Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
This I think this is Zeek's concern with Gaffin:
Quote:
Posing two questions will expedite our discussion of the last clause in v. 45: What is the reference of the noun “spirit” (pneuma)? Since life-giving pneuma is what (Christ as) the last Adam “became,” what is the time point of that becoming? A couple of interlocking, mutually reinforcing considerations show, decisively it seems to me, that “spirit” in v. 45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit.
|
You essentially have to brush aside what Paul is talking about to arrive at that conclusion. He has made more than one clear statement that it is a comparison of the body of birth (human) and the body of resurrection (spiritual). And he is essentially promising the same kind of body to believers in resurrection. Do we therefore conclude that in resurrection we "become" the Holy Spirit?
It is those "interlocking, mutually reinforcing considerations" that are the problem. It would appear that Gaffin is saying is a lot like what Lee says more clearly. He is taking the word "spirit" that is juxtaposed to "life-giving" and then looking elsewhere for some kind of evidence that the Holy Spirit is referred to as giving life, then interlocking them. But the interlocking is not insisted upon by the words used despite the fact that both Lee and Gaffin suggest that they do. There is nothing magical in the words that insists upon the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives life. So does the Father, as does the Spirit. And they are all spirit in essence. And they are all holy. That makes them all holy spirit. But the capitalized version is a name, not just a fact. It is the name of one of the Three of the Trinity. So there are three holy spirits, yet only one Holy Spirit.
And in some way, the Three are One. Igzy suggested some kind of heavenly math. Maybe. Who knows. And why do we care? What is wrong with just acknowledging the specific things that are taught about each of the Three and appreciating those rather than trying to build a more complex Trinity that is described beyond the evidence?
And let a discussion about natural bodies and resurrection bodies remain as simply that discussion. What is the benefit of trying to mine for secret discussion #2 inside of open discussion #1? It is, at best, speculation. It cannot be a certainty. And if it is that much of a speculation, what can it really do for you?
I suggest nothing.
And that is where it should end. It is the people trying to take things beyond what is written that cause the problems. That create the exclusivist sects. Like the LRC.
Gaffin is evidently caught in the same kind of blindered focus that Lee was. And it is beyond what is written. There is no decoder ring. The scripture is much more straightforward than that. Otherwise, there is no way to even suggest inerrancy in scripture at any level because no one will know what it is actually saying, therefore be totally unable to determine error or lack thereof.