The following exchange occurred in the setting of an Internet discussion list containing a number of preachers.  Before you read the exchange, it would be good to read the article titled, "The Holy Spirit" and "The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit" in the Archives of Bible Truths (click on title to go there). 

Don Martin to the list:

Through the years, I have had many discussions with brethren who hold the direct bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit literally within the physical body or mind of the Christian. They have maintained that this miraculous indwelling (it certainly would not be "natural") involves a simultaneous indwelling in all Christians, everywhere. I personally believe there are untenable problems with this view. I also believe that in most cases, it is a form of Pentecostalism and smacks of Pantheism. I say "smacks of Pantheism" because I believe this simultaneous direct bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit literally within the physical body or mind of the Christian represents a distorted view of deity (fluid, floating around, without boundaries, "body," etc.).

I, frankly, have not followed the exchange on the indwelling of the Spirit. I would like, though, to ask those who believe in the simultaneous direct bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit literally within the physical body or mind of the Christian a question, which may have already been asked:

Assuming such an indwelling is scripturally tenable and is the case, what would the simultaneous direct bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit literally within the physical body or mind of the Christian accomplish that the indwelling through the agency of the word not accomplish? Our Pentecostal friends who have championed this view tell us that the miraculous indwelling enables the recipient to process miraculous and miracle working ability. What say ye?

Don Martin to the list:

Don Martin to the list:

Don Martin to the list:

I have changed my subject line to "The Direct Miraculous Indwelling of the Spirit" because if the Holy Spirit does not indwell through means (natural), then the indwelling of necessity is miraculous (supernatural). Frank has made a request of me:

Don:

You have made a very interesting suggestion concerning which I'd like to hear more. You referred to my question:

Frank wrote:

"7. Don's distinction between the "presence" of God which he says dwelt in the tabernacle and the "person" of God which beyond question dwells in heaven does not establish that the indwelling of the HS is by the means of the word. Scripture does not make any such distinction, but I would not deny its possibility. Is Don willing to say that though the "person" of the HS does not dwell in the Christian, the "presence" does? Where does scripture say that the "presence" of the HS is
equivalent to the word?"

Could you comment further on your distinction between the "person" of the HS and the "presence" of the HS? I would like to see a coherent argument along this line formulated.

Don comments:

The statement I made to which Frank refers is as follows: "...The indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The scriptures teach the Father, Son, and the Holy Sprit indwell the Christian (I Jn. 4: 16; Eph. 3: 17; I Cor. 6: 19, 20, Eph. 5: 18). It was said that God dwelt in the tabernacle (Ex. 25: 8). Notwithstanding, God, the divine being, dwelt in heaven (I Kgs. 8: 10-13, 30, 34, 36). Beloved, the presence of God was in the tabernacle, but he himself (his "person") was in heaven. Notice how Jesus dwells in the Christian: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." (Eph. 3: 17). Faith is a product of the word of God (Rom. 10: 17)....."

Frank reasons thus:

Don's distinction between the "presence" of God which he says dwelt in the tabernacle and the "person" of God which beyond question dwells in heaven does not establish that the indwelling of the HS is by the means of the word.

Don answers:

Granted, God's presence being in the tabernacle while God himself was in heaven does not directly prove that the Holy Spirit indwells through the word. However, I believe indirectly this comparison fact is weighty. As I have pointed out, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all said to dwell in Christians (I Jn. 4: 15, 16; Eph. 3: 17; Rom. 8: 9). The fact that God dwelt in the tabernacle, but bodily, God was in heaven demonstrates the biblical concept of such a dwelling (Ex. 25: 8). God's presence and influence was in the tabernacle. Moreover, it is seen from this fact that the God of the Bible is not a Pantheistic God, fluid, everywhere without "body" or boundaries. Also, as we have seen, the word of God begets, sanctifies, and convicts (I Pet. 1: 23; Tit. 1: 9; Jn. 17: 17). The same accomplishment is attributed to the Holy Spirit (Jn. 3: 5; I Cor. 6: 11; Jn. 16: 8). I submit, therefore, that the Spirit (the being) uses the agency of the word (the instrument) to beget, sanctify, and convict.

Let us revisit the doctrine of Pantheism (the doctrine of fluidal deity). The teaching that the Holy Spirit simultaneously and directly, bodily, and supernaturally indwells all Christians is a Pantheistic view of the Holy Spirit. It lends itself to the view that the Holy Spirit is really not a "person," but is some fluidal influence or force.

