The first indwelling of individuals by the Holy Spirit gives us the biblical “standard” concerning the “Church” (i.e., the Assembly or Ekklesia):
The operative phrase: “…and one sat upon each of them.”
“Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” —Acts 2:3-4
Well, Max Lucado figured it out. And he is speaking in tongues more and more...
On a more serious note...
A passage seemingly "forgotten" in this conversation amongst us - Paul's description of the fruitS of the Spirit. How are those growing in our life? Speaking in tongues (Sorry, Max) is not what matters. It was there for a specific need. But peace, joy, love... They show in our character. Speaking in tongues was an obstacle for development of what is truly important: How "proficient" do we "speak" fruits of the Spirit??
I go along with the 2nd option myself. I believe the Holy Spirit lives in us and works in us as well as comforts us. He sends our prayers to God when we don't know what to say. That is the gift we receive in Baptism.
For those who have told me that the Spirit does not dwell in us, I always ask, Then what does Peter mean in Acts 2:38, 39 when he says you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism and the promises is for also those who are far off. And what about I Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19? When Jesus promised the Comforter, was that just for the Apostles?
Rom 6:10-11 The same Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) Who raised Jesus will raise us in the last day. Is that not miraculous? A different miraculous measure than the first century, but none the less miraculous.
(1) Maybe it’s an agree-to-disagree matter because the evidence isn’t sufficient to draw a dogmatic conclusion?
(2) Or maybe it is clear enough, but our tradition and brotherhood peer pressure has kept the first view prominently featured for fear of where the other view would lead some?
(3) Finally, the fact that I only know about my own spirit via revelation and have no idea really how it indwells this earthly tent makes me confident I’ll never fully grasp the indwelling of God’s Spirit outside the secrets the Lord has revealed via Scripture. But those secrets do belong to us & we should not fear to believe & proclaim them (Deut 29:29) with an attitude of love & longsuffring.
From what I have experienced lately, that brotherhood peer pressure only comes from a certain branch of the church. It is much like the congregation I was baptized in said we were not supposed to say that we know that we are saved, regardless of I John 5:13.
I'm so glad to see this topic discussed more. I'm quickly approaching my Master's thesis and this is the very topic I plan to research and address because it has been avoided for many years. Thank you, Jack, for your persistence on this matter.
I have always wondered the same about other issues like - 1) long hair on men and short hair on women, and 2) the issue of how far we must serve our country (the military) does God endorse nationalism?
The Bible teaches that the Spirit dwells in us. I think Acts 2:38 is clear. Honestly, I have been a Christian for 34 years and preaching for 30 and just this year came across somebody who said that the Spirit does not dwell in us. Another question that saying the Spirit is not in us raises is, if I do not possess the Spirit, then how do I develop the fruits of the Spirit?
These are unfair characterizations of the representative view. a) We believe the HS dwells in us. It is uncharitable and straw-manning to say we don't. b) the above comments seem to misunderstand what the Bible is (the sword of the Spirit - Eph 6:17, more powerful than a piercing two-edged sword - Heb 4:12); perhaps a review of the 119th Psalm is in order.
"If some of our people are operating under the belief that God has given them the Bible and left them to strive to keep it to the best of their ability" ... Jack this seems like a slightly short-sighted characterization of that side of the debate. Those of us who understand the scriptures to teach that the Spirit dwells in us (there is no such Bible word as "indwell") by means of the word do not merely think God gave us the Bible and left us to strive to keep it the best we can. It depends on how you view what the Bible is. If you take the Bible as something alive, organic (Luke 8:11), the Spirit's sword (Eph 6:17), does all the things that Hebrews 4:12 says it does, and "effectually *worketh* also in you that believe (1 Thess 2:13), then you have no trouble believing that the HS is active in our lives by means of the word. God has not "left us" as you say. He did not merely drop the Bible off at our door step and say "best of luck to you, ya'll take care now!" That is not what we believe the Bible is. The passages the other side offers in defense of their view seem to us to be WHAT passages not HOW passages. In other words, we are told in 2 Tim 1:14 THAT the HS dwells in us, but not HOW He dwells in us. I welcome discussion and feedback.
I understand there is a spectrum of beliefs on that side of the issue. I have looked into it to a degree but I know I haven't covered the full spectrum, so I'll ask you to help me understand your perspective:
when it comes to behavior, does the baptized believer who has memorized Scriptures have any advantage over the atheist who has memorized the same Scriptures? And if so, how.
