The Indwelling-Gift of the Holy Spirit

Hermeneutico

Orthodox-Pentecostal
Aug 6, 2012
238
11
66
Fort Worth, TX
✟18,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, still holding my breathe. So you copy and paste from a book with a pentecostal agenda. That's ok, that's what we do. You quote only 1 Church Father. I don't find the explanations of Tertullian's writings that convincing. Had to breathe, couldn't hold it that long

"We are in communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine in no way differs from theirs; this is a sign of truth" ("Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis quod nulla doctrina diuersa: hoc est testimonium ueritatis." Prescription Against the Heretics (hereafter cited as PH) 21:7; SC 46:115.

.....

The two Roman Catholic Priests, Fr. McDonnell and Fr. Montague mention that "The rite of initiation as Tertullian knew it consisted of a water bath, anointing, laying on of hands, and the celebration of the Eucharist. Referring to the imposition of hands, Tertullian described its purpose as 'inviting and welcoming the Holy Spirit'" ("Dehinc manus inponitur per benedictionem advocans et invitans spiritum sanctum." OB 8; SC 35:76).

McDonnell, Kilian; Montague, George. Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Michael Glazier Books) (p. 115). Liturgical Press. Kindle Edition.

The early church was in agreement on this issue. The modern church has come up with many novel changes.
 
Upvote 0

Hermeneutico

Orthodox-Pentecostal
Aug 6, 2012
238
11
66
Fort Worth, TX
✟18,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship

Let readers read and come to their own conclusion rather than the odd one the author you quoted comes to.

Good grief, I could care less if you had 10 Roman Catholic Priests. Too funny

Yes, let the objective readers come to their conclusions based on the preponderance of historical evidence.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,787
2,580
PA
✟275,202.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello brother; I had to chuckle over your statement. Those who know me well understand that I do not say anything I cannot prove. I am a firm believer in evidence-based faith. I recommend that being dismissive is probably not the best approach when responding to others, but I understand why some feel the need to respond that way. Nonetheless,

Although there are some allusions to the idea of the fullness of, the abundance of, and clothed with the Holy Spirit by the Apostolic Fathers, I prefer to go to some direct quotes from the post-apostolic fathers regarding timing for the Gift of the Holy Spirit. It will take many more posts to answer your comment. The first Church Father we will look at is Irenaeus.

Much of what I am writing, and will write in other responses, regarding the Gift of the Spirit being separate from being a believer comes from two books:

1) Renewal Theology, by Dr. J. Rodman Williams.
2) Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries, by Fr. Dr. Kilian McDonnel and Fr. Dr. George Montague.

Irenaeus (ca. 130-200):

Irenaeus, the first outstanding theologian of the early Church, in his Against Heresies, writes variously about faith and the reception of the Holy Spirit, the laying on of hands, and gifts of the Spirit. First, Irenaeus, in several places, associates the reception of the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands after initial faith. For example, in discussing Acts 8 (about the Samaritans), Irenaeus writes:

"their filling with the Holy Spirit, through the imposition of hands, those who believed in God through Him who was preached by them, namely, Christ Jesus" (Bk. 1, chap. 23, Sect. l).

Also, in reference to I Corinthians 3:2 ("I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it"), Irenaeus writes:

"...the apostle had power to give them strong meat—for those upon whom the apostles laid hands received the Holy Spirit, who is the food of life—but they were not capable of receiving it, because they had the sentient faculties of the soul still feeble and undisciplined in the practice of things pertaining to God" (4, 38, 2).

It is interesting to note in this latter statement that Irenaeus not only associates the reception of the Spirit with the laying on of hands upon believers but also views the Corinthians as incapable of receiving the Spirit because of their feebleness of soul and lack of discipline. Additionally, It should be noted above that in the mind of Irenaeus, a person could be a believer and still not have received the Holy Spirit.

Irenaeus immediately proceeds to draw a parallel with the situation of man at the beginning of creation:

"So, in like manner, God had power at the beginning to grant perfection to man; but as the latter was only created anew, he could not possibly have received it, or even if he had received it, could he have retained it" (ibid.).

The newly created, or re-created, man may lack the capacity for receiving and retaining the Holy Spirit: he is not yet ready.