In the case of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit enjoys the special indwelling through the instrumentality of the word. Hence, to reject the word is tantamount to resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7: 1-50; 51-60). I say this relative to Frank's question. Yes, the Spirit has presence amongst his people through the word. However, it involves more than simply the word being memorized. The word is the "seed of the kingdom," the life germ of spirituality (Lk. 8: 11). The word is the impetus that keeps us from practicing sin and causes man to accept and obey the commandments of God that result in a covenant relationship (I Jn. 3: 7-10, Ps. 119: 11). The gospel, the word, is God's power as a result of the Holy Spirit energizing the word, I understand (Rom. 1: 16 cp. 15: 13). As a consequence, the presence of the Holy Spirit centers around the word, if you will.

I shall pause for now, in view of the above, to see what specific questions Frank may have for me.

Don Martin to the list:

As I have mentioned, I am really not aware of who has said what relative to the simultaneous direct bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit literally within the physical body or mind of the Christian. I do know that such has been affirmed, however. I have also stated that such a view is common to Pentecostalism who borrowed the concept from the pantheistic presentation of a fluidal God characteristic of the ancient pagans. Now, I am not attempting to speak ill of any one on this list. I am just stating my understanding of the Pentecostal concept. Of course, the Pentecosts are consistent in their teaching of a simultaneous miraculous and direct bodily indwelling of the "Holy Ghost" in the physical body or mind of the "Christian." I say this because they also advocate that as a result of this special instance of God bodily indwelling man, man is empowered to perform miracles.

Frank made the following points (I shall briefly comment on Frank's points and then save my third post for any responsive posts Frank may have):

Since there are works of the HS which are not said to be works of the word, I find this assertion somewhat less compelling than an axiom. As I previously pointed out:

1. The Spirit, not the word, provides Christians help in prayer (Rom 8:26-27; Eph 2:18; Eph 6:17-18; Jude 20).

2. The Spirit, not the word, is a witness of our adoption as God's children (Rom 8:12-17; Gal 4:6).

3. The Spirit, not the word, is a seal and down-payment on eternal life (2Cor 1:21-22; 2Cor 5:5; Eph 1:13-14; Eph 4:30).

4. The Spirit, not the word, produces unity among Christians (Eph 4:3; Jude 19).

5. "The Spirit he caused to live in us"--not the word--"envies intensely." (Jas 4:5).

Some of these statements cannot possibly be describing effects of the word.

Don comments:

Frank, you have made some good points. I do not affirm as do some that every action assigned to the Holy Spirit is also assigned to the word. I believe to say such is a mistake.

Frank said:

The Spirit, not the word, provides Christians help in prayer (Rom 8:26-27; Eph 2:18; Eph 6:17-18; Jude 20).

Frank, I agree with your application and consequent points relative to Romans 8: 26, 27. However, I am not in total agreement with some of your other points. For instance, "4. The Spirit, not the word, produces unity among Christians (Eph 4:3; Jude 19)." Frank, I think this is an example of attempting to assign an action to a "special working" of the Spirit apart from the word that is faulty. Unity, true unity, is effected and enjoyed as a result of men believing and practicing the teaching of the Spirit, the word (I Cor. 1: 10, 4: 6).

Frank and the list, I have seen few cases of brethren who held the simultaneous direct bodily indwelling of the Spirit in Christians where these brethren did not assign special work to the Holy Spirit that was not taught in the Scriptures

Frank wrote:

Some of these statements cannot possibly be describing effects of the word.

Don answers:

In the case of Romans 8: 26, 27, I agree. However, consenting to such does not disprove the premise of the Spirit dwelling in the Christian through the agency of the word.

Frank to Don Martin and the List:

I had asked Don in a private exchange to comment more fully on his distinction between an indwelling of God in "person" and an indwelling of God by means of "presence." In doing so I was looking for a better way of understanding the indwelling of the HS in the Christian. What I have claimed in my posts on this List is that the argument that HS indwelling is by means of the word alone is not an accurate representation of what the scriptures teach. What I have NOT claimed in my posts is that I have what I consider to be an adequate understanding of how HS indwelling works, and I am always looking for an insight to improve that understanding. Don makes the following point:

Granted, God's presence being in the tabernacle while God himself was in heaven does not directly prove that the Holy Spirit indwells through the word. However, I believe indirectly this comparison fact is weighty. As I have pointed out, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all said to dwell in Christians (I Jn. 4: 15, 16; Eph. 3: 17; Rom. 8: 9). The fact that God dwelt in the tabernacle, but bodily, God was in heaven demonstrates the biblical concept of such a dwelling (Ex. 25: 8). God's presence and influence was in the tabernacle. Moreover, it is seen from this fact that the God of the Bible is not a Pantheistic God, fluid, everywhere without "body" or boundaries.

Let us revisit the doctrine of Pantheism (the doctrine of fluidal deity). The teaching that the Holy Spirit simultaneously and directly, bodily, and supernaturally indwells all Christians is a Pantheistic view of the Holy Spirit. It lends itself to the view that the Holy Spirit is really not a "person," but is some fluidal influence or force.

