Let's Talk About the Holy Spirit

I will address it a little later brother. I'm trying to 'get out of' some other threads
Here are some old posts of mine on the subject to help get this going - from me and you previously (with OldReg thrown in as well )...
This one is about John being filled means he was indwelt..

Then this was like 2 posts later..

[/quote]
And then this one..

 

I just posted this in another thread but it address the Greek 'en' from which you are asking about - in, by, and with in connection with 1 Cor 12 and being baptised by the Holy Spirit..

Here are some reputable and admired Greek scholars on the issue:
Daniel B. Wallace in "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" (pages 373-374):

Then Wallace then gives two examples illustrating the above, and funny thing, both relate our subject passages:

Thus, it is my opinion and many other, relating to the Greek, that the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the Baptizer and that is not speaking, in any manner, of leading a person to be water baptised nor of there being two Spirit baptisms (which is not our argument here).

Also A.T.Robertson in his work - "Grammar of the Greek N.T", cites many examples of “en” with the dative being used in an instrumental sense but gives no examples of it being used for personal agency. This is not because he is overlooking it but because it isn't there. Thus this expresses the very point that the Spirit was the instrument Christ used to baptize believers but that the Spirit was not the personal Agent. IOW - The Spirit wasn't the actual baptizer except in the sense He instrument that Christ used to do this work.

Also we have in anothe work of A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis "A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament" (10th edition), we see the authors pointing out that hupo is used for the direct agent (personal agency). They then list four other prepositions which are sometimes used to express agency (apo, ek, para, pros) but en is not one of them.

 

How are those for openers :laugh:

 

I'm short on time, but I'll throw this in real quick.

This:

The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Jn3:8


......is NOT the same as this:

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:44,45

 

Kyredneck, you're a smart guy and I'm sure you understand that the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. He is unique in the universe and there is only one of Him. So why do you say John 3:8 and Acts 10:45 are different things?

 

Hello Zenas; sorry, I almost totally missed this post.

Concerning Jn 3:8:

When Christ told Nicodemus, “..It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow.... thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit” (YLT), He wasn't implementing something new, He was revealing a mystery from of old, something that had not been understood before. The Psalmist tells of this birth from above in Ps 87 and of those from all nations that belonged to the heavenly Zion, and Paul states “..the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother”, and goes on to quote Isaiah, “...more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband” (Gal 4), showing further that God has always had his children from all nations who were born of the Spirit. There's nothing new here, it's something that has always been. And, it's for these children of Zion that Christ died.

Concerning Acts 10:45:

This is the baptism of the Spirit that John the Baptist prophesied of in Mt 3, and the clothing with power from on high that Christ foretold of in Lu 24:49; Acts 1:8; Jn 14, 15, & 16. This clothing with power from on high was the only reason the gates of hell did not prevail against the early Church. Christ promised them, “ I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you” (Jn 14:18), and He did just that on the day of Pentecost.

 

I ran across this essay last year and saved it to favorites til I got a 'roundtuit'. I believe it is pertinent to the OP.

Excerpts from:

Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
http://www.swbts.edu/resources//SWBTS/Resources/FacultyDocuments/Hamilton/them30_1.pdf

"James Hamilton teaches OT and NT at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Houston Park Place Campus. An ordained Southern Baptist minister, he is a recent graduate of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY, where he studied under Tom Schreiner."

“At least five positions have been taken on the issue of whether or not ordinary, individual members of the old covenant remnant were continually indwelt by the Spirit.

Some scholars assume that a sixth position exists, but I am yet to find an affirmation of this sixth position. Here I will list the five real and one alleged positions, giving a brief description and listing major proponents of each.

On the issue of the Spirit’s role in the lives of believers, some scholars see basic continuity from the old to the new covenant. These authors argue that the old covenant remnant was both regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit. Adherents of this position include John Owen, B.B. Warfield, Sinclair Ferguson, Dan Fuller and Leon Wood.