As just noted, Irenaeus views the reception of the Spirit as having to do with man's perfecting (God's granting of perfection). In this same connection, a further statement of Irenaeus, referring to I Corinthians 2:6, is quite relevant:
"...[so] does the apostle declare 'we speak wisdom among those who are perfect,' terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God" (5, 6, 1).

Thus, in such ways, Irenaeus speaks of the reception of the Holy Spirit as a further stage beyond initial faith.

He believed that the reception of the Spirit comes through progress in faith:

"Men, if they do truly progress by faith toward better things and receive the Spirit of God, and bring forth the fruit thereof shall be spiritual" (5, 10, 1).

It should be clearly understood that only those who already have faith can progress in faith, thus, separating those who believe from those who receive the Spirit.

Indeed, the overall picture Irenaeus portrays is that of life as progress or process and the reception of the Spirit occurring within the movement of faith.

Finally, in reference to the gifts of the Spirit, Irenaeus immediately follows the words (quoted above) with:

"So does the Apostle declare 'we speak wisdom among those who are perfect,' terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God" adds, "and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used to speak. In like manner, do we hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts (4, 6, 1)?

Noteworthy is the close connection Irenaeus makes between receiving the Spirit and speaking "in all languages" (reminiscent of Acts 2) and the way in which this leads to mentioning "prophetic gifts." Something of the wide range of spiritual gifts attested by Irenaeus may be gathered from another passage:

"For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover...the dead have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church throughout the world has received from God" (2, 32, 4).

Blessings

Let readers read and come to their own conclusion. I've read through this and the conclusion the author you copied and pasted from doesn't make sense. Let others decide too.
 
Upvote 0

Hermeneutico

Orthodox-Pentecostal
Aug 6, 2012
238
11
66
Fort Worth, TX
✟18,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship

Let readers read and come to their own conclusion. I've read through this and the conclusion the author you copied and pasted from doesn't make sense. Let others decide too.

I 1000% agree that readers should come to their conclusions. Sometimes a writer does not make sense because the person reading what is written comes from such an unfamiliar paradigm it is easier to dismiss the evidence rather than change a position. I understand.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,787
2,580
PA
✟275,202.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"We are in communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine in no way differs from theirs; this is a sign of truth" ("Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis quod nulla doctrina diuersa: hoc est testimonium ueritatis." Prescription Against the Heretics (hereafter cited as PH) 21:7; SC 46:115.

.....

The two Roman Catholic Priests, Fr. McDonnell and Fr. Montague mention that "The rite of initiation as Tertullian knew it consisted of a water bath, anointing, laying on of hands, and the celebration of the Eucharist. Referring to the imposition of hands, Tertullian described its purpose as 'inviting and welcoming the Holy Spirit'" ("Dehinc manus inponitur per benedictionem advocans et invitans spiritum sanctum." OB 8; SC 35:76).

McDonnell, Kilian; Montague, George. Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Michael Glazier Books) (p. 115). Liturgical Press. Kindle Edition.

The early church was in agreement on this issue. The modern church has come up with many novel changes.
At Tertullian's time, Baptism & Confirmation were given at the same time. As the Church grew, it was impossible for the Bishops to administer Confirmation at the same time as Baptism. The Eastern Church's decided that the priest could administer Conformation while the Western Church's decided to separate the 2 sacraments so that the Bishop could admin confirmation. This does not mean One does not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Baptism. You are grossly wrong. Please learn a bit of history before making outrageous claims.
 
Upvote 0

Hermeneutico

Orthodox-Pentecostal
Aug 6, 2012
238
11
66
Fort Worth, TX
✟18,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
At Tertullian's time, Baptism & Confirmation were given at the same time. As the Church grew, it was impossible for the Bishops to administer Confirmation at the same time as Baptism. The Eastern Church's decided that the priest could administer Conformation while the Western Church's decided to separate the 2 sacraments so that the Bishop could admin confirmation. This does not mean One does not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Baptism. You are grossly wrong. Please learn a bit of history before making outrageous claims.

