William Lane Craig vs. Pentecostals & Charismatics on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit

[Andrewn]

Or was Paul lying when he taught that the Holy Spirit is received as soon as people become Christians....

Rom 8:9 And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

Gal 3:2 Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

Eph 1:13 When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit

Gal 3:14 so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[a] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

No, Paul was not lying. But in the book of Acts we see that the Holy Spirit came upon people as follows:

- Acts 8, Samaritans, laying of hands.
- Acts 9, Paul, laying of hands.
- Acts 10, Cornelius et al, listening to the Gospel.
- Acts 19, Ephesians, laying of hands.

The laying of hands is used in examples 1, 2, and 4. In those cases, it took something, in addition to conversion and baptism to receive the Holy Spirit. In example #3, the Holy Spirit descended before water baptism, perhaps to encourage Peter to baptize them.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Yes, but when people claim to have one of the charismatic gifts today, it is either fake or it is invariably hearsay. Eg The majority of today's tongues is fake, it does not match the biblical definition. But in a few rare cases people claim to miraculously speak in a foreign language, yet there is never any independent proof. We always have to just take their word for it. If proof was provided then I could happily accept your middle option.

Would God allow such proof to exist in the first place?

It sounds like you are interested in the kind of proof that would convince an atheist that God exists. The evidence required to convince a cessationist that continuationism is true is the kind of evidence that would be required to convince an atheist that Christianity is true.

If God doesn't provide this kind of evidence to convince atheists, why should we expect Him to provide this very same kind of evidence to convince cessationists?

Does God want you to believe in His existence on faith, but in continuationism via scientific verificationism? Are you implying that God expects us to hold to this epistemological double standard?

When a cessationist demands indisputable proof that continuationism is true, is their demand legitimate?
When an atheist demands indisputable proof that Christianity is true, is their demand legitimate?

 

[swordsman1]

No, Paul was not lying. But in the book of Acts we see that the Holy Spirit came upon people as follows:

- Acts 8, Samaritans, laying of hands.
- Acts 9, Paul, laying of hands.
- Acts 10, Cornelius et al, listening to the Gospel.
- Acts 19, Ephesians, laying of hands.

The laying of hands is used in examples 1, 2, and 4. In those cases, it took something, in addition to conversion and baptism to receive the Holy Spirit. In example #3, the Holy Spirit descended before water baptism, perhaps to encourage Peter to baptize them.

So how do you resolve the apparent contradiction? The epistles state that the Holy Spirit is received by believing in Christ. But in Acts there were isolated incidents where the Holy Spirit was received by the laying on of hands. By which method do new believers today receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[swordsman1]

Would God allow such proof to exist in the first place?

Yes, I believe if a genuine miracle occurred God would be happy for the evidence to be seen and examined. Jesus was happy to provide proof of his resurrection by presenting himself to hundreds of disciples, and even allowing people to touch his body and see him eat etc. And the resulting proof sent the disciples from being in the down in the doldrums to setting the world on fire.

It sounds like you are interested in the kind of proof that would convince an atheist that God exists. The evidence required to convince a cessationist that continuationism is true is the kind of evidence that would be required to convince an atheist that Christianity is true.

If God doesn't provide this kind of evidence to convince atheists, why should we expect Him to provide this very same kind of evidence to convince cessationists?

Exactly. With no proof forthcoming, like atheists, I am not convinced the claimed miracles are really occurring.

Does God want you to believe in His existence on faith, but in continuationism via scientific verificationism? Are you implying that God expects us to hold to this epistemological double standard?

There is no double standard. There is a huge difference between believing God and his infallible word, and believing a stranger on YouTube saying he witnessed a miracle.

We've had this discussion about miracles before and I'm happy to continue debating if you wish. If so could you take it to the other topic instead, and keep this one for discussing the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Yes, I believe if a genuine miracle occurred God would be happy for the evidence to be seen and examined.