Another set of scholars agrees that old covenant believers experienced both regeneration and indwelling, but seek to incorporate texts like John 7:39 into their understanding by using language that allows for a greater or heightened experience of the Spirit under the new covenant. Nevertheless, these scholars see no fundamental change in the way believers experience the Spirit when the new covenant is inaugurated. Interpreters who can be placed here include Augustine, John Calvin, George Ladd, Dan Block and Wayne Grudem.

The third position is the midpoint of the possible views. These scholars indicate that they see OT saints as regenerate by the Spirit but not indwelt by the Spirit. From statements in their writings, it seems best to place here Millard Erickson, J.I. Packer, Willem A. VanGemeren and Bruce Ware.

The next position is for those who see the old covenant remnant as operated upon but not indwelt by the Spirit. Unlike those in the previous category, these scholars stop short of using the word regeneration with reference to the old covenant faithful. Articulators of this view include Martin Luther, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Craig Blaising, D.A. Carson and Michael Green.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from those who affirm full continuity between the old and new covenant ministries of the Spirit would be those who affirm that the Spirit had nothing to do with the faithfulness of the old covenant remnant. Those who argue that OT saints were indwelt sometimes assume that this is the only alternative to their view, but I have not found anyone who takes this position.

There are, however, a number of interpreters who stress the new nature of the Spirit’s ministry after the Christ event but offer no explanation of how old covenant believers became and remained faithful. Here we find prominent dispensationalists such as Charles Ryrie and John Walvoord. Most scholars who have written on the Spirit from the perspective of NT theology fit here, as do several authors who have written both commentaries on John and studies specifically on the Spirit in John – C.K. Barrett,
Raymond Brown and Gary Burge.

Before we continue, we should observe some interesting points regarding these positions. First, there are dispensationalists on both sides of this question. Leon Wood argues that old covenant believers were indwelt; Craig Blaising argues that they were not. Also, there are people who are soteriologically Calvinistic who argue that old covenant believers were not indwelt (Carson, Packer, Ware). This is noteworthy because those who argue that the old covenant remnant must have been indwelt usually do not agree with the Arminian understanding of prevenient grace and thus view sinners as dead and unable to respond. In their view, if OT saints were believers, they must have been indwelt.

Finally, the position that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the faithfulness of the old covenant remnant is, at best, very rare. This point is significant because some scholars assume that this view is held, and it seems to be associated with dispensationalists. I have found no one who either affirms or argues for that position.”

I personally waffle between the first and second positions.

 

Where's the mystery. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth.

 

What are the gates of hell?

 

......and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

I get the distinct feeling I might learn something here. I've always looked at this passage as inferring to the warfare between the Church and 'the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places'. Whether the 'gates' represent an offensive or defensive posture, I don't know. Enlighten me.

 

According to Albert Barnes:

And the gates of hell, etc. Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates, by which they were entered, were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. Cmt. on Mt 7:13. The word gates, therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes. Hell means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits. And the meaning of the passage is, that all the plots, stratagems, and machinations, of the enemies of the church, should not be able to overcome it--a promise that has been remarkably fulfilled.

 

Thank you Amy. That's zactly the way I see it.

 

I like Albert Barnes commentaries. I usually agree with him. Maybe that's why I like him? :laugh:

 

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
They that have been born again are no longer restricted to the leadership of the flesh, but have received the Spirit into their very inner being. If you do not have that indwelling Spirit, then that gives testimony to the fact that you have not been born again.

8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
The only way that one can know whether or not their worship is acceptable in the sight of God is when there is a Spirit to spirit connection. As Jesus taught the woman at the well and as I stated earlier; God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth.
Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Those that have been born again do not worship God in the flesh, although the innerworking of the Spirit may expose itself in an outwardly manner and while "they (Men) may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven," God, all the while is looking on the heart and knows if it is in truth and in the Spirit.Not only that, we as well as God, can know if it is in Spirit and truth because of Romans 8:16

 

You're welcome.

I think all true believers are turned off by this type of usurping the role of the Holy Spirit in the worship service. Unfortunately, it happens way too often and many of the worship leaders are either told to do it directly or take it upon themselves to enter into this enterprise. Sad. :BangHead: