pleonast.com: deusvitae

I'm still here. I've just had a rather busy week, and the lack of a truly viable laptop has cut down on the Internet time, for better and for worse.

The in-laws were here for Thanksgiving, and it was enjoyable to have them here and to spend time with them.

The only somewhat earth-shattering thing I've done in the past week was to begin the transition from using banks to using the local credit union. I was foolish for not considering them earlier; they provide excellent benefits for members, I was able to establish accounts for my children, and they're financing about half of my debt consolidation loan for about half the interest I was paying.

So leave your multinational bank and join your local credit union. It does everyone good. :D

Book reading update.

Still trudging through Bonhoeffer's Ethics, although it's been tabled for the most part. He has some interesting ideas, but he's also getting quite esoteric. It would have helped if he had been able to polish it and finish it.

But I did finish reading the third installment of Jaroslav Pelikan's five-part series, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Part III was The Development of Medieval Theology (600-1300).

I read volume 1 earlier this year, and intended to read them in order, but a project that will be announced as soon as is appropriate compelled me to pick it up again with volume III.

Pelikan is simply awesome in his knowledge and grasp of the history of doctrine. The book has full citations along the side of each discussion of both primary and secondary sources. The discussion itself shows a good understanding of the medieval worldview and the doctrinal disputations of the period.

From 600 to 1300 in "western Christendom," tradition was fully enshrined, and the desire existed to not go beyond the traditions handed down from the syntheses of the faith in the previous five centuries. Nevertheless, there were many doctrinal disputations that had not been fully resolved, and there were also other questions not yet considered.

Pelikan takes you through the Gottschalk vs. Hincmar disputes of the eighth centuries, from Abelard and Anselm through the great medieval synthesis of the Scholastics, supremely seen in Thomas Aquinas.

The history shown is not your normal medieval religious history, since Pelikan focuses mostly on doctrine. For that reason, persons who get greater emphasis are barely seen, and otherwise relatively minor characters get pre-eminence.

For these reasons the book has great value. If you want to understand why on earth the Roman Catholic church is as it is, and what led to the disputes of the Reformation, this book does well at explaining it.

Next up: volume 4 of the series, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700).

I would like to start a discussion on the Holy Spirit. I recognize that the questions I asked previously are difficult questions to consider, but I believe it necessary to consider them if we're going to have a better understanding of God's Word.

Before I begin, I need to make a few comments. First of all, far be it from me that I make any hard and fast claims about what the Holy Spirit does or does not do. The Holy Spirit is God, and therefore all we can know about Him is what has been revealed to us. Since the role of the Spirit seems to be rather "subjective" in the Bible, making definitive claims seems rather immodest.

What this should not do, however, is hinder us from considering the role and work of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible. I recognize that this is a difficult subject for many and one fraught with problems. I also recognize that there are many in the church who are rather dogmatic about what the Holy Spirit does or does not do, and many approach the subject fearfully (if at all), fearing retribution of some kind.

I do not want this to be the case here. The series of posts I intend to write represent me "working out," to the best of my ability, what I have found revealed from the Scriptures in regard to the Holy Spirit. I welcome and encourage any and all discussion that helps me and others to be more aligned with what the Scriptures teach on the Holy Spirit: that's what this is entirely about.

And because of this, I would like for everyone to approach what is presented with open minds. We live in a post-Enlightenment, antisupernatural world, and even though we believe in God, it's quite easy for all of us to dispense with or minimize whatever seems too esoteric. Just because something is subjective does not make it wrong-- it may not make it very modernist, but God is not of the Enlightenment strain, nor is He modernist.

As it is written:

Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:8-9).

Please remember this not only in terms of modern philosophical presuppositions but also in terms of denominational doctrines. By necessity, we will be bringing up some things taught in denominations, but please do not automatically draw parallels where none may exist. All denominations take some right ideas of Scripture and twist them in various ways, the Holy Spirit certainly notwithstanding; abuse of a truth does not negate a truth.

And that gets me to the last concern. A lot of people do not want to think about the role of the Holy Spirit, perhaps may seek to discount the value of understanding the Spirit, or in other ways show great discomfort with the subject because of how denominations have abused the role of the Holy Spirit. This also fosters extremism: people will go to the opposite side of the spectrum in their opposition to denominational teachings.

If we are going to be workmen without need to be ashamed, we cannot shrink from any Biblical subject (2 Timothy 2:15). We should also not cling to an extreme merely because it justifies our opposition to another doctrine; instead, we must seek out the truth, and then understand how the truth demonstrates the error of other positions. That is what I am trying to do here: to best understand, on the basis of the Scriptures, the role and work of the Holy Spirit.

