Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
As I said, I recall reading it some time back (maybe only some days back, but I have slept a lot since then, and been on vacation). So my memory (failing?) was that it was introduced as someone finding the Holy Spirit in the "life giving spirit" of 1 Cor 15:45. That is the phrase/verse. If I have recalled some detail in error, or should be referring to someone else's writings on the subject, then I sit corrected.
But if it does — at least in part — spring from that verse, then if there is something in his work that better links the verse to The Spirit than Lee did (and is worthy of consideration) I would be happy to hear it. But I do not intend to otherwise read through it since my stated bias is that the context rejects the general premise as off-topic. If that is true, then there is no reason for a point-by-point critique. It is simply in left field.
And if you manage to skip the "it's off topic" aspect and the rest fits together, it does nothing for me because lots of things fit together well if you accept the first premise without question. But question the start and no matter how nice it sounds, it is no longer cohesive. It falls due to lack of support.
|
I appreciate your candor. You admit Gaffin was in this discussion and could be relevant to the issue at hand and that you don't recall what his arguments were. But, you won't even bother to read it because your mind is made up. Furthermore, if you were to read it and found the arguments coherent you still wouldn't accept it because of the first premise.
Your intellectual complacency is remarkable. Since you couldn't be bothered to read what Gaffin wrote you got his argument backwards. That
pneuma in 15:45 is the person of the Holy Spirit is Gaffin's conclusion, not his first premise.
But, I'll stop here. I'm not going to carry Gaffin's water to you. You have amply demonstrated that your mind is closed on the matter. New information might disturb your cognitive tranquility. For the record though, you dismissed the apparently well-framed argument without bothering to read it. How can I help but recall your willingness to judge arguments without reading them when I read your opinions about other matters in the future?