Frank comments:

If I have understood Don’s point (and he may of course correct me), since scripture states that God dwelt in the tabernacle but we know that in reality God was dwelling in Heaven, God must have dwelt in the tabernacle by some means other than "personally." And Don says this indwelling was by His "presence" or, even less substantially, by His "influence." Thus, Don concludes that it is impossible for the HS to dwell in an individual Christian while the HS is in Heaven, and therefore that His "indwelling" must be by some other agency, the word being a convenient choice of alternate agency. In the first place, to claim, as Don does, that God cannot simultaneously be in Heaven and in the temple is bind God with a human concept of "personality" in a way in which His word does not. Just because my understanding of "personality" makes it hard for me to see how God could be both in the temple and in Heaven--or that the HS could be both in Heaven and indwelling each Christian—-does not make either of those feats difficult for God. Unless we see a definition of "divine personality" which states, "The attributes of divine personality are such that God cannot simultaneously be in two places at the same time," we cannot know that God cannot inhabit both Heaven and a place on earth. And I don’t know of any such definition. Furthermore, there are statements made in scripture about the Divine Personality which seem to be just as inconsistent with the concept Don has stated as anything about indwelling. Solomon said, "Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built!" (1Ki 8:27). How can a Personality fill Heaven and Earth? I don’t know. Solomon said so, and God did not correct him. God promised, "I will dwell among the sons of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel" (1Ki 6:13). Did He keep that promise, or not? Don’s point here seems to be based on his assumptions about the attributes of Divine Personality, assumptions which I do not see supported in scripture.

The same problem hamstrings Don’s characterization of the notion of HS indwelling as a "pantheistic" concept. Some statements in scripture make the HS look "fluidic": Psl 139:7. Some statements make Him look like a vapor: Gen 1:2. Some statements make Him into a bird: Matt 3:16. Any of these representations might be termed "pantheistic," but uses of material pictures and languages to represent the work of the Divine Spirit seem to me inescapable, and I do not see the value of putting the label "pantheistic" on them. We can know certain things about God from looking at His creation, but the only thing we can know about the Divine Personalities themselves is from scripture. Scripture tells us that God dwelt in Heaven and in the tabernacle. Scripture does not distinguish between a "Person" of God in Heaven and a "presence" or "influence" of God in the tabernacle.

Scripture tells us that God dwells in Heaven and that the HS indwells the Christian. Scripture does not tell us that His indwelling of the Christian is "representative," and it certainly does not tell us that it is by the agency of the word. Having said all of which, I do not summarily reject Don’s very interesting suggestion about a distinction between "person" and "presence," and I invite him to comment further.

Don Martin to Frank and the list:

Frank wrote in response to my last two posts one of which contained the biblical fact of it being said that God dwelt in the tabernacle:

If I have understood Don's point (and he may of course correct me), since scripture states that God dwelt in the tabernacle but we know that in reality God was dwelling in Heaven, God must have dwelt in the tabernacle by some means other than "personally." And Don says this indwelling was by His "presence" or, even less substantially, by His "influence." Thus, Don concludes that it is impossible for the HS to dwell in an individual Christian while the HS is in Heaven, and therefore that His "indwelling" must be by some other agency, the word being a convenient choice of alternate agency.

Don comments:

This is what I said:

The fact that God dwelt in the tabernacle, but bodily, God was in heaven demonstrates the biblical concept of such a dwelling (Ex. 25: 8). God's presence and influence was in the tabernacle. Moreover, it is seen from this fact that the God of the Bible is not a Pantheistic God, fluid, everywhere without "body" or boundaries. The matter that is confusing Frank and which I do not claim to fully understand is the omnipresence of God. God's presence is in heaven, hades, and the uttermost parts of the sea (Ps. 139: 8, 9). However, bodily, God is in heaven (Ex. 25: 8, Rev. 4, 5). In fact, God's omnipresence is expressly said to be unfathomable (Ps. 139: 1-6). Moreover, God's omnipresence is not the result of God bodily being everywhere at the same time. Such a view is the fluidal or Pantheistic concept. The position that the Holy Spirit bodily and simultaneously indwells all Christians in body or mind necessitates the acceptance of Pantheism or that God is "bodiless" and is a fluid that floats around the universe without boundary definition. Since such a view entails a direct bodily indwelling of the Spirit, it is also a supernatural indwelling. The "God in man" concept generally accommodates the "special results" position, even in a gradational process among brethren that results in the advocating of extra works and influence, such as miracles and/or special benefits beyond and above anything the word can produce.  We have repeatedly noticed the correlation between the same assigned actions regarding the Spirit and the word. Since the Spirit is the animate being, the Spirit employs the word to achieve the mentioned actions (the word of God begets, sanctifies, and convicts, I Pet. 1: 23; Tit. 1: 9; Jn. 17: 17. The same accomplishment is attributed to the Holy Spirit, Jn. 3: 5; I Cor. 6: 11; Jn. 16: 8).