At first blink I would say that might not be the right question to ask. It isn't really about memorization per se, it's more about approach. Do we approach the text the way God tells us to? For example, Paul said the things I *write* unto you are the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37). The atheist doesn't believe this. Jesus said seek and ye shall find (Mat 7:7). The atheist isn't looking for anything and doesn't care about finding anything. In Luke 8 Jesus talks about the seed (the word of God) falling on bad soil. The word falling on atheistic (way side) soil is going to be trodden down and eaten up by the birds. So you wouldn't expect an atheist who just wanted to memorize the Bible for academic purposes or to find alleged contractions to be effected by the word. Also, are there really atheists who have the Bible memorized? I'm skeptical.
Plenty of nonbelievers think Jesus was a good moral teacher. So if they take a list like the fruit of the Spirit and decide that’s the kind of person they want to be, will they end up morally equivalent to the Christian?
One of the fruits of the spirit is faith (Gal 5:22). So this hypothetical person would exclude faith from the list, correct? No, they would not end up being morally equivalent to the Christian because it is God and Christ who decide what is moral (Is 45:19), and limiting oneself to the fruit of the spirit is leaving out more than a few moral things. What about the beatitudes? What about the sermon on the mount? What about Mat 19:9? What about Acts 2:38? Aren't all of Jesus' commandments moral (John 14:15)? Is there some sense where we separate moral commandments from other commandments? I'm curious as to your perspective.
We should probably take a closer look at 1 Thess 2:13. The stipulation is that one receive the word “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God." Paul then specifically says the word "effectually worketh also in you *that believe*.” Why would the word "effectually work" in someone who didn't believe? It is a strange person indeed who wants to model his life after the word of God, but not as it is in truth the word of God.
“That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.”
II Timothy 1:14
Pretty clear.
I agree
I have heard this also explained as the Holy Spirit who dwells in the congregation, not just the individual.
The first indwelling of individuals by the Holy Spirit gives us the biblical “standard” concerning the “Church” (i.e., the Assembly or Ekklesia):
The operative phrase: “…and one sat upon each of them.”
“Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” —Acts 2:3-4
This event was collectively individual.
I have heard it explained that the "indwelling" today is in the congregation and not just the individual.
Well, Max Lucado figured it out. And he is speaking in tongues more and more...
On a more serious note...
A passage seemingly "forgotten" in this conversation amongst us - Paul's description of the fruitS of the Spirit. How are those growing in our life? Speaking in tongues (Sorry, Max) is not what matters. It was there for a specific need. But peace, joy, love... They show in our character. Speaking in tongues was an obstacle for development of what is truly important: How "proficient" do we "speak" fruits of the Spirit??
I go along with the 2nd option myself. I believe the Holy Spirit lives in us and works in us as well as comforts us. He sends our prayers to God when we don't know what to say. That is the gift we receive in Baptism.
For those who have told me that the Spirit does not dwell in us, I always ask, Then what does Peter mean in Acts 2:38, 39 when he says you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism and the promises is for also those who are far off. And what about I Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19? When Jesus promised the Comforter, was that just for the Apostles?
As I understand it, they would say that the gift was either miraculous power, or salvation.
Rom 6:10-11 The same Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) Who raised Jesus will raise us in the last day. Is that not miraculous? A different miraculous measure than the first century, but none the less miraculous.
I believe Acts 5:32 and Ephesians 1:13-14 creates great difficulty for that answer.
I was always taught and understood it to be #2. I never heard #1 until we moved to NC and I struggle with that concept.
It does seem to be regional in many cases. It's my hope that it will shift as generational change happens.
Good thoughts.
(1) Maybe it’s an agree-to-disagree matter because the evidence isn’t sufficient to draw a dogmatic conclusion?
(2) Or maybe it is clear enough, but our tradition and brotherhood peer pressure has kept the first view prominently featured for fear of where the other view would lead some?
(3) Finally, the fact that I only know about my own spirit via revelation and have no idea really how it indwells this earthly tent makes me confident I’ll never fully grasp the indwelling of God’s Spirit outside the secrets the Lord has revealed via Scripture. But those secrets do belong to us & we should not fear to believe & proclaim them (Deut 29:29) with an attitude of love & longsuffring.
Grace & peace.
From what I have experienced lately, that brotherhood peer pressure only comes from a certain branch of the church. It is much like the congregation I was baptized in said we were not supposed to say that we know that we are saved, regardless of I John 5:13.
