I'm enjoying my ongoing/running debates with Calvinist bloggers. They've illustrated classic Calvinist errors in Christology quite well. I had a conversation about Christ's post-Resurrection appearances. A Calvinist has tried to argue these were in fact Theophanies. They really just have no use for the Personal Union, and can't deal with the human nature of Christ after his death.
Paul McCain has a problem with reading comprehension. The problem is not that he’s trying to misrepresent my position. The problem is that he lacks critical detachment. He can’t see around his own position long enough to see any other position for what it is. His own precommitments create a mental block to grasping any viewpoint other than his own.
I never said the Easter appearances were theophanies. I was giving a specific answer to a specific question. What I said was that, with respect to our Lord’s ability to appear or disappear at will, this phenomenon was analogous to OT theophanies.
Not only did I say this, but I gave several exegetical arguments in support of my contention.
McCain manages to distort what I actually said as well as disregard the supporting evidence.