Frank wrote:

Furthermore, there are statements made in scripture about the Divine Personality which seem to be just as inconsistent with the concept Don has stated as anything about indwelling. Solomon said, "Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built!" (1Ki 8:27). How can a Personality fill Heaven and Earth?

Don answers:

I see no difficulty relative to I kings 8: 27. When we compare I Kings 8: 27 and Exodus 25: 8, we can and should conclude that God's presence is under consideration, not the fluidal view of God.

Frank further stated:

In the first place, to claim, as Don does, that God cannot simultaneously be in Heaven and in the temple is bind God with a human concept of "personality" in a way in which His word does not. Just because my understanding of "personality" makes it hard for me to see how God could be both in the temple and in Heaven--or that the HS could be both in Heaven and indwelling each Christian--does not make either of those feats difficult for God.

Don reflects:

Frank and those who hold the direct simultaneous miraculous bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the body or mind of Christians do not seem to understand that they are necessarily accepting and promoting the Pantheistic view of deity. God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is bodily defined, as seen. They are not some fluid mass or divine fluidal influence. Moreover, there are matters that are impossible for God (cp. Heb. 6: 18; Jas. 1: 13). God has essential personality, to which Frank has alluded, but God also has bodily presence and definition. The universe is not God, neither is God bodily everywhere (cp. Ex. 25: 8). God's presence, though, is "everywhere."

I, in closing, again submit that the direct and miraculous simultaneous bodily indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all Christians is antagonistic to the scriptures and necessarily accepts and promotes Pantheism. Since the view entails the supernatural, it also fosters Pentecostal tendencies toward the advocating of further miracles. The Holy Spirit is bodily in heaven (Rev. 4). However, He simultaneously indwells and exerts his influence on all Christians through the instrumentality of his word (Eph. 5: 18 cp. Col. 3: 16).

I have spent several posts addressing Frank's questions and I now have a question for Frank. Frank wrote: "4. The Spirit, not the word, produces unity among Christians (Eph 4:3; Jude 19)." Frank, how does the Spirit apart from the word produce unity? The list and I shall await your answer.

Frank to Don Martin and the list:

Don wrote:

I have spent several posts addressing Frank's questions and I now have a question for Frank. Frank wrote: "4. The Spirit, not the word, produces unity among Christians (Eph 4:3; Jude 19)." Frank, how does the Spirit apart from the word produce unity?

Frank comments:

I should probably not use the term "apart from the word." The Spirit in cooperation with the word, but distinct from the comprehension and obedience to the word on the part of the Christian, helps to produce unity among believers by:

1. Helping the Christian to bear the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22), all of which contribute to unity;

2. Helping the Christian to be sanctified (2Thess 2:13), which reduces the indwelling sin which often sunders fellowship.

3. Dwelling in the church (Eph 2:22), as DRS has pointed out.

4. Helping us to understand and to practice the love of God (Eph 3:14-19).

There are probably some other ways which I do not understand in which the Spirit also helps unify the church.

Don wrote regarding God's presence and dwelling:

The fact that God dwelt in the tabernacle, but bodily, God was in heaven demonstrates the biblical concept of such a dwelling (Ex. 25: 8). God's presence and influence was in the tabernacle. Moreover, it is seen from this fact that the God of the Bible is not a Pantheistic God, fluid, everywhere without "body" or boundaries. The matter that is confusing Frank and which I do not claim to fully understand is the omnipresence of God. God's presence is in heaven, hades, and the uttermost parts of the sea (Ps. 139: 8, 9). However, bodily, God is in heaven (Ex. 25: 8, Rev. 4, 5). In fact, God's omnipresence is expressly said to be unfathomable (Ps. 139: 1-6). Moreover, God's omnipresence is not the result of God bodily being everywhere at the same time. Such a view is the fluidal or Pantheistic concept. The position that the Holy Spirit bodily and simultaneously indwells all Christians in body or mind necessitates the acceptance of Pantheism or that God is "bodiless" and is a fluid that floats around the universe without boundary definition.

Frank replies:

Don, I could almost have said exactly the same thing you said about God's omnipresence. I don't fully understand it, but in some manner God is or is capable of being anywhere. I don't believe the scripture anywhere says that God has a body, I know that scripture nowhere limits His ability to be simultaneously in multiple places, and Ex 25:8 does not say that God's body is in Heaven. God's Spirit filled the apostles (Acts 2). Does that mean that the Spirit could only be in one apostle at a time? There were times when more than one inspired prophet worked in Israel; could the Spirit be in only one prophet at a time? If multiple inspired Christians were prophesying during and assembly (1Cor 12, 14), could only one of them have the Spirit at a time?