Yes, Baptism and Chrismation were given at the same hour, but that is not the same as saying that they are both given simultaneously; the very second one is water Baptized. In fact, in many Pentecostal churches today, one is water baptized by immersion, and when the person comes out of the water, they receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Just as the Bible reveals, the early church understood that the Gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, Himself - thus, His Indwelling. Separating the Indwelling of the Spirit from the Gift of the Holy Spirit is a modern invention, post A.D. 1000.
 
Upvote 0

Hermeneutico

Orthodox-Pentecostal
Aug 6, 2012
238
11
66
Fort Worth, TX
✟18,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, still holding my breathe. So you copy and paste from a book with a pentecostal agenda. That's ok, that's what we do. You quote only 1 Church Father. I don't find the explanations of Tertullian's writings that convincing. Had to breathe, couldn't hold it that long

Hippolytus (160-238) wrote a treatise on The Apostolic Tradition. It includes an early Roman liturgy.

We may now make brief reference to Hippolytus and his treatise on The Apostolic Tradition. Herein is to be found the description of the Roman liturgy toward the end of the second century, and quite possibly represents the general practice of the whole church at that time [at least according to the contemporary church father, Tertullian]. Relevant to our concern is that immediately following the rite of baptism, there is anointing with oil by a presbyter,

“I anoint thee with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ” …and the gathering in the church building where… “the Bishop shall lay his hand upon them invoking and saying: ‘0 Lord God, who didst count these [thy servants] worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration [water baptism], make them worthy to be filled [receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit] with thy Holy Spirit and send upon them Thy grace, that they may serve Thee according to Thy will’” (22).

After this, the Bishop says, “I anoint thee with holy oil in God the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and the Holy Ghost,” and “sealing him on the forehead, he shall give him the kiss of peace.” The whole ceremony then climaxes with the celebration of the Eucharist.

According to The Apostolic Tradition, there was a clear differentiation between baptism for regeneration and the subsequent imposition of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit. Still, they are both parts of one continuing occasion. In this respect, Hippolytus and Tertullian represent the same prevailing theology and practice.

It is interesting that all the Church Fathers are in agreement about the timing for receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. It was pursued AFTER water baptism.
 
Upvote 0

Hermeneutico

Orthodox-Pentecostal
Aug 6, 2012
238
11
66
Fort Worth, TX
✟18,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
This does not mean One does not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Baptism. You are grossly wrong. Please learn a bit of history before making outrageous claims.

1. The Gift of the Holy Spirit is the Indwelling Holy Spirit.
2. I do not mind being "grossly wrong." However, when someone accuses me of being that wrong, I expect clear evidence to support the contention. I am always open to learning.
3. I am very aware of Church History. I regularly read the Church Fathers, Church Councils, and Church History books. I have been doing it all my life. My formal education includes taking classes every semester for nine years. Four of those years were in two separate graduate schools. Can I learn more? Absolutely. It is fun to learn, grow, and understand.

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hello (First Answer to your post)

Yes, I have read the above theory in a few theological works. However, it isn't very exegetically sound.

1. As you already quoted me, "According to Scripture, the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4) is called being baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), which is a time when the Holy Spirit comes upon His People (Acts 1:8), filling them (Acts 2:4) because He is being poured out (Acts 2:17) and shed forth (Acts 2:33) upon them.

Yes, which is what happened on Pentecost.

Peter calls this same event receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38),

This promise being attached to the Sacrament of Baptism.

which is speaking of the time that the Holy Spirit would no longer be WITH the disciples but be IN (indwell) them (John 14:17). In fact, Peter himself exchanged the phrase "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:16) for "gift" of the Spirit" (Acts 11:17) and the "Holy Spirit fell on them" (Acts 11:15), which Luke recorded as "the Holy Spirit fell" (Acts 10:44), "the Gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out" (Acts 10:45), and they "received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10:47)."

Yes, we see that at the household of Cornelius an event very similar to what happened at Pentecost. Peter understood this as a sign from God that what established at Pentecost--the going forth of the Gospel ("You shall be My witnesses...")--was intended to include the Gentiles. Up until then the focus had been on Jews and Samaritans, but God made it clear to Peter that this was meant for Gentiles also. God gives Peter a vision, someone then asks Peter to go preach at this Gentile household, and when he does he witnesses the same kind of thing happen there that happened with them on Pentecost.

