God rather than to the Holy Spirit.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (3).

출제 의도. (1) ✗ Scope overreach. Calvin concludes only that majesty must certainly be divine — no ranking of Persons (Period 6). (2) ✗ Direction flip. Calvin omits the passage and calls the proof weak (S12, S14). (3) ✓ S2 exactly — premise indwelling, conclusion God's temple; and S4 (such worship is due to God alone) supplies the premise that makes it an argument for the Spirit's deity. (4) ✗ Direction flip on the denied limb. The denied term is men (not lied unto men, but unto God); the lie to the Spirit (Acts 5:3) is the lie to God (5:4).

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영어로

성경은 성령께 하나님의 이름을 보류하지도 않는다. 우리는 그에게 성전을 지어 드리라는 것이 아니라, 우리 자신이 그 성전이 되라는 것이다. 범하는 것이 속죄할 수 없는 죄인 그 위엄은 분명 신적임에 틀림없다.

Model answer:

Nor does the Scripture withhold the name of God from the Spirit. We are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that temple. That majesty must certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend.

출제 의도. Three checks. ① Formula 1(A) — Nor does the Scripture withhold — inversion obligatory. ⚠️ Nor the Scripture withholds scores zero. ② Formula 2(A) — not to make …, but to be … — first limb denied, be to for the appointed purpose. ⚠️ not only to make … but also to be reverses the meaning (both would be true). ③ Formula 3 — extraposed relative with the gap: That majesty must … be divine which it is … to offend. ⚠️ to offend it — ✗. (The non-extraposed version That majesty which it is an inexpiable crime to offend must be divine is also correct; the extraposed one earns the construction.)

One-line summary. Nor does the Scripture … withhold the name of God from the Spirit: Paul infers we are God's temple from the Spirit's dwelling, and God's temple-promises find their only fulfilment there — how much clearer a proof, says Augustine, in that we are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that temple; the lie to the Spirit is not lied unto men, but unto God; the Lord of Hosts' words are the Spirit's words, so the Spirit is the true Jehovah; in place of God provoked, Isaiah writes the Spirit grieved; and that majesty must certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend — while Psalm 33:6, the fathers' favourite, is designedly dropped because parallelism makes that proof … weak.

The three grammar points, once more. ① Fronted negative → operator inversion — Nor does the Scripture withhold; and if-less Were we ordered …, it would be …; plus the gerund-subject pair his dwelling / his Spirit dwelling. ② not A, but B kills A (not to make … but to be, not lied unto men, but unto God) — look for only; plus how much clearer a proof (adjective before a) and in that = because. ③ Separated relative + it is … to V ___ — that majesty … which it is an inexpiable crime to offend ___ — no resumptive it; inside the frame while …, whereas …, MAIN.

And the structural fact you now own: ⚠️ five Agains (Days 88–92), every one a RESET — today's comes straight after a Hence it follows conclusion. Plus a new method key: identity by shared predicate — same predicate, two names (God / the Spirit), predicate belongs to God alone → the names name one God. And Calvin's rule for evidence: those proofs on which pious minds may securely rest.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration (4 min). Rewrite S11 in base order — relative clause un-extraposed (that majesty which … must certainly be divine) — and then as two plain sentences (one for while/whereas, one for the conclusion). Mark the gap in the relative clause with ___.
2. Composition (4 min). Write one sentence using Formula 1(A) (Nor + operator + S + V) about the Son, based on John 20:28: Scripture does not withhold the name of God from the Son either — Thomas calls him "my God." Check: no not left in the nor clause, operator before subject.
3. Preview (2 min). Tomorrow (our §19 = printed §16) opens with a comparison of degree: But **as** God has manifested himself **more clearly** by the advent of Christ, **so** he has made himself **more familiarly** known in three persons. Expect: (a) as … so … correlative — the proportion frame; (b) Of many proofs let this one suffice — ⚠️ a let-imperative and a fronted PP; (c) Eph 4:5 — God, Faith, and Baptism — and an argument from baptism into one name (Matt 28:19). Today the Spirit got the name of God. Tomorrow all three Persons share one name.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §18 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §19 (= Beveridge 인쇄 §16, 신약의 삼위 계시 — 세례 논증: But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons.).