The Role and Work of the Holy Spirit, I: The Gift of the Holy Spirit

As we begin our discussion, we recognize that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead; He is identified as part of YHWH in many Scriptures, not least in 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

One of the primary issues we must tackle involves the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. When Peter stands before the Jews on Pentecost, and they seek to know what they must do to be saved (Acts 2:37), Peter responds:

And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Acts 2:38-39).

What is this "gift of the Holy Spirit"?

It has been argued historically (even by myself) that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" here represents an objective genitive, that is, the gift is the gift that the Holy Spirit gives. That gift has generally been identified as "salvation."

Yet where, in the New Testament, is the gift of salvation something granted by the Holy Spirit? Granted, the Holy Spirit is part of God, but the Bible tends to make clear which Person does what, and nowhere else do we see the Holy Spirit Himself having such a place. Salvation is granted by God the Father through Jesus the Son (John 3:16, etc.). It is not the Holy Spirit's work, per se, to give salvation.

Therefore, that argument really does not work. The "gift of the Holy Spirit" seems to be a subjective genitive: the Holy Spirit is the gift itself.

But what does that mean? Does this mean that the believer is given the gift of the Holy Spirit when they are baptized and brought into the Church?

I believe, based on all the evidence in the Scriptures, that the answer is unhesitatingly yes. In fact, the Scriptures seem to indicate that it is mandatory for the believer to have and reflect this gift.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you (Romans 8:1-11).

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law...But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof. If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk (Galatians 5:16-18, 22-25).

Romans 8 and Galatians 5 tie into one another nicely. Both passages indicate that believers are set apart because they "walk after" the Spirit. But this cannot be construed as merely doing what the Bible says, for Paul indicates that to no longer be in the flesh but to be in the Spirit requires "the Spirit of God" to be in you (Romans 8:9; it should be added that the Holy Spirit is identified as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ in that He is part of the Godhead; verse 11 shows that we cannot just identify the Spirit here as the Father or the Son, but is the Holy Spirit proper). In verse 11, the future quickening of the body in the resurrection is entirely dependent on having the same Holy Spirit as was with the Lord in His ministry (cf. Luke 4:1, 14).

When one has the Spirit and is led by it, one will manifest the Spirit's works, that is, the fruit of the Spirit enumerated in Galatians 2:22-24. Such are the manifestations of the Spirit in one's life. Does this mean that the believer has no role to play? Absolutely not. The Spirit does not overwhelm or conquer the free will of the believer, no more or less than the Father or the Son. As the believer must "open the door" to let Jesus in, according to Revelation 3:20, the believer must work toward manifesting the fruit of the Spirit. The believer must be willing to be led by the Spirit, striving to obey God's will. But this does not mean that the Spirit has no role to play in assisting the believer in manifesting that fruit.

We also have the metaphor of the Temple in the New Testament. Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 present the metaphor "church as temple," indicating that the Spirit is "in" the church just as God's presence was within the First and Second Temples of Israel. Yet 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 indicates that the metaphor of believer as temple is just as appropriate:

Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

While the Greek does use second person plurals in this discussion, it is because Paul is addressing a plurality of persons: "body" is singular, indicating that each body is a temple, and the Holy Spirit therefore "is" in each body.

When we consider the witness of these three Scriptures, it is hard to see how we can interpret Acts 2:38-39 in any other way than that the Christian receives the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism.

Yet many questions abound. Does this mean that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is in the same measure as the Apostles? No. In Acts 11:16-17, when recounting the conversion of Cornelius, Peter describes the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them "as at the first, when He came upon us." This clearly shows that what happened to the Apostles on Pentecost was not a normal event, and was not continuously repeated.

God always recognized that He was going to give the gift of the Spirit in a greater measure in the first century than He would later on; the gift given at baptism is not the same as what the Apostles had, or even the same that enabled the believer to speak in tongues. Acts 2:39 talks about how the gift would be given to all future generations. Acts 8:14-16 shows that the Apostles needed to lay hands on people for them to demonstrate many of the gifts of the Spirit.

This brings us to the passage that most often is provided, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10:

Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away (1 Corinthians 13:8-10).