Now here's something to pay attention to. Did you notice that event though the laying on of hands for the reception of the Spirit for the Samaritans is mentioned between these two events, there's no pouring out of the Spirit like there was on Pentecost or Cornelius' house.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is attached to what happened on Pentecost, the pouring out of the Spirit. And then Peter links that also with what happened at Cornelius' household.

Elsewhere we see that people are baptized and have hands laid on them. But the laying on of hands is NOT called "baptism with the Holy Spirit".

That's why I said pay attention to what is NOT called "baptism with the Holy Spirit". This phrase is connected only to an outpouring of the Spirit, what happened at Pentecost. And what happened at Cornelius' household is brought into this by the connection it has with Pentecost.

But the laying on of hands among the Samaritans? Not baptism with the Holy Spirit.
The laying on of hands with the disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19? Not baptism with the Holy Spirit.

That's important.

With all these terms referring to the same event, it is not logical to nuance one of the terms to make it a stand-alone term. There is an obvious overlap of all the above terms. This methodology would be equivalent to an exegetical fallacy known as "proof-texting."

2. Just because a term is mentioned a few times, this, in and of itself, does not determine its importance. For example, the epistles only mention the Lord's Supper one time. Does this reference mean that the Lord's Supper is not that important? No. Obviously not. For the view you affirm to be accurate, one must supply a great deal of supplementary Scriptural evidence to support it. For example, we know that the Lord's Supper is essential because of all the evidence written in the Gospels.

Scripture only applies this language to a very specific event. It is not good exegesis to read into Scripture what we want to be there, when it's not what the Scripture is actually saying.

At no point is the laying on of hands (Chrismation) called "baptism with the Holy Spirit". That's simply not in the the text.

3. You said, "In fact, biblically, this expression is related to only two events in the New Testament. The first is Pentecost, and the second was when--like at Pentecost--the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles at the household of Cornelius."

Careful exegesis of the passage in Acts reveals that Peter included more than the apostles receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit. For your theory that I just quoted to be accurate, it would need to clearly show that Baptism with the Holy Spirit ONLY referred to the FIRST event on the Day of Pentecost, but not the second event that took place with the 3,000 believers. However, Peter includes the 3,000 in his explanation:

The three thousand who were added on that day are never described as being baptized with the Holy Spirit. They were converted and brought into the Church through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism.

There was only one outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, and it had nothing to do with the three thousand. I'm not sure where you are getting that, because Peter doesn't refer to those three thousand converts in his explanation of what happened in Joppa in Acts 11.

Acts 11:16-17 LITV: "And I recalled the Word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be BAPTIZED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. (17) Then if God gave the SAME GIFT to them as also to US, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, and I, who was I to be able to prevent God?"

Who is Peter referring to when he uses "US?"

Not only was he referring to the Apostles, but he was also referring to the Judeans. Beginning with Acts 2:9, notice how Luke includes the Judeans among the 3,000 on Pentecost. Some of the brethren from the Judean churches were with Peter when he went into the house of Cornelius.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Certain brethren from Joppa (Judeans) accompanied Peter to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:23). Joppa is in the land of Judaea! After Cornelius and company received the Gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, notice what Peter declares:

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as WE (Verse 47)?

Oh I see. It is a stretch to say that these men must have been from the three thousand. That's a reach on your part. First, as you will recall, on Pentecost there were 120 gathered in the upper room. Also, remember, the three thousand were Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem.

I will offer three alternative hypotheses:

1) Peter's words do not require that the men need to have experienced what happened on Pentecost; because what happened on Pentecost is not required to have received the Holy Spirit; as all who have faith in Christ have the Holy Spirit.

2) The "we" is a reference to Peter and the others who were present at Pentecost.

3) The men from Joppa were among the 120 gathered in the upper room.

I'd go with option 1 personally.

Notice the "WE" in the text? Peter includes the Judeans. Why? Because the Judeans received the Gift of the Holy Spirit as the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost.

See above. I consider what you are doing to be a massive reach.

Notice who Peter is making his address to in Jerusalem later. He is still including the Judeans:

"And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him (Acts 11:1-2).

