[UntoHim]

I posted Gaffin's paper with no small amount of trepidation, knowing full-well that some people might be making sweeping insinuations and conclusions without reading the entire article. Sorry WitnessMe, I should have made this more clear...my bad.

A little later (from the portions I already posted) Gaffin made the following comment:
From the viewpoint of contemporary evangelical and historic Christian orthodoxy, the apparent objection to this translation and the supporting exegetical sketch given above is as obvious as it is serious. To find here a reference to the person of the Holy Spirit seems clearly to put Paul at odds, even in conflict, with later Church Trinitarian and Christological doctrine. It apparently makes him, as the historical-critical tradition has long and typically argued, an advocate of a so-called functional Christology that has no place for a personal distinction in deity between Christ and the Spirit. (emphasis mine)

Now, to be sure, what Gaffin has written here and in all of this paper, marks the huge difference between Witness Lee's make-it-up-as-you-go-along, homebrew theology, and the well-researched, scholarly work of a highly educated, professional theologian. This being said, I must say that I do not fully agree with many of the conclusions that Gaffin has made in this article - namely that "the Life-Giving Spirit" in 1Cor15:45 is a direct, strict reference to the Person of the Holy Spirit, at least not with the forcefulness that Gaffin asserts. But again, at least he makes his case with sound reason, solid biblical rational and his expert grasp of the Greek vocabulary and grammar.

So, if anyone wants to argue anything from Gaffin's paper, please, please read the WHOLE article carefully at least once, and preferably several times. (I think I have read this article at least 10 times)
-