VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:43:19 06/22/02 Sat
Author: Doug
Subject: Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit"
In reply to: Jay Dee 's message, "Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit"" on 19:05:56 06/20/02 Thu

Good Morning Jay Dee,

I am certainly not irritated at all by you trying to bring in other passages. However, the passages you are bringing in in have nothing, whatsoever, to do with the fulfillment of Joel 2 in Acts 2. Nothing! So, I am sorry you are so irritated on my insistence that the passages you offer are completely irrelevant as they have no direct bearing on any sound exegesis concerning the context (Acts 2) under discussion. You still have failed to show the necessity of entering them into "the mix." If anything, the passages you have offered only point to Pentecost and they do nothing more than deal with the miraculous work of the Spirit.
Also, you have tendency to muddle yourself down in the use of anachronism, which doesn't help your case. Leave the miraculous things of the first century in the first century!

The "gift of the Holy Spirit" is simply the miraculous endowments given by the Spirit. The Spirit is NOT the gift; rather it is the Spirit that gives the gift (miraculous endowments)- hence the gift OF the Holy Spirit.
This is made absolutely clear by Acts 2:16,17-18, especially with the use of "apo" in the genitive, literally meaning "OUT FROM" his Spirit. Again, Acts 2:33 is a divine summary of this fact. The "this" (the miraculous outpouring on Pentecost)is the "that" (the promise of miraculous enowments by Joel). Therefore, the promise was/is that the Lord would pour OUT FROM his Spirit. The text does not simply say that He would pour out the Spirit, but rather he would pour OUT FROM his Spirit. Therein lies the big difference between our views. You declare that God would pour out his Spirit. However, God defines that otherwise and actually declares that he would pour OUT FROM his Spirit. God, in His own words, tells us what would be poured out. Jay Dee, it was not the Spirit, Himself, that was poured out, but rather that which came OUT FROM his Spirit. Therefore, Jay Dee, it extremely easy to discern what in fact the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is in Acts 2:38, and it is discernible (all the nay sayers aside) by its own context. To dismiss this fact out of hand is simply to reject the clear context of Acts 2/Joel 2. You have not made one response to my previous comments concerning Acts 2:16,17,18,33,38. Instead you have avoided them like the plague as I thought you would! :-)

Again, the entire context of Joel 2/Acts 2 is dealing with the miraculous endowments the Spirit would give to those - then and there. The promise was not for all time, and for all generations, but as I said, I will address Acts 2:39 later - this weekend.

Jay Dee, I agree with you that there were those who did "receive" the Spirit. However, the terms "receive" and filled with" all have to do with the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit. "Receiving" the Spirit was either before Pentecost and the coming of the OUTPOURING of the Spirit, or during the time following Pentecost when those miraculous endowments existed. There is no passage, in the entire Bible, that speaks about or teaches that folks may "receive" the Spirit as a non-miraculous indwelling.

A. The promise of the OUTPOURING, or that which came OUT FROM the Spirit, was miraculous (Joel 2:28-32).

B. References in the gospels, which speak of the coming of the Spirit, have Joel as their background and with Pnetecost in view.

C. The Specific instances of people "receiving" the Spirit in Acts are ALL miraculous receptions of the Spirit (Acts 2:1-, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 10:44-47, Acts 19:2-6). The promise of the Spirit was indeed the miraculous. The fulfillment was in keeping with the promise and each specific mention of those who were said to have recieved the Spirit is actually showing that it was the giving of the miraculous endowments of the Spirit.

The phrase, "filled with" as found in Luke 1:15,41,67, simply denotes inspiration or miraculous power. To be "filled with" the Spiritsimply signifies the degree of inspiration or miraculous power. "Filled with" the Spirit is simply a figure of speech. The apostles were filled with the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). The filling was figurative not literal, and it refers to the endowment of power which was theirs, and not a literal infusion of the Spirit, Himself. Terms such as "pouring out," "filled with," and "baptism of," simply designate the bestowal of power, and the terms are metaphorical. So, yes, Jay Dee, I strongly disagree with you over whether the "indwelling" of the Spirit and being "filled with" the Spirit are the same thing. They are not the same thing!