Means nothing more than the Christians who were in Jerusalem. Remembering again, the three thousand converts on Pentecost were pilgrims. It's entirely possible that some stayed, but many likely went back to their places of origin. And, further, many more converted in the period between Pentecost and Peter's vision. Again, I consider what you're doing to be a stretching, it's a reach--one I simply don't see as credible.

Peter testified to these apostles and brethren from Judea:

"When I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them. just as on US at the beginning (Acts 11:14 Amplified Bible)."

"Just as on US at the beginning"! Since there were no Judeans among the 120, the Judeans to whom Peter is now talking, obviously included in the word "US," received the Holy Spirit when they were added unto the church on the Day of Pentecost!

Popular theological positions are not always the more exegetically sound positions.

Blessings

The "Us" being the Apostles and the others gathered in the upper room.

This has nothing to do with what is popular or not; but rather with what is exegetically sound. Your position is not exegetically sound, it is riddled with eisegesis and speculation.

-CryptoLUtheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hippolytus (160-238) wrote a treatise on The Apostolic Tradition. It includes an early Roman liturgy.

We may now make brief reference to Hippolytus and his treatise on The Apostolic Tradition. Herein is to be found the description of the Roman liturgy toward the end of the second century, and quite possibly represents the general practice of the whole church at that time [at least according to the contemporary church father, Tertullian]. Relevant to our concern is that immediately following the rite of baptism, there is anointing with oil by a presbyter,

“I anoint thee with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ” …and the gathering in the church building where… “the Bishop shall lay his hand upon them invoking and saying: ‘0 Lord God, who didst count these [thy servants] worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration [water baptism], make them worthy to be filled [receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit] with thy Holy Spirit and send upon them Thy grace, that they may serve Thee according to Thy will’” (22).

After this, the Bishop says, “I anoint thee with holy oil in God the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and the Holy Ghost,” and “sealing him on the forehead, he shall give him the kiss of peace.” The whole ceremony then climaxes with the celebration of the Eucharist.

According to The Apostolic Tradition, there was a clear differentiation between baptism for regeneration and the subsequent imposition of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit. Still, they are both parts of one continuing occasion. In this respect, Hippolytus and Tertullian represent the same prevailing theology and practice.

It is interesting that all the Church Fathers are in agreement about the timing for receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. It was pursued AFTER water baptism.

That's Chrismation. So far you have been offering patristic proof-texts for the ancient Christian practice of Chrismation.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hermeneutico

Orthodox-Pentecostal
Aug 6, 2012
238
11
66
Fort Worth, TX
✟18,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's Chrismation. So far you have been offering patristic proof-texts for the ancient Christian practice of Chrismation.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly. What is Chrismation? I'll let the Orthodox Priest, Fr. Buben answer it for me.

WHAT IS HOLY CHRISMATION?
Father Michael J. Buben

“Holy Chrismation is a Sacrament in which the baptized believer, being anointed with
Holy Chrism on certain parts of the body, in the name of the Holy Spirit, receives the
gifts of the Holy Spirit for growth and strength in spiritual life.” (Philaret’s Catechism)
This sacrament is administered immediately after baptism and like baptism cannot be
administered twice to the same soul. Baptism cleans us from the pollution of original sin
and makes us a member of the grace-giving living Orthodox Church of Christ.
Chrismation nourishes and strengthens the baptised in the spiritual life. Just as a child
needs the guidance of its parents, so a newly baptised soul receives the grace and
guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is one of the reasons why Chrismation has never been
performed separately in the Orthodox Church.
Our Lord and Savior instituted this Sacrament when at the Jerusalem Temple He said:
“If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the
Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters etc., etc.” (John 7,
37-38). St. John explains this text as forecasting the Holy Spirit which believers would
receive.
That's Chrismation. So far you have been offering patristic proof-texts for the ancient Christian practice of Chrismation.

-CryptoLutheran
Exactly!

What does the Orthodox teach about Chrismation?

"The sacrament of Chrismation was established in apostolic times. In the early Church every newly-baptized Christian received a blessing and the gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by an apostle or a bishop. The Book of Acts relates how Peter and John laid hands on women from Samaria so that they could receive the Holy Spirit, ‘for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 8:16)" (Online Orthodox Catechism translated/adopted from Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev).