Don, I really think you are interpreting scripture by your personal concept of God's nature, rather than letting scripture tell you what God can do, for scripture does not constrain God as you do. No doubt all of us have an inadequate understanding of God's nature and capabilities. But I would not dispute clear statements in scripture about the indwelling of God's Spirit based upon my limited understanding of the nature of God.

As far as "pantheism" goes, my encyclopedia defines it as, "doctrine that identifies the universe with God." In other words, pantheism is not to be confused with the divine omnipresence; pantheism is the notion that all the objects in nature are actually a part of God. Some pantheistic philosophers have defined the entire process of existence as "God thinking about Himself." That notion has nothing to do with a "fluid" concept of God, and claiming that God personally indwells the Christian is not anything close to pantheistic.

Don wrote:

When we compare I Kings 8:27 and Exodus 25: 8, we can and should conclude that God's presence is under consideration, not the fluidal view of God.

Frank answers:

Don, I have asked for further support for your interesting suggestion that there is a distinction between God's "presence" and His "person." Is this the best you can do? Where in any text is the statement, "When I promise to dwell with you, I mean in My presence, not My person"? I am not saying that what you're suggesting is impossible, but it does seem to be nearly 100% speculative. The scriptures testify in many places that God's Spirit is given to dwell in the Christian. They testify in no place that I know that there is a distinction between God's "personality" and His "presence."

Don wrote:

God has essential personality, to which Frank has alluded, but God also has bodily presence and definition.

Frank comments:

I would not use the term "bodily presence," but I don't disagree that God has, in some sense, "definition." How is "Divine Definition" different from "Don definition" or "Frank's definition"? I don't know. Again, I would not use my own concept of what God must be like to claim that the scripture cannot mean what it says about His indwelling.

Don Martin to Frank and the list:

First, I want to thank Frank and you for your time and interest regarding the subject of the miraculous and simultaneous bodily indwelling of the Spirit in the mind or body of the Christian. I warned in my initial posts that brethren who hold the direct bodily indwelling position usually advocate some special working of the Spirit apart from the word (I am not referring to Romans 8: 26, 27 or providential matters that do not even involve the indwelling). In Frank's last post, he addressed my question about how the Spirit effects unity apart from the word and then Frank commented more on his view of God not having bodily presence.

Frank wrote regarding my question:

I should probably not use the term "apart from the word." The Spirit in cooperation with the word, but distinct from the comprehension and obedience to the word on the part of the Christian, helps to produce unity among believers by:

1. Helping the Christian to bear the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22), all of which contribute to unity.

2. Helping the Christian to be sanctified (2Thess 2:13), which reduces the indwelling sin which often sunders fellowship.

3. Dwelling in the church (Eph 2:22), as DRS has pointed out.

4. Helping us to understand and to practice the love of God (Eph 3:14-19).

There are probably some other ways which I do not understand in which the Spirit also helps unify the church.

Don comments:

It appears that Frank is moving closer to the truth, at least regarding the matter of, "I should probably not use the term 'apart from the word.'" About the time I was excited for Frank, he inserts: "but distinct from the comprehension and obedience to the word on the part of the Christian, helps to produce unity...."

Frank definitely has taught the special operation of the Spirit beyond the word in matters of unity. Hear him:

"But the word alone will not produce unity, as division among sincere baptized believers who are all doing their best to follow their Lord surely proves. I am convinced that the neglect and outright hindrance of the Holy Spirit's work in the church is one of the reasons we are divided."

Frank has now explained that the way the Spirit effects unity is in the matters of one through four (listed above). I would concur that the Spirit effects unity in this fashion. It was I, though, who submitted that the Spirit works through the word to accomplish such (cp. I Cor. 1: 10). Frank appears to be in a transitional mode and is a little hard to pin down. It is my hope that Frank is moving more in the direction of truth. However, I still do not know what "but distinct from the comprehension and obedience to the word on the part of the Christian" entails.

Frank then addressed the matter of the fluidity of God (the simultaneous bodily indwelling necessitates the view that deity is fluid and able to "bodily indwell" all Christians at the same time). Frank was a little verbose in his comments and I shall only be able to insert an excerpt upon which to comment:

Frank wrote:

I don't fully understand it, but in some manner God is or is capable of being anywhere. I don't believe the scripture anywhere says that God has a body, I know that scripture nowhere limits His ability to be simultaneously in multiple places, and Ex 25:8 does not say that God's body is in Heaven. God's Spirit filled the apostles (Acts 2). Does that mean that the Spirit could only be in one apostle at a time?