• See and examine what kind of evidence?
• Seen and examined by whom?
• What percentage of the world population would be able to see and examine this evidence?
• Why?

Jesus was happy to provide proof of his resurrection by presenting himself to hundreds of disciples, and even allowing people to touch his body and see him eat etc.

For sake of argument, let's grant that about 600 people were able to witness Jesus in resurrected form with their own eyes.

According to this source, "about 117 billion members of our species have ever been born on Earth". Assuming this estimation is accurate, it means that about 600/117 billion = 0.0000005128 % of the human beings who have ever lived on Earth had direct access to evidence of Jesus' resurrection of the sort you want.

So are you happy with these statistics? Are you happy with miracles that only a tiny fraction of the world population can directly verify in the sort of way you want?

And the resulting proof sent the disciples from being in the down in the doldrums to setting the world on fire.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "setting the world on fire". Would you count the "Pentecostal revival" as an event that set the world on fire as well?

Exactly. With no proof forthcoming, like atheists, I am not convinced the claimed miracles are really occurring.

So, in a way, it sounds like you're sympathetic to atheists. If atheists are justified in their skepticism, then what would you do in order to change their minds? How would you go about convincing an atheist that Christianity is true?

There is no double standard. There is a huge difference between believing God and his infallible word, and believing a stranger on YouTube saying he witnessed a miracle.

But this presupposes that you are already convinced of two things:

• God exists
• The Bible was infallibly inspired by God

If there is no double standard, then whatever epistemological standard you are using, it should allow you to (1) be convinced of the two claims above and (2) not be convinced of modern miracle claims.

What kind of standard allows you to do both things simultaneously?
Can an atheist use the same standard and reach the same conclusions?

We've had this discussion about miracles before and I'm happy to continue debating if you wish. If so could you take it to the other topic instead, and keep this one for discussing the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit.

Sure. There are two posts of mine on that thread you haven't addressed yet: post #361, post #362. Feel free to resume the discussion by posting answers to both.

 

[swordsman1]

Sure. There are two posts of mine on that thread you haven't addresses yet: post #361, post #362. Feel free to resume the discussion by posting answers to both.

Ok, I've moved the discussion to the other thread.

 

[Andrewn]

So how do you resolve the apparent contradiction? The epistles state that the Holy Spirit is received by believing in Christ. But in Acts there were isolated incidents where the Holy Spirit was received by the laying on of hands. By which method do new believers today receive the Holy Spirit?

You're right in saying that the epistles state that the Holy Spirit is received by believing in Christ:

1Co 12:13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink.

But this does not say whether or not the laying on of hands was involved. Laying on of hands is used during confirmation in traditional churches. Confirmation is a Church sacrament (or ordinance) in which prayers are offered for the Holy Spirit to strengthen a baptized individual for their faith journey.

Eastern rite churches, including EO, OO, EC, and ACE practice this immediately after baptism of the infant.

Western rite churches, including Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, and Methodists practice this after the age of accountability.

Credobaptist churches do not practice this sacrament. However, Pentecostals pray for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a gift that is separate from water baptism.

This leaves Anabaptists and Baptists who do not have a theology of a second blessing with the Holy Spirit. Of course, "the wind/Spirit blows where it/He wishes." But should one just assume that the Holy Spirit descends on all baptized believers who do not ask for his presence?

 

[swordsman1]

You're right in saying that the epistles state that the Holy Spirit is received by believing in Christ:

1Co 12:13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink.

But this does not say whether or not the laying on of hands was involved. Laying on of hands is used during confirmation in traditional churches. Confirmation is a Church sacrament (or ordinance) in which prayers are offered for the Holy Spirit to strengthen a baptized individual for their faith journey.

Eastern rite churches, including EO, OO, EC, and ACE practice this immediately after baptism of the infant.

Western rite churches, including Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, and Methodists practice this after the age of accountability.