Also...

"In the sacrament of Chrismation we receive “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” (See Rom 8, 1 Cor 6, 2 Cor 1.21–22)" (Orthodox Church in America).

And

"The prayer of Chrismation says, “bestow on him (her) the seal of the gift of Your holy, omnipotent and worshipful Spirit" (St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral in the article, "The Mysteries, or Sacraments, of the Church").

It is exactly what I am addressing. Today, the Eastern Church still teaches what the Bible and Early Church taught: One receives the Gift of the Holy Spirit immediately (or as soon as possible) AFTER water baptism (Acts 19:1-2; Acts 8)

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Define person.

In the most basic sense, a someone.

To get into some of the meat and potatoes of theology and traditional theological language on the subject:

There are two Greek words that are important here, and important to understand how they are used when talking about the Trinity. They are hypostasis (plural hypostases) and prosopon (plural prosopa). Both terms can be translated as "person" in English, though it requires some unpacking.

Hypostasis is translated into Latin as subsistentia, which becomes the English word subsistence. The word is formed from a combination of the prefix hypo, meaning "under" and the word stasis, meaning "to stand"; which is also basically what the Latin translation means as well. In the context of the Trinity it refers to the distinct and concrete reality of each of the Trinity. So the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Taking the Father as an example, the Father is real, rather than just a name or title, He is distinct, concrete reality in distinction to the Son and the Holy Spirit. That means the Father relates to and with the Son and the Spirit, the Father has begotten the Son, the Father spirates the Spirit. And so on and so forth. So the Three of the Trinity are real, the Three-ness of the Trinity is real. There really are Three, each distinct and real in Himself. The Father is Himself, the Father who has begotten the Son; the Son is Himself, the Son who is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit is Himself, the Spirit of the Father and the Son who proceeds from the Father [and the Son*].

Prosopon is most clearly the word that corresponds with the English word "person", it is this word that is translated into Latin as persona (plural personae) which becomes the English word "person". This word, in antiquity, was tricky. In the ancient Greek world it referred to the "mask" or "role" an actor took on in a play. The ancient heretical position known as Sabellianism or Modalism (more properly, Modalistic Monarchianism) argued that God was a single Hypostasis with three prosopa; essentially they believed that God was one "person" who wore three different masks, or expressed Himself in three different roles in the way God related to the world. The Modalists believed that Jesus was God the Father in the flesh basically. This is heretical, it denies the relationality of the Three and makes a mess of Scripture so it was, quite rightly, condemned in antiquity. In modern times the Oneness Pentecostals (as opposed to the orthodox Trinitarian Pentecostals) hold views very similar. Because of this, the word prosopon to refer to the three Hypostases of the Trinity was a bit controversial, but accepted ultimately when defined properly in an orthodox way: That each prosopon of the Trinity is HImself a fully real person, a someone. Like Hypostasis, the Father is really Himself, the Son is really Himself, and the Holy Spirit is really Himself; each is distinctly and really HImself, so each is real and distinct. Not merely a "mask" or "face" or "role", but is truly and actually real in Himself.

So when we speak of Three Divine Persons of the Trinity we are saying there are three Someones. There is the Father, and He is real, He is Himself, He relates to and with the Son and the Holy Spirit; the same with the Son who is Himself and He relates with the Father and the Spirit, and likewise with the Spirit. There is a living, real, dynamic relationship within the undivided Divine Being and Essence. God is a Divine Trinity of Persons. There is a Tri-Unity of God; there are Three, each is Himself, and each is truly and really God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; not as three gods, but as one undivided God.

The Father is God, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen.

The Son is God, through whom all things were made, eternally begotten of the Father, of the Father's own Being, truly God of truly God, uncreated but begotten of the Father.

The Holy Spirit is God, eternally proceeding from the Father [and the Son*], who with Father and the Son is to be worshiped and glorified as true and very Lord and God.

Each is God, the one and only God.
Each is Lord, the one and only Lord.
Each is Almighty, the one and only Almighty.
Each is Eternal, the one and only Eternal.