I'm so glad to see this topic discussed more. I'm quickly approaching my Master's thesis and this is the very topic I plan to research and address because it has been avoided for many years. Thank you, Jack, for your persistence on this matter.
I have always wondered the same about other issues like - 1) long hair on men and short hair on women, and 2) the issue of how far we must serve our country (the military) does God endorse nationalism?
I'm here for the ratio.
LOL... no, seriously. I'd like to hear from some CoC folks on this.
The Bible teaches that the Spirit dwells in us. I think Acts 2:38 is clear. Honestly, I have been a Christian for 34 years and preaching for 30 and just this year came across somebody who said that the Spirit does not dwell in us. Another question that saying the Spirit is not in us raises is, if I do not possess the Spirit, then how do I develop the fruits of the Spirit?
That’s the worst part - they believe the fruit of the Spirit are obtained through try-hard obedience.
These are unfair characterizations of the representative view. a) We believe the HS dwells in us. It is uncharitable and straw-manning to say we don't. b) the above comments seem to misunderstand what the Bible is (the sword of the Spirit - Eph 6:17, more powerful than a piercing two-edged sword - Heb 4:12); perhaps a review of the 119th Psalm is in order.
Try-hard "precision" obedience at that.
"If some of our people are operating under the belief that God has given them the Bible and left them to strive to keep it to the best of their ability" ... Jack this seems like a slightly short-sighted characterization of that side of the debate. Those of us who understand the scriptures to teach that the Spirit dwells in us (there is no such Bible word as "indwell") by means of the word do not merely think God gave us the Bible and left us to strive to keep it the best we can. It depends on how you view what the Bible is. If you take the Bible as something alive, organic (Luke 8:11), the Spirit's sword (Eph 6:17), does all the things that Hebrews 4:12 says it does, and "effectually *worketh* also in you that believe (1 Thess 2:13), then you have no trouble believing that the HS is active in our lives by means of the word. God has not "left us" as you say. He did not merely drop the Bible off at our door step and say "best of luck to you, ya'll take care now!" That is not what we believe the Bible is. The passages the other side offers in defense of their view seem to us to be WHAT passages not HOW passages. In other words, we are told in 2 Tim 1:14 THAT the HS dwells in us, but not HOW He dwells in us. I welcome discussion and feedback.
I understand there is a spectrum of beliefs on that side of the issue. I have looked into it to a degree but I know I haven't covered the full spectrum, so I'll ask you to help me understand your perspective:
when it comes to behavior, does the baptized believer who has memorized Scriptures have any advantage over the atheist who has memorized the same Scriptures? And if so, how.
At first blink I would say that might not be the right question to ask. It isn't really about memorization per se, it's more about approach. Do we approach the text the way God tells us to? For example, Paul said the things I *write* unto you are the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37). The atheist doesn't believe this. Jesus said seek and ye shall find (Mat 7:7). The atheist isn't looking for anything and doesn't care about finding anything. In Luke 8 Jesus talks about the seed (the word of God) falling on bad soil. The word falling on atheistic (way side) soil is going to be trodden down and eaten up by the birds. So you wouldn't expect an atheist who just wanted to memorize the Bible for academic purposes or to find alleged contractions to be effected by the word. Also, are there really atheists who have the Bible memorized? I'm skeptical.
Plenty of nonbelievers think Jesus was a good moral teacher. So if they take a list like the fruit of the Spirit and decide that’s the kind of person they want to be, will they end up morally equivalent to the Christian?
One of the fruits of the spirit is faith (Gal 5:22). So this hypothetical person would exclude faith from the list, correct? No, they would not end up being morally equivalent to the Christian because it is God and Christ who decide what is moral (Is 45:19), and limiting oneself to the fruit of the spirit is leaving out more than a few moral things. What about the beatitudes? What about the sermon on the mount? What about Mat 19:9? What about Acts 2:38? Aren't all of Jesus' commandments moral (John 14:15)? Is there some sense where we separate moral commandments from other commandments? I'm curious as to your perspective.
We should probably take a closer look at 1 Thess 2:13. The stipulation is that one receive the word “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God." Paul then specifically says the word "effectually worketh also in you *that believe*.” Why would the word "effectually work" in someone who didn't believe? It is a strange person indeed who wants to model his life after the word of God, but not as it is in truth the word of God.