Don reflects:

All who hold the simultaneous indwelling of the Spirit teaching entertain a misunderstanding of the essential "nature" of deity. I have repeatedly pointed out that there is a marked differencebetween God's presence and the location of his person, if you will. Yes, God has definable bodily location, He is in heaven. Regarding this, I have said: The scriptures teach the Father, Son, and the Holy Sprit indwell the Christian (I Jn. 4: 16; Eph. 3: 17; I Cor. 6: 19, 20, Eph. 5: 18). It was said that God dwelt in the tabernacle (Ex. 25: 8). Notwithstanding, God, the divine being, dwelt in heaven (I Kgs. 8: 10-13, 30, 34, 36). Beloved, the presence of God was in the tabernacle, but he himself (his "person") was in heaven. Because of God's presence (not bodily location), the people prayed "toward this place" (the tablenacle, I Kgs. 8: 30). Notice the remainder of the verse, "and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place...." The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are bodily in heaven (Rev. 4, 5). By "bodily" I mean "person location" as distinguished from omnipresence (I Kgs. 8: 10-13; 30, 34, 36). I have been waiting for the point that the apostles were all filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 4). Does this mean that the person of the Spirit was disbursed and diffused so that He (or it, some influence) became a fluid. Could this be what "pour out...of my Spirit" means (Acts 2: 17)? I think not. The idea, I submit, is simply that of the influence of the Spirit. The apostles were immersed in the miraculous power and influence of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1: 5). They all simultaneously experienced this inundation in supernatural power.

In closing this post, I again emphasize that the miraculous and simultaneous bodily indwelling of the Spirit in the mind or body of the Christian necessarily is a combination of Pantheism (the fluidity of deity), ancient paganism, and Pentecostalism. It not only distorts deity, but the view results in a special working of the Holy Spirit in addition to and beyond the word. Another matter I have not injected is that the view usually creates a sort of "word independence" and "special reliance" on the Spirit for guidance. Also frequently seen in the full blown version is an inflated ego, the "I have the Holy Spirit and you do not, even though you have the word" mentality. Let me hasten to say, I am not seeing this in Frank in this exchange.

Eric to Don Martin and the list:

There is absolutely nothing "axiomatic" that can be said about the causal relationship between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because of the association of effects attributed to the word and effects attributed to the indwelling of the Spirit.

All the word of truth can do is inform the will. It cannot empower anyone beyond the capabilities of the unaided human will. The question, then, is whether the unaided human will is capable of completely satisfying the requirements of God's will. Rom 7.14-24 answers that question decisively in the negative. Human will alone will "always" be defeated by the "law of sin and death which is in the members." I know this is no longer a widely held view among us, but I consider it incontrovertible that Paul is teaching in this passage that unaided human will is incapable of conquering the carnal nature. (Paul also teaches that we need the Spirit to conquer the carnal nature in Gal 5.17.)....

Having made "that" clear, what I attribute to the Spirit, "separate and apart from the word" is help and strength to do what the unaided human will cannot do. The Spirit "informs" my will through the word of Truth, the "sword of the Spirit." That is the "only" way I know God's will. No "inner light" or "inner leading." But even after my will is fully informed of God's will, which is what the Spirit accomplishes with the word, I still need help overcoming "the law of sin and death which is in my members" (i.e. my carnal nature)....

Don Martin to Eric and the list:

Eric wrote:

There is absolutely nothing "axiomatic" that can be said about the causal relationship between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because of the association of effects attributed to the word and effects attributed to the indwelling of the Spirit.

Don answers:

Eric is evidently referring to my following statement: "the word of God begets, sanctifies, and convicts (I Pet. 1: 23; Tit. 1: 9; Jn. 17: 17). The same accomplishment is attributed to the Holy Spirit (Jn. 3: 5; I Cor. 6: 11; Jn. 16: 8). I submit, therefore, that the Spirit (the being) uses the agency of the word (the instrument) to beget, sanctify, and convict." Eric, the only substantial way you can discount the above is to show some reason for rejection. I have often used the simple illustration: "Joe killed the snake with the hoe." Did Joe kill the snake? The answer is, yes. Did the hoe kill the snake? The answer is, yes. Is there a contradiction? No, Joe, the animate being, killed the snake with the hoe (the inanimate instrument). For it to be successfully stated that Joe did not kill the snake with the hoe, it must be shown otherwise. Without any contributing factors, Joe killed the snake with the hoe. Without any otherwise contributing factors, the Holy Spirit begets with or through the word (I Pet. 1: 23, Jn. 3: 5).

Eric continued:

All the word of truth can do is inform the will. It cannot empower anyone beyond the capabilities of the unaided human will. The question, then, is whether the unaided human will is capable of completely satisfying the requirements of God's will. Rom 7.14-24 answers that question decisively in the negative. Human will alone will "always" be defeated by the "law of sin and death which is in the members." I know this is no longer a widely held view among us, but I consider it incontrovertible that Paul is teaching in this passage that unaided human will is incapable of conquering the carnal nature. (Paul also teaches that we need the Spirit to conquer the carnal nature in Gal 5.17.)....

Having made "that" clear, what I attribute to the Spirit, "separate and apart from the word" is help and strength to do what the unaided human will cannot do. The Spirit "informs" my will through the word of Truth, the "sword of the Spirit." That is the "only" way I know God's will. No "inner light" or "inner leading." But even after my will is fully informed of God's will, which is what the Spirit accomplishes with the word, I still need help overcoming "the law of sin and death which is in my members" (i.e. my carnal nature).....

Don observes:

Eric, you seem to be experiencing much ambivalence in the above. You mention Romans 7: 14-24 and explain it as "unaided human will is incapable of conquering the carnal nature." (I understand Romans 7: 14-24 to be describing the struggles of the Jew under the Law of Moses.) You then add: "Paul also teaches that we need the Spirit to conquer the carnal nature in Gal 5.17." Concerning the word, you said: "All the word of truth can do is inform the will. It cannot empower anyone beyond the capabilities of the unaided human will." Relative to the Holy Spirit, you then write: "Having made 'that' clear, what I attribute to the Spirit, 'separate and apart from the word' is help and strength to do what the unaided humanwill cannot do."

Eric, perhaps you were having a bad word day when you wrote the above (I have such days sometimes). I would agree that the word is empowered through the Spirit. I would concur that the Spirit through the word provides the strength to do what the unaided human will cannot do. However, you said: "what I attribute to the Spirit, 'separate and apart from the word' is help and strength to do what the unaided humanwill cannot do." After saying the foregoing, you staunchly deny Calvinism and warn the reader not to accuse you of Calvinism. Eric, I think you saw why some would view your statements as gradational Calvinism.

Eric and list members, I have never seen it fail that when one embraces the initial premise that the Holy Spirit miraculously and directly, in a bodily fashion, simultaneously indwells all Christians, they have, first of all, accepted a fluidal view of deity and they have imbibed a Calvinistic concept of the working of the Holy Spirit, at least on a certain gradation.

Eric to Don Martin and the list:

I understand metonymy. And I am in full agreement with the case of 1Pet 1.23 and Jn 3.5. I do not believe or maintain that the Spirit acts on the heart of the unbeliever other than through the word. But we are not discussing how the Spirit works on the heart of the unbeliever. We are discussing how the Spirit works in the life of the believer. I am going to elaborate on this by taking part of your post out of order and quoting it here. In response to my references to Calvinism.

Don wrote:

After saying the foregoing, you staunchly deny Calvinism and warn the reader not to accuse you of Calvinism. Eric, I think you saw why some would view your statements as gradational Calvinism.

Eric and list members, I have never seen it fail that when one embraces the initial premise that the Holy Spirit miraculously and directly, in a bodily fashion, simultaneously indwells all Christians, they have, first of all, accepted a fluidal view of deity and they have imbibed a Calvinistic concept of the working of the Holy Spirit, at least to a certain gradation.

Eric remarks:

So I take it that in your view Moses Lard was a "gradational Calvinist?" Frankly, this is getting insulting. How informed is your understanding of Calvinism? Most Christians know only a caricature of it presented from pulpits or "church papers." Here you try to soften the blow of your ad hominem argument by calling it "gradational." That only insults my intelligence. You want to discuss Calvinism with me? Fine. But do me the favor of telling me your understanding of "total depravity" and its relation to "the bondage of the will" before we begin that discussion. Greater men than you or I have gone down this path before. During   what we call the "Restoration Era" of the 19th century, one of the common arguments "against" Calvinism was that the unmediated presence of the Spirit was a promise to Christians. Hence, the HS could not, and did not, act on the heart of the unbeliever except through the word. And hence your appeal to metonymy in the case of 1Pet 1.23 and Jn 3.5 is quite beside the point. There is no disagreement among us on how the Spirit works on the heart of the unbeliever.

Don wrote further:

Eric, you seem to be experiencing much ambivalence in the above. You mention Romans 7: 14-24 and explain it as "unaided human will is incapable of conquering the carnal nature." (I understand Romans 7: 14-24 to be describing the struggles of the Jew under the Law of Moses.)

Eric comments:

Ah, we agree on something! We just apparently do not agree on the implication. I, too, understand the "wretched man" passage of Rom 7 to be describing the struggles of the Jew under the Law of Moses. But why did they so struggle? Because they did not have the indwelling Spirit to help them! To wit I cite as evidence, Jn 8.38,39. Not to mention the fact that (a) the Spirit is never mentioned in Rom 7.7-25, and (b) Rom 7.5-6 serves as a synopsis of Rom 7 and 8, with v. 5 summarizing 7.7-25, and v. 6 summarizing Rom 8.1ff.

