Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
For the most part, yes. Just reading the verse as it is, in context, it is too coherent with the core of the larger discussion and easy to understand as clearly part of that discussion to give much credence to that kind of idea that is so out of sync with the thrust of Pau's larger discussion. Is it definitely wrong? Can't quite say that. But it is close enough to definitely wrong that I do not find rejecting it to be out of bounds.
It is, to me, like concluding that the broken window in my car and the missing CD (that used to be on the passenger seat) is the result of a very small microburst. It hurled a large rock against the window and then sucked out the only unattached thing inside.
Possible? Remotely.
Plausible? No.
And that it my take on "the life-giving spirit must be the Holy Spirit."
Are Edwards' comments on the Trinity plausible? Maybe not hugely, but much more than Lee's version of 15:45.
|
Can you summarize Gaffin's arguments for me so I can see how you arrived at the conclusion that they are close enough to definitely wrong. Having thrown out a sense of the spirit's leading for your stomach as you indicated, it seems all you have to go by is your reasoning alone, and the only reason you have given so far is your vaguely supported judgment that the Holy Spirit is out of context in I Corinthians 15. If as Gaffin supposes, Paul's teaching on the Spirit is tethered to the center/core of his theology, then it would not be surprising if he were to tie all the points of his preaching to the Spirit including those concerning Christ and the resurrection. So, if you would be so kind, present your counter arguments to Gaffin's. I didn't find him easy to refute like you did and I don't want him to lead me astray.