While many in the denominational world attempt to lessen the force of Paul's words, I fear that too many try to overemphasize them. Paul provides this passage in the context of a discussion of love within an even greater context of the use of spiritual gifts. These three are just three of many other gifts mentioned, as is evident from 1 Corinthians 12:4-11:

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

In 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, we have the "gifts" of words of wisdom, words of knowledge, faith, healings, workings of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues.

Even if we say that speaking in tongues and its interpretation have ceased, along with prophecy and new knowledge, and even if we grant that miracles only come by God's operation without direct human knowledge, we still have "words of wisdom," "faith," and "discerning of spirits" (cf. 1 John 4:1).

Beyond this, we have Romans 12:4-8 and 1 Peter 4:10-11:

For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another. And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that teacheth, to his teaching; or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let him do it with liberality; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.

according as each hath received a gift, ministering it among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God; if any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God; is any man ministereth, ministering as of the strength which God supplieth: that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Here we have other "gifts" enumerated, and many of them are still in use today: ministry, exhortation, teaching, mercy, speaking, and the like.

We recognize that it is the ultimate in impiety to assert that we, by our own strength and ability, have been able to provide of all of our means. If someone came among the brethren and started to say that he, all by himself, was able to have a great marriage, to have great kids, plenty of resources, and the like, we would lament for that soul, considering how self-deceived he is. We all recognize that we are who we are by God's grace: our sufficiency is not within ourselves. Left to our own devices, we humans fail and go the wrong way (Proverbs 14:26, Jeremiah 10:23). We recognize that, as Christians, we are to give all glory to God.

But how can we say that the man spoken of above is self-deceived and yet go on and assert that we can show compassion, teach, preach, exhort, minister, etc., by our own power and ability? Is that not just as much, if not more, self-deception? Does not Peter say that we should do such things to God's glory?

However comfortable or uncomfortable it may be for us, both Peter and Paul testify that our abilities are God-given gifts. Just as the master provided talents to the three servants in Matthew 25:14-31, so our Master has provided gifts to us to use in His service.

And what is the agency of these gifts? How do we obtain these gifts? Many of the same gifts that belong to the Spirit are enumerated in these lists of gifts. The conclusion seems inescapable: ministering, exhortation, teaching, preaching, showing compassion, etc., are gifts of the Holy Spirit that is in us.

Let none be deceived: we must still show compassion, preach, teach, exhort, minister, and the like. But we must recognize that if we are in the Body of Christ, and if we seek to give God all the glory, we must humbly confess that we have those abilities thanks to the gifts of God given through the Spirit to each of us so that we can work in Him.

Therefore, while we may not have the same measure of the Spirit as was given in the first century, and the Spirit is not empowering Christians with the use of certain gifts as before, the Spirit is still "in" us and providing us with the gifts of God according to His mercy and direction.

And so now we have the million dollar question. How is the Spirit "in" us? I have heard the phrase "literal indwelling" used many times, and I am still not quite sure what this means. How can the Spirit "literally indwell" in anyone? He is Spirit! He certainly is not physically in us in any way that we would understand the idea. But, as He is Spirit, He is "in" us as the Spirit would be in us.

What does that mean? I have no idea. Far be it from me to try to provide some ontological understanding of the inner operation and presence of that which is spiritual. The means by which it takes place is indeed one of the "secret things" of God (Deuteronomy 29:29).

But the Scriptures testify that the Holy Spirit is indeed "in" us in some spiritual sense, that is, if we indeed belong to God, according to Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 3; 12, Romans 12, and 1 Corinthians 12 as quoted above.

But how can a singular Holy Spirit be "in" every believer? Again, I do not know, but I trust the revelation of God in His Word. In Acts 2:1-4, the Holy Spirit is poured out on the twelve Apostles, and they all manifest the Spirit individually simultaneously. If the Spirit can do that, then the Spirit, through some spiritual means beyond our understanding, can "be" with each individual believer.

From the Scriptures, it would seem that the believer, upon being baptized and added to the Body of Christ, receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is then "in" him. This would not be a "literal indwelling," but some spiritual presence that is not easily understood, if at all. The Spirit is the agent of the gifts that God bestows upon Christians, and seems to have a role in leading the Christian in his walk with God.

In future discussions we will consider the relation between the Spirit and God's revelation, and also to elaborate further on how the Spirit works with the Christian.

Fire away.

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.