Credobaptist churches do not practice this sacrament. However, Pentecostals pray for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a gift that is separate from water baptism.

This leaves Anabaptists and Baptists who do not have a theology of a second blessing with the Holy Spirit. Of course, "the wind/Spirit blows where it/He wishes." But should one just assume that the Holy Spirit descends on all baptized believers who do not ask for his presence?

So Christians who have not had hands laid upon them have not received the Holy Spirit?

Does that mean they are not Christians?...

Rom 8:9 And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.​

 

[Andrewn]

So Christians who have not had hands laid upon them have not received the Holy Spirit? Does that mean they are not Christians?... Rom 8:9 And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

As I quoted, "The wind blows where it wishes." I cannot doubt anyone who confesses to be a Christian or comment on whether they are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. If I deny this, I may be blaspheming the Holy Spirit himself.

All I can say is that over the years I attended a lot of water baptisms where the Holy Spirit was not mentioned and even being buried and resurrected with Christ was not mentioned. The whole ceremony was about public proclamation of belief.

So, the answer to your comment is: Only God knows. There is no way to be sure.

 

[JAL]

So how do you resolve the apparent contradiction? The epistles state that the Holy Spirit is received by believing in Christ. But in Acts there were isolated incidents where the Holy Spirit was received by the laying on of hands. By which method do new believers today receive the Holy Spirit?

My 2 cents is to provide some reasons why apostolic mediation tends to administer post-salvation anointings (both charismatic and sanctifying/reviving).

High-ranking apostles/prophets stand in high favor with God. Therefore:

1. When they pray for an outpouring of any kind (Luke 11:13), God is more likely to grant it than if you or I prayed for the same thing. Closely related is #2.

2. Pride can lead us into judgment. If God gave me the blessing directly, I'd be more tempted to pride myself in being the one standing in high favor with Him - and even tempted to ignore, challenge, or usurp the leadership of the apostles/prophets.

Direct Revelation gave the apostles/prophets insight on when to lay hands. Even for the rest of us, however, hands-laying is probably a good prayer-protocol, not as a mandate or a ritual but merely because, in my experience, the Father seems very touchy-feely and thus slightly more responsive to it.

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1
The Holy Spirit did not indwell OT saints.

Can you explain why Pentecost was chosen as the magic day for indwelling to finally begin? First let me summarize my view.

With 100 billion souls at stake going forward, God HAD to lay down, early in Acts, the paradigm for all future evangelistic campaigns: His people are to wait in prayer - regardless of how many days it takes - until they get clear signs from heaven leading them to initiate an evangelistic campaign. Not only do you see that same pattern in Acts 4:30-31 Acts 10:1-22 Acts 13:2-4 Acts 16:6-10 but it's actually the OT pattern for military campaigns: Israel was not supposed to march into battle until they had received a "loud and clear" sign from heaven. On this point, Numbers 9:15-23 is ridiculously redundant. Every time the cloud levitated into the sky, this was a "loud and clear" signal to march. Whenever it rested again, it was a "loud and clear" signal to encamp. Even if it rested for a whole year, Israel was to remain stationary, waiting (prayerfully) upon the Lord.

Back to you again. In your system, why was Pentecost the magic day? Here's the problem. For 1,000 years, OT rituals and sacrifices heralded the cross. Then Jesus dies, rises again - and still no Holy Spirit? Some think a New Covenant was beginning - 1,000 years waiting plus the cross itself were not enough to enact it? Somehow Pentecost magically enacted it? Why?

Ervin pointed out that if anyone is looking for a magic-day distribution of the indwelling Spirit, John 20:22 is a much better candidate because at least it was chronologically close to the crucifixion.

Some say the Holy Spirit indwelled some OT saints temporarily. Ok that's just silly. So there was a time limit on it? 12 minutes? 47 minutes? If that's your view, pray tell what time constraints God was bound under, how long, and why.

Interestingly Luke uses the same term "filled" both before and after Pentecost:

"Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!" (Luke 1)

"His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied" (Luke 1)

Thus, as a few scholars have noted, Luke's writings provide no clear basis for a distinction between his OT and NT pneumatology. Any such distinction is mostly a logical construct, usually based on preconceived notions about what Scripture means by "new covenant".

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1

Here's another problem with magic-Pentecost. In your view isn't this supposed to be some kind of "new covenant" outpouring on the whole church? In that case, why did Luke simply narrate an outpouring upon 120 praying individuals?

What about all the OT saints scattered throughout the world? They STILL didn't get the Holy Spirit? The cross wasn't good enough to merit them that blessing?

 

[swordsman1]

My 2 cents is to provide some reasons why apostolic mediation tends to administer post-salvation anointings (both charismatic and sanctifying/reviving).

Thanks for your "2 cents", but in my opinion your theories are worth 0 cents, they are so unorthodox. My views are orthodox Christianity, which the vast majority of scholars agree with. Yours are not even on the radar. Two types of baptism and filling of the Spirit indeed (which I eventually figured out was your view). That's the same trick charismatics use when their views are refuted from scripture: "Oh that doesn't apply here - there are 2 types of tongues", or 2 types of prophecy, or 2 types of apostle. When your views are challenged you resort to even crazier interpretations to justify them or outright obfuscation, which together with your sarcastic attitude makes it impossible to debate with you.

 

[JAL]

Thanks for your "2 cents", but in my opinion your theories are worth 0 cents, they are so unorthodox. My views are orthodox Christianity, which the vast majority of scholars agree with. Yours are not even on the radar. Two types of baptism and filling of the Spirit indeed (which I eventually figured out was your view). That's the same trick charismatics use when their views are refuted from scripture: "Oh that doesn't apply here - there are 2 types of tongues", or 2 types of prophecy, or 2 types of apostle. When your views are challenged you resort to even crazier interpretations to justify them or outright obfuscation, which together with your sarcastic attitude makes it impossible to debate with you.

Deflection. You're quick to accuse others of deflection but can be seen doing it time and again.

You've hopelessly convoluted and overcomplicated something very simple. Baptism and filling simply mean outpouring/immersion. These are not technical covenant-terms as you imagine.

After the fashion of the other biblical historians, Luke focused on charismatic fillings/outpourings. That's the only difference between Luke and Paul.

That's 1,000 years of simplicity in my views, unlike your hopelessly thorny complex of transitions, exceptions, anomalies, and magic days. Case in point:

"Even Simon himself believed and was baptized" (Acts 8:13) - but did not get the Lukan gift!

Simon the sorcerer is an excellent case in point. Just because people appear to believe, doesn't mean they are true believers. Thanks for providing that.

So Luke was a liar? He's supposed to be inspired and claim what he knows. But he lied about Simon's belief? Did he also lie about Simon's baptism?

When you have to go to this extreme to defend your upside-down-inside-out pneumatology, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

And stop pretending that I'm the only one who makes a pneumatological distinction between Luke and Paul. You yourself have been shoving modern scholarship down my throat with regard to Acts 19:2. What about all the modern scholars who, like me, see a difference of emphasis between Luke and Paul?

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1

Calvin realized that Pentecost’s Spirit-baptism was for the Twelve neither their first nor their last, “for he had baptized his apostles [in the Spirit] before this; and he baptizeth all the elect thus daily” (Calvin's Commentaries on Acts 1:5).

That's a good summary of my whole position. I'm sorry you think John Calvin's views "are so unorthodox" and "not even on the radar" and "resort to even crazier interpretations".

Together with your sarcastic attitude makes it impossible to debate with you.

I'm the one with the attitude? After I made an extrapolation of your views according to my understanding, to expose a contradiction, your response in post 31 was:

You are lying.

I almost reported you - please don't push me to do it. So this type of congeniality makes you a model citizen on this forum, in your estimation? I'm the bad guy? The "sarcastic" one?

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1,

Turner affirmed that noted scholars “Gunkel, Leisegang, Schweizer, Lampe and Haya-Prats have been right to point to Luke’s emphasis on the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit as the ‘Spirit of prophecy,’” (M. B. Turner, “The Significance of Receiving the Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Survey of Modern Scholarship,” Trinity Journal, Vol 2 (1981), p. 15).

See that word modern? Take it seriously. Guess my views are on the radar after all.

In my initial post on this thread I linked you to two posts - two proofs - where I demonstrated that Luke-Acts emphasizes the charismatic Spirit of prophecy. Time and again I called those posts to your attention, and you deflected every time. Never addressed.

 

[swordsman1]

Okay, rant and rave as much as you like. But as I said before it is pointless trying to reason with someone who is so entrenched in their refuted unorthodox positions that they have to revert to such rebuttals as all modern bibles have got their translations wrong.

When even a decent minority of respected mainstream scholars agree with your theories then we can begin to take them seriously. And by that I mean actually quote their expositions as I have done, not just saying one or two agree with you. Until then your theories can be safely consigned to the theological scrap heap.

 

[JAL]

Okay, rant and rave as much as you like. But as I said before it is pointless trying to reason with someone who is so entrenched in their refuted unorthodox positions that they have to revert to such rebuttals as all modern bibles have got their translations wrong.

Yet another misrepresentation. I went into details explaining why my position fits with either "when" or "since" on Acts 19:2.

It's exceedingly difficult to find even one post of yours that is not a misrepresentation.

When even a decent minority of respected mainstream scholars agree with your theories then we can begin to take them seriously.

More deflection. There's a whole history of support for subsequence in the church fathers. You claimed that was irrelevant.

Here's why you cannot comprehend Luke. You're trying to suppress his charismatic nuances because you're a cessationist - and yet you claim to be on the majority end of modern scholarship! Wake up and smell the coffee. Gordon Fee has stated privately:

"This is a dead issue in the academy. Hardly anyone is defending [cessation] anymore” (Douglas Banister, The Word and Power Church, p. 180).


When even a decent minority of modern scholars support your antiquated views, let's have a discussion.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

"This is a dead issue in the academy. Hardly anyone is defending [cessation] anymore” (Douglas Banister, The Word and Power Church, p. 180).

I googled this quote and found a couple of interesting articles:

Have healings, miracles ceased? Are gifts of Holy Spirit for today?

Why are there more miracles on the mission field than home?

Btw, @swordsman1, I'm still looking forward to your next round of rebuttals on the other thread

 

[swordsman1]

Yet another misrepresentation. I went into details explaining why my position fits with either "when" or "since" on Acts 19:2.

It's exceedingly difficult to find even one post of yours that is not a misrepresentation.

No I have not misrepresented you. Yet another false allegation against me. The position you hold is that Acts 19:2 should be translated "since". I don't recall you ever recanting that position. You insisted on it over and over again, even after I pointed out that no modern translation agree with you.

More deflection. There's a whole history of support for subsequence in the church fathers. You claimed that was irrelevant.

The church fathers are not respected mainstream scholars. They frequently made theological blunders. Not surprisingly as the study of the Christian scriptures was still in it's infancy.

How about showing us some modern scholars who agree with you, and preferably not from the lunatic fringe of Pentecostalism such those from the Oral Roberts University, founded by the man who spoke with a 900 foot Jesus and built "healing hospitals" that now lie derelict, and whose notable alumni include such respected scholars as Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, and Creflo Dollar.

Gordon Fee has stated privately:

"This is a dead issue in the academy. Hardly anyone is defending [cessation] anymore” (Douglas Banister, The Word and Power Church, p. 180).

Rather ironic that you cite Gordon Fee when he completely disagrees with your position..