Three Divine Persons, one God.
Three Divine Persons, equal in eternity, equal in glory and majesty, equal in Divinity.

*The expression "and the Son" is placed in brackets when speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit due to the historic controversy over this term as it pertains to the ways the West and the East speak about the Trinity. The phrase was added to the Nicene Creed in the 11th century, and was a major contributing factor behind the Great Schisms of 1054 which led to the break in communion between the Western Church and the Eastern Church. This is known as the Filioque Controversy, with Filioque being the Latin word translated as "and the Son". The West maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; whereas the East maintains the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. So as to try and maintain a semblance of neutrality, I'm following the common practice of including this expression in brackets.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hermeneutico
Upvote 0

tonychanyt

24/7 Christian
Oct 2, 2011
3,496
777
Toronto
Visit site
✟83,577.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the most basic sense, a someone.
That's too weak a definition for argumentation. I need a precise operation definition.
There are two Greek words that are important here, and important to understand how they are used when talking about the Trinity. They are hypostasis (plural hypostases) and prosopon (plural prosopa). Both terms can be translated as "person" in English, though it requires some unpacking.
I prefer to argue about terms that are found in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That's too weak a definition for argumentation. I need a precise operation definition.

I prefer to argue about terms that are found in the Bible.

Both words are used in the Bible, but their technical Trinitarian usage are post-biblical because the specific historical controversies which necessitated such technical language didn't arise until after the the books which make up the New Testament were already written.

You will be severely limiting your ability to engage with good theology if you try to insist on this kind of minimalistic approach. There's simply no good reason to take the approach you are trying to take, it's not as though what you are attempting to do is itself biblical or more biblical than the classic approach of Christianity.

"Bible onlyism" isn't biblical.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,787
2,580
PA
✟275,202.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1. The Gift of the Holy Spirit is the Indwelling Holy Spirit.
2. I do not mind being "grossly wrong." However, when someone accuses me of being that wrong, I expect clear evidence to support the contention. I am always open to learning.
3. I am very aware of Church History. I regularly read the Church Fathers, Church Councils, and Church History books. I have been doing it all my life. My formal education includes taking classes every semester for nine years. Four of those years were in two separate graduate schools. Can I learn more? Absolutely. It is fun to learn, grow, and understand.

Blessings
As with most on this forum, you are here to push an agenda. That's ok, most do it. I stopped long ago trying to convince people. All I do now is mostly call out error as I did with you posts. With your posts, I provide the resource of the entirety of documents you took snippets of and posted. People who read this thread will now have a place to go to read the documents you grossly misinterpreted. I'm good with that.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Which words specifically?

Prosopon/prosopa is used a number of times throughout the New Testament, translated variously as "face", "presence", "appearance", and "person". Depending on the translation.

Hypostasis is also used, for example just off the top of my head, in the first chapter of Hebrews where it says that the Son is the express image of the Father's Hypostasis.

Outside of the Bible these words were taken and used in a specific way when talking about the Trinity, to ensure that we are speaking rightly about God as opposed to speaking wrongly about Him.

By the way, Here's the relevant passage from Hebrews, Hebrews 1:3

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ δι᾽ εαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ημῶν, ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς

It's this phrase, χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, charakter tes hypostaseos autou, "express image of His Hypostasis".

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
807
140
69
England
✟22,720.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Hello Tony,

Yes. Additionally, I am saying that each word I listed above has its specific definition, yet, the Holy Spirit converged them into a singular event to express the many dimensional aspects of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. This convergence does not necessarily mean absolute convergence, for each word retains its independent meaning. However, each specific word overlaps enough to express the moment one receives the Spirit Himself in human terms.

Blessings
Holy Spirit was inbreathed before Ascension, while the promised gifts were imparted as they started supplicating in fear.

Pentecost was a sample of re-infilling and not a ceremony or mannerism.

We don't need re-inbreathing.

Schumann would endorse many works "markirt" which meant don't run the notes together.

Why would Holy Spirit be a one trick pony?

Those who accept the discrediting of the faith ration it as means of control.

the antidote is distinctness in teaching. belief will prove providential because it'll turn out we need it. The majority of my posts are on this subject.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums