Re: [XTalk] Re: "In the power of the spirit"
- Jeffery wrote:
One would need to make a number of distinctions, of
course, among Spirit, Holy Spirit, in the Power of the
Spirit, and so on. I hope that someone will.
Just a very quick comment, because I don't have time to dig out the textual references for this at the moment - *I* hope someone will!
The prime distinction between OT and NT understandings of the Spirit of God is that in the OT the Spirit "comes upon" the prophet, and can be withdrawn, while in the NT (especially John and Paul) the Spirit "indwells" the believer, and cannot be withdrawn. The work of the Spirit (especially in Paul) is to justify and sanctify the believer, transforming him/her into the image of Christ. The Lukan references which have been the main subject of discussion in this thread should be seen against this background.
Rev Tony Buglass
Pickering Methodist Circuit
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Why not? We know that Paul was an example of controlling leadershipYou could be right, of course, but I've seen nothing that would inspire a
> who was out to lower the level of prophetic activity and exercise
> control over what was admissible, while nevertheless valuing it
> highly when properly controlled. Surely he would tell you not to
> prophesy (Unclean Spirit!) if he didn't like what you said. And that
> is the whole purpose of the letter 1 John. And then as time goes on,
> up to Irenaeus e.g., a matter discussed in Pagels' new book, the
> practice began to die out and was encouraged to die out by the
> leadership. So what is it that makes you think that this isn't what
> the NT authors were talking about?
> Steve Daivies
movement to persist in an unfriendly world the way the EC did. I think
'spiritual gifts', particularly glossolalia, have a sociological function in
Pentecostalism; the Spirit seems to be more 'popular' in churches made up of
low-status people (I'm drawing from memory here; I lost my source of material on this
last year). I also think Pentecostalism draws its strength, not from this, but
from building community, like its Methodist predecessors. Quite possibly the
EC did as well.
My doubts are largely rooted in the way Pentecostalism draws a dogmatic
picture of 'spiritual gifts' on the basis of not very much in the NT. This may,
of course, indicate that gifts were not functionally important in the EC!
There were controversies in early Pentecostalism about how the gifts were to be
interpreted; were tongues real languages or not, for instance? The answers that
emerged may not, as far as I can see, be very close to whatever Paul was
talking about. I should perhaps add that I was being deliberately provocative in