As for "indwelling." I believe the Godhead indwells me, not literally, but representatively through the Word. The Hebrews understood the concept of "indwelling" or "dwelling" as the absolute rule or dominion in ones life, having reference to relationship. That is, whatever we allow to rule in our lives, sin or righteousness, is that which "indwells" us. It has dominion or rule over us. The Jews & Jewish converts of the first century would have no problem in understanding this concept. If sin has dominion in your life, then it is Satan who "indwells" you -not literally but figuratively or representatively. However, if righteousness has dominion in your life, then it can be said that it is the Spirit "indwelling" as you are following and walking in His word (Eph.6:17;Heb.4:12, etc.). In this case, all three of the Godhead would said to be "indwelling" - only through the word - that is, when live according to the will and word of God. David Lipscomb says that the "spirit indwells us as long as the word indwells us." I believe these are very sage and sound words from the eminant scholar.

Paul tells us to have the word dwell in us, not literally, but represntatively. If we abide in His word, then He (God -Father,Son,H.S.) abides in us - not literally but representatively through the word. If we abide, then He abides ("indwells") - figure of speech denoting relationship based upon following His will. This is all that the word "indwelling" means, and no more! It does not denote for us something miraculous, something mysterious, or something inexplainable. Coincidentally, references to "indwelling" in Scripture are made as such. They are never referred to as "THE indwellling" as so many are want in advocating today.

As for Luke 11:13; what is the context dealing with? Prayer, is it not? All commentaries and personal bias aside - the context is dealing with prayer and not conversion! The apostles asked Jesus how they should pray. Vere one is the introduction and verse 13 is the conclusion. Luke is the same writer here as he is in Acts 2:17-18. Understanding this will help us in knowing what Luke had in mind. Knowing what was given in Acts 2:17-18, will help us in understanding the words of Jesus in Luke 11:13. Is Luke 11:13 a promise of a non-miraculous indwelling, as so many personal indwellers declare, or is Jesus promising miraculous endowments?

Luke 11:13is request made in prayer and it was suggested by Jesus for His disciples - apostles. There is one other passage that deal with asking for the Spirit in prayer and it it is written by the same writer, Luke. It is found in Acts 8:14-19 and it written by Luke. Notice verse 15, that it was Peter and John (apostles) who "prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit." Notice that the Spirit came in response to THEIR prayer and it was a context dealing with the miraculous - not a non-miraculous personal, literal, bodily indwelling. Two things to conder here:

1. These folks did no have the Spirit even though they were baptized. THe Spirit came by the apostles hands, a clear connection to Mark 16:17-20, Joel 2:28-32 and its fulfillment in Acts 2:16,17,18,33,38,39, as already depicted by the same writer, Luke! Those that had beleived and were baptized, would receive the "gift of the Holy Spirit, or that which comes OUT FROM the Spirit, or that which the Spirit would "impart" - miraculous endowments. There is no hint of a non-miraculous indwelling here.

2. Also notice Acts 8:18-19 and the use of the figure of speech known as metonymy, where the cause is put for the effect. Notice that Simon saw that "through the laying on of the apostles hands, the Holy Spirit was given." Wasit literally the Holy Spirit? No! However, it was that which came from the Spirit (the cause)that was actually given, that being the miraculkous endowment or power. Verse 19 then defines it for us because Simon asked, "Give me this POWER also." The power (the effect)that came from the Spirit.

Morevoer, with regards to Luke 11:13. Jesus said for these disciples to pray for the kingdom. Are we too to pray for the kingdom? Are we to pray for something that has already come (Mark 9:1;Luke 24:46-49;Acts 1, Acts 2; Col.1:13, etc.)? In the same manner, Jesus asked those disciples to pray for the Spirit. However, the same writer, Luke, declares that the Spirit has already come (Acts 2, Acts 8, etc.). Should we now today ask in prayer for that which hasalready come? No! To suggest that we should is to be guilty of anachronism. We are dealing with the same principle from the very same writer, Luke! A verse of Scripture that authorizes the disciples of Christ, in that context and in that day, to pray for miraculous endowments from the Spirit, during the period when there were miraculous operations of the Spirit, is in no way any authority for a Christian to pray for the "reception" of the Spirit, Himself, in a non-miraculous way today.

Looking forward to your comments and insights. Also, if you would like to begin discussing John or other passages, then go ahead and begin. I will respond accordingly.

Brotherly,
Doug

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.