ELDV


jlmanager	I'll have to come back to the Holy Spirit discussion, but I'll just mention that we joined a credit union 3 years ago, fired SunTrust when they started charging fees for everything, and haven't looked back.
madtomkidd	The one thing I miss about our corporate email when sending to the world is a "read receipt" (^_^) I wholeheartedly agree with your first points about the gift OF the spirit. I, too, like how you connected other "gifts" mentioned outside of 1 Cor 12. One point that might bear further consideration - on those items in vs. 4-11, I had always considered (and still did after recent study) that these were all gifts of a miraculous nature - miraculous wisdom, miraculous knowledge - though I haven't been able to figure out how faith may be instilled, unless it is the initial implantation. On your "final" question of "How is the Spirit'in' us?" - I think you answered it to some degree. Unless we are willing to divorce ourselves from the empirical measures of post-modernism and accept that there aren't sufficient answers in all aspects of our lives to remove any ontological questions, we're going to miss the boat. As I recognize the traditional "Church of Christ" stance Re: the Spirit, the problem is, as you mentioned that an "equal and opposite" response to many denominational positions has been adopted. Because of that, the desire has been to pin down or construct a box in which to fit the Lord's Holy Spirit so that a comfortable, reasonable, approach that is wholly devoid from emotion may be found. It is that very desire of man to create a box that precludes understanding. The Spirit is God, and, therefore, no container exists that is sufficient to entirely bound this entity. Nothing man could imagine, let alone construct, would work. The only suitable container is that which God has revealed - the believer. As has been proven by evidence from Acts 2, there is no restriction on the Spirit in one believer at a time, so that should close the case. Is that easy for us to understand? No, but there are some questions that we have where we recognize enough of God's other evidence that we trust in the answers He has provided where empirical proof is not only difficult to obtain, but potentially impossible. I look forward to the other thoughts you have to share. I just hope I have the time to read the whole post (^_^)
caraboo	i don't belong to a credit union, but i do bank only at local banks, is that ok? :)
deusvitae	Unfortunately, even local banks often try to get as much money out of you as they can. Banks are big business; credit unions, not so much.
kendrad	I work for a credit union and the idea behind it is that, because their board of directors is volunteer, the funds that a bank would otherwise be using to pay these idividuals big bucks are going back the the members (who "own" the organization), thus making loan rates lower and share (or savings) rates higher. This is not to say that there aren't fees or money making opportunies for the organization, as they do have to pay some employees (me! me!). In general, a bank wants to sell you stuff, charge you excessive fees, and make money off of you because they are a business, not a not-for-profit.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Would like to comment on your post, which I appreciated. Trying to find time.
apbooklover04	Great post.
deusvitae	Discussion on this topic from another thread.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Not done.
barbershopboy05	did you allow comments on the corresponding thread concerning the Holy Spirit or do you want them to be posted here?
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan, allow me to quote your last comments to remind you of what I'm going to respond to: Josh, your exegesis of Acts 19 has some serious deficiencies, which are consistent with your process as a whole-- the actual specific context gets lost in your generalities. Paul asks about the Spirit to try to discern the nature of the disciples. He does not explain about the Spirit. All that is revealed-- that is, all we can really go on-- is that Paul describes the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. To try to extrapolate something regarding the Spirit is entirely unnecessary. And that's what makes your exegesis of Colossians 2 and 1 Corinthians 12 lacking, because you're positing a duality that is not there. And the Spirit does not do the baptizing in 1 Corinthians 12:13 any more than water does the baptizing in other contexts-- the Greek preposition is the same. Furthermore, I still have this major problem with the removal of any distinction between the gift of the Holy Spirit in general and the specific events going on in the first century in relation to speaking in tongues, prophecy, and revealed knowledge, because in your exegesis you are entirely steamrolling any significance to the process of "laying on of hands." Any explanation of a concept that entirely relativizes a major aspect of the concept, as you seem to be doing with the laying on of hands, is quite suspect.1 Corinthians 14:13 is written to believers who already have obtained spiritual gifts in some way, quite likely through Paul's laying on of hands. I don't understand why you have a problem extrapolating laying on of hands to situations where it is not explicitly said considering how you extrapolate other themes in other contexts, perhaps save because it hurts your overall argument. If that is the case, then we're talking about how the Spirit works with persons who already have hands laid on them, and how that gift continues to work within the believer. Therefore, until there is some type of reckoning on the significance of "laying on of hands," which must have some significance or it would not have been done, I cannot see how your analysis really covers all the evidence. On the other hand, I can make sense of "laying on of hands" as the providing of a different measure of the Spirit. Is there an ontological distinction between different measures? In reality, probably not. But, on a quality level, there certainly is. "Measure" means more than what can be quantified in ontological terms.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	And let me quote Acts 19 for our analysis: 1.While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2.and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3.So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. 4.Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5.On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6.When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Recall also what is said about the preaching of Apollos in Ephesus prior to Paul's arrival in 18:25: He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. Notice then that Paul discovers "disciples," according to Luke. Now, unless "disciples" in the ancient world wore special clothing to note that they were somebody's disciples, then it is the narrator himself who is telling us, because he knows after the face, that the people Paul found were in fact "disciples." If Luke considered them John's disciples and not Jesus' disciples, surely he would have put a disclaimor. But Luke leads us to believe with his description of Apollos preaching that these men were "taught about Jesus accurately." That being the case, all they lacked was the proper baptism "in the name of Christ." Indeed, based on the fact that these men were "disciples" of Jesus whom they "believed" on (19:2) but had not apparently received the Holy Spirit which Paul thought he would see more signs of, Paul asks them about their baptism. Yes, the difference between John's baptism and Jesus' baptism is highlighted here, but Paul makes the defining difference in consequence the reception of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Paul seems to have noticed the lack of externally miraculous manifestations (as we see throughout Acts) as reason to suppose they hadn't been baptized with Jesus' baptism. If there are two distinct stages of reception of the Holy Spirit, (1) that is automatic at baptism and (2) one that is bestowed by the laying on of hands, then why would Paul question their baptism merely because they hadn't received the gifts usually present after the (2) laying on of hands? Why wouldn't Paul ask, "Has no one layed their hands on you?" And, yet, when they are baptized they receive the Holy Spirit and do precisely the things Paul saw absent that made him question their baptism.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Since the whole book thematically shows pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh, I think it is rather naive to say "To try to extrapolate something regarding the Spirit is entirely unnecessary." Rather, we should look for it in the narratives of Acts, since that is what we are told to expect in Acts 1:8 and again in ch.2.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	As for 1 Cor 12:13, I never said the contrast was between the Spirit baptizing and water baptizing. The contrast is between the Spirit baptizing and people baptizing. The duality that exists between carnal circumcision and spiritual circumcision is the same, developed throughout Scripture. To say that Colossians 2 doesn't open up the door for physical baptism versus spiritual baptism supposes that with water baptism we force God's hand. Again, we could baptize infants if we want to, because there is no duality, as you say. Just a physical act with spiritual consequences.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	You say I am minimizing the significance of the "laying on of hands" by not allowing two kinds of receiving the Spirit. That is, if receiving the Spirit in all sense can be achieved with or without the "laying on of hands," then why do it in the first place? But here again, you argue with Scripture, for Scripture already is guilty of the "relativizing" you accuse me of already in Acts. Remember that there are three times in Acts where people receive the Spirit without the laying on of hands (ch.2; 4:31; 10-11). First was the apostles. Did not having the "laying on of hands" make the apostles have only a lesser degree of the Spirit? Of course not, they layed their hands on others. On the other hand, Cornelius' house received the Spirit the same way. Does that mean they received the Spirit to the same portion as the apostles? You would probably say no to that as well. It seems to me that the method of reception whether involving the laying on of hands or not is irrelevent. 4:31 I think shows that the "only two occurences ever" idea of bestowing the Spirit without the laying on of hands is a farce designed simply to do damage control for the Pentecostals. So, does Acts itself "relativize" the significance of the "laying on of hands"? I think not. Jesus is free to baptize whoever he wishes. Again, I did give the laying on of hands significance. Perhaps the Lord worked through apostles and messengers at first to identify the reception of the Spirit with the gospel preached by the authorized messengers, etc.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Your explanation of 1 Cor 14:13 is presumptuous, for you don't know that they had to have already possessed a particular gift first. After all, Paul explicitly states that everyone is given some gift by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:7). I guess that means we are eligible to pray for another then, right?
slave_of_jesus_jdb	I get the feeling, Ethan, that you either don't read all my comments to you, or you simply choose not to respond to various ones or forget to at times. I would like to repost a comment I made that I considered important:Ethan, just look for "receive" and "received" in Acts in connection with the Spirit. There is about a half dozen references and they all undoubtedly point us back to Acts 2:38 where the promise of the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit is explained. I say "explained" and not "given initially" because its a much older promise, carried forward from the OT prophets, spoken of by John the Baptist, mentioned by Jesus before his ascension (Luke 24:49), then again by Peter in the middle of his sermon in Acts 2 as the apostles were receiving it (v33) and they then extended the promise to cover all believers (v38). Indeed, this one and the same promise comes from Joel 2 and its supposed to go on and on in the church as we see developed throughout the book of Acts. Its no temporary measure. We are still in the last days. If the Spirit is giving gifts differently or more sparingly since the first century, fine. But lets not make artificial rules and tie God's hands. As you say, lets not quench the Spirit. People "receiving" the Holy Spirit is programmatic in Acts, developed throughout the whole. And this progression is developed straight out of Acts 2:38. If you make the receiving there different than the receiving everywhere else, you undercut the thematic development Luke's two volumes try to show us.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Again, I think you have no basis in Acts for positing two "measures" of the Spirit over against one measure of the Spirit who gives various gifts as he wills...which is what Paul specifically says in 1 Cor 12 where all kinds of gifts miraculous and "non-miraculous" are mixed together (don't forget Rom 12:6-8). I think that the general statement Jesus makes that God "does not give the Spirit by measure" is adequately illustrated in Paul's teaching.
deusvitae	1. Acts 19. Josh, I don't know how I can get you to see that you're minimizing the reason the text gives in order to advance your interpretation that is based in your understanding of the general metanarrative. Such assumes, of course, that Luke has a metanarrative that he's trying to emphasize at every point. That would be quite disputable. Yes, they are called "disciples," but of whom they are disciples precisely is never listed. Against your surmising of them being disciples of Jesus in truth I can say, and will say, that it would be quite odd for anyone who would know about Jesus and the Christians who called upon His name and yet would "not know whether there is a Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2). That being said, your connection between Apollos and these men might be a bit far-fetched, since Apollos did have an accurate understanding, and any accurate understanding would at least recognize that there is a Holy Spirit. Thus, I question the value of your assumption in that and throughout the passage. We should infer what we must infer when it is necessary to infer, but there is simply no need here, Josh. Paul meets some people who are disciples of someone, most likely John, who are quite unfamiliar with Jesus and the Spirit, explains to them the differences between John and Jesus, and they follow Jesus, and have hands laid upon them.
deusvitae	1 Corinthians 12:13: Josh, I fully recognize the distinction you would like to make, and I am saying that the distinction you would like to make is not valid because its fundamental position is invalid. 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not say that the Spirit baptizes. It says that people are baptized en one Spirit. "by" is a bad translation because it gives the impression that the Spirit is the one baptizing, but that is not the case, any more so than it could be said that the water itself "baptizes" a person in water baptism. That's the connection I am making-- 1 Corinthians 12:13 says about the Spirit what other passages say about water: it is the "climate," so to speak, of baptism. It is that in which baptism is performed. That is why I say that your duality is invalid-- there is no duality. It all involves various consequences of the same action. And you know as well as I do that bringing infants into the discussion is unhelpful and entirely irrelevant-- there can be no spiritual consequence to that action because there's no spiritual difficulty or negative condition that requires it.
deusvitae	Laying on of hands: I am not saying that you are minimizing it because you do not allow two measures of the Spirit. I say that you are minimizing it because you are rendering it irrelevant. You have not provided a really significant reason why the Apostles would even bother engaging in such an act. What they are doing is a reflection of their commission by the Son through the Spirit (Matthew 18:18). I hardly believe that this consistent action comes with absolutely no meaning whatsoever. As to the occurrences of God directly bestowing the power, while you may believe the reasoning to be fictive, I believe that Acts tells a different story. Acts 11 demonstrates this, because Peter ties Acts 2 and Acts 10 together and provides the powerful reasoning: Acts 2 represents the fulfillment of Jesus' promises to the disciples; Acts 10 represents the sign to Peter of God fulfilling the promises to bring in the Gentiles. Thus, you have specific reasons for these occurrences that need no replication. And then you do see the Apostles (and Ananias, under God's direct charge) laying hands on people. There's significance to that. And your position provides absolutely none for it.
deusvitae	1 Corinthians 14:13: If my interpretation of that verse is presumptuous, then so is yours about Acts 19. What you allow in your own argumentation you cannot deny in another's. 1 Corinthians 12:7 is still being written to the Corinthian Christians, no?
deusvitae	As to your "important" comments, they are "presumptuous." They "presume" the belief that "artificial rules" are being made that "tie God's hands." Perhaps, instead, God is revealing via the examples provided that what was going on was not willy-nilly but something much more specific and deliberate, and you're not catching it because of your preoccupations with the "thematic developments in Luke-Acts."
	login to comment

hide comments