Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure that I buy this argument. But it is not bad. I could surely have fellowship with someone who held it. If they believe in Christ and his work on the Cross on our behalf, it is acceptable.

But none of this puts the Trinity into the passage/discussion that includes 1 Cor 15:45. We are still responding to the guy in class who continually asks irrelevant questions and wastes the professor's time as he discusses that and leaves the topic for the day languishing. (Probably means we need a new professor. One that is not distracted from his purpose.)

Am I correct in concluding from this statement that you have dismissed Richard Gaffin Jr.'s, thesis that 15:45 is about the Holy Spirit and if so why?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Am I correct in concluding from this statement that you have dismissed Richard Gaffin Jr.'s, thesis that 15:45 is about the Holy Spirit and if so why?

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-givign spirit must be the Holy Spirit."

Are Edwards' comments on the Trinity pausible? Maybe not hugely, but much more than Lee's version of 15:45.

[zeek]

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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

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.

I think that the problem with so many discussions of things like "sense of the Spirit" is that we want it to stand alone and direct without any grounding in what we objectively know.

I am not saying there is no sense of the Spirit. I am chastised by my feelings often related to my going astray of the path of life. I don't need a scripture verse to tell me. I know it within. And sometimes I know when I have done right by my feelings within. But in no case are the feelings the thing I seek.

I am more impressed with the realization of my failings and the need to repent. I believe it is more important to acknowledge our failings and repent than to gush over our feelings as we get our worship higher and higher. We need a little (maybe a lot of) what the older traditions call the Kyrie. We need to ask for mercy. Pray for it as we give it to others. But instead we sing songs about how it impacts us. How we feel about it.

It doesn't matter how we feel about it. It matters what is right, true, honest, just, trustworthy . . . . the things you think on.

As for detailing what I disagree with in Gaffin's arguments, all I will say is that when I scanned through it previously, I saw nothing that gave me a footing to even bring it into the conversation. It might all be reasonable and sound on its own, without reference to 1 Cor 15:45, but I saw nothing that put it into that discussion. I'm not wasting my time dissecting something that starts with a premise that is just not sound and tends to lead to Lee's (and some other wackos') favorite place — the obliteration of the purpose of Three in favor of "they're just all the same." Maybe Gaffin does not go that far with it. But when the starting point is a kind of equivocation — whether intentional to shoehorn in a ridiculous premise, or by honest error due to lack of clarity — I am not bound to waste my time on the rest of the points.

You think Gaffin has made a valid argument for discussing the Trinity because of this one phrase in one verse in the middle of a different discussion, then lay it out. Unless it is a really good argument, I can only see a decoder-ring effort to find a dog's tail in a box of marbles and then wag the dog and say that it is the thing that they box of marbles is about.

I am not obligated to dissect anyone's discussion of the Spirit. It may be a good discussion. But its connection to 1 Cor 15:45 is tenuous, at best. More like a dog's tail in a box of marbles. If you want to change my mind, you show me how it is connected.

I don't recall Gaffin's arguments at this point. But what I have seen in most who think they are finding something not actually there reminds me a little of throwing gold into a fire and declaring that "out came this calf." So now we all have to worship it. We try hard to refute it.

The golden calf did not just appear. It was fashioned. Someone(s) took some time and effort to make it. And just as Aaron did not have an evil intent, there may have been no intent to twist as "the Son is now the Spirit" was fashioned from 1 Cor 15:45. But 1 Cor 15:45 does not go to that conclusion without contortions and harm.

[OBW]

From another thread:

In Witness Lee's church, we presumed ourselves beyond all of that. Fallen humankind's social arrangements never touched us! So we never questioned, and never considered, even when things got weirder and weirder, as gaps between individual perception and social consensus widened themselves.

And in the same way, when only one out of 10 non-LRC scholars actually takes a position similar to Lee (even if only slightly similar) I believe that it is sufficient to generally dismiss the one because those who disagree have established themselves as sound, reasoned, and solid Christians.

No, numbers, or a majority, do not define God or scripture. But it is the counsel, not the individual, that seems to ultimately be able to really get a feeling from the Spirit. It started with that counsel in Jerusalem. Neither Paul nor the Judaisers simply got their way. It was the combined sense of the group that ruled. I am not discounting the Spirit's participation. Rather noting that it was in the participation with many, and not just one, that the conclusion arose. That tends to put the outliers in question.

Does that mean that I do not have any questions relating to where the mainstream of Christianity is going? Not at all. But the errors I think I see are not related to core of the faith. Rather to the emphasis in the meaning of "calling" for the "average" Christian. And that is a different topic.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And in the same way, when only one out of 10 non-LRC scholars actually takes a position similar to Lee (even if only slightly similar) I believe that it is sufficient to generally dismiss the one because those who disagree have established themselves as sound, reasoned, and solid Christians.

I was in California this summer enjoying a small town's warm early evening ambiance, when three Mormon young men approached me. They were fine, wholesome guys, just great kids. I took the opportunity to talk to them. We wrangled a bit and I'm not sure what good I did, but I did manage to get out one question which I wished later I had more focused on, and will do so in the future in similar encounters. And that is this:

"You guys consider yourselves Christians, right? So why do you go against 98% of the rest of the Christian community in your view of Christ's divinity? Why, really, do you believe that your little minority is right about this central doctrine, and everyone else is wrong? Isn't the real reason because that's your culture and that's what you've always done? Isn't it more about your cultural identity and being expected to believe it, than any really objective, independent thought about it? If you want to be Christians, why fight the rest of the Church on such a central idea?"

The same goes for the LC, or any other tiny minority that thinks it has special revelation.

[Cal]

To me being in the Spirit is indicated by two things, life and peace (Romans 8:6). And if I had to pick between the two, I'd pick peace. Jesus's gift to us is peace that passes understanding, not as the world gives (Phil 4:7; Jn 14:27). That means this peace cannot be faked. You can fake love, goodness, even "life" in a way. But you can't fake peace. You either have it or you don't. When I'm losing peace I know my mind and emotions are going some place they shouldn't.

Usually it starts with worry. First I'll start being bothered about something. Then, I'll begin to think of how I can remedy the "problem." But because I've left peace, my approach to the problem is going to be off, if any approach is even needed.

All kinds of things can set this off. Worries about money, my kids, my reputation, how I feel in the morning, boredom, what some other poster said. But the point is, remain in peace and there is a very good chance you are remaining in the Spirit.

One thing that sets worry off is wanting "God and." God and a good life, God and money, God and popularity, etc. The more we want just God, and what he wants, the more peace we will experience.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

You think Gaffin has made a valid argument for discussing the Trinity because of this one phrase in one verse in the middle of a different discussion, then lay it out.

Before I respond, please clarify what you are saying here. What one phrase? What different discussion? I am referring to the paper entitled “LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT”: PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL’S PNEUMATOLOGY which UntoHim submitted in post #255.

[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.
Quote from:http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...3-589-JETS.pdf

[OBW]

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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Before I respond, please clarify what you are saying here. What one phrase? What different discussion? I am referring to the paper entitled “LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT”: PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL’S PNEUMATOLOGY which UntoHim submitted in post #255.

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 somenone 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.

[zeek]

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?