Don continued to write:

Eric, concerning the word, you said: "All the word of truth can do is inform the will. It cannot empower anyone beyond the capabilities of the unaided human will." Relative to the Holy Spirit, you then write: "Having made 'that' clear, what I attribute to the Spirit, 'separate and apart from the word' is help and strength to do what the unaided humanwill cannot do."

Eric, perhaps you were having a bad word day when you wrote the above (I have such days sometimes). I would agree that the word is empowered through the Spirit. I would concur that the Spirit through the word provides the strength to do what the unaided human will cannot do.

Eric challenges:

Wait just a minute! There is no concurrence here, and I don't think it is because I was having a bad word day (though who's to say?). Are you suggesting the word has some power in the life of the Christian that it did not have in the life of the Jew? I seriously doubt it. But whatever else we might think that the "indwelling of the HS" refers to, it is something that Christians have, and that Jews didn't have (again, Jn 7.28,39). Yet they had the Law. And some of the highest praises we can sing about the "power of the word" comes from the OT, e.g. Ps 119.

So maybe you need to explain what you mean by "the word being empowered through the Spirit." Was the "word ... of the OT... empowered through the Spirit." I think that is a straight forward question that can be given a straight-forwardanswer. If you say "Yes, the word ... of the OT ... was empowered through the Spirit," then I will respond "No, Rom 7 says it was not." If you say "No, the Spirit empowers the word for Christians in a way that it did not empower it for Jews in the OT" then I'd say "Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, I think maybe I could agree with that!" But I'll be extremely surprised if you concede that. And if you do not, then there is no concurrence in our understanding of how the Spirit empowers the Christian to overcome the limitations of the unaided human will.

Don, thanks for a great post, and the great spirit in which it was presented. I truly mean that, even though I do find the incessant need to bring "Calvinism" into the subject disparaging and insulting. I just think you act in ignorance, and do not intend to have this effect. I think you mean well, but trust me: I know enough about Calvinism to know that I am not "Calvinist" in the least bit. I am not even a "gradational Calvinist". I may be Arminian. I may be Semi-Pelagian. I may be a lot of things. But if you are going to use theologically loaded labels like "Calvinism" you need to use them responsibly, and in the sense that they are used in informed discussions of theology. Inventing your own meanings and usage could be just a cloak for ad hominem reasoning.

Don Martin to Eric and the list:

Eric wrote:

Thanks for a great post, and the great spirit in which it was presented. I truly mean that, even though I do find the incessant need to bring "Calvinism" into the subject disparaging and insulting. I just think you act in ignorance, and do not intend to have this effect. I think you mean well, but trust me: I know enough about Calvinism to know that I am not "Calvinist" in the least bit.

Don comments:

Eric, it was you not I who made the argument on Romans 7. You mentioned Romans 7: 14-24 and explained it as "unaided human will is incapable of conquering the carnal nature." You then add: "Paul also teaches that we need

the Spirit to conquer the carnal nature in Gal 5.17." Concerning the word, you said: "All the word of truth can do is inform the will. It cannot empower anyone beyond the capabilities of the unaided human will." Relative to the Holy Spirit, you then write: "Having made 'that' clear, what I attribute to the Spirit, 'separate and apart from the word' is help and strength to do what the unaided human will cannot do."

I would concur that the Spirit through the word provides the strength to do what the unaided human will cannot do. However, you said: "what I attribute to the Spirit, 'separate and apart from the word' is help and strength to do what the unaided humanwill cannot do." I said and still say that such a view is graditional Calvinism.

Eric wrote:

So I take it that in your view Moses Lard was a "gradational Calvinist?" Frankly, this is getting insulting. How informed is your understanding of Calvinism?

Don answers:

Eric, I think it is amusing that you would be questioning my knowledge of Calvinism. I was brought up after the strictest sect of Calvinists (Primitive Baptist), having descended from a long line of staunch aforeordinationalists, and then I attended Baptist Seminary. I know Calvinism inside and out, if I may humbly say so. Perhaps this is one reason I can readily identify gradations of Calvinism.

Eric expostulates:

I, too, understand the "wretched man" passage of Rom 7 to be describing the struggles of the Jew under the Law of Moses. But why did they so struggle? Because they did not have the indwelling Spirit to help them!.... Are you suggesting the word has some power in the life of the Christian that it did not have in the life of the Jew? I seriously doubt it. But whatever else we might think that the "indwelling of the HS" refers to, it is something that Christians have, and that Jews didn't have....

Don responds:

Eric, the message of the Spirit contains comparatively more in regards to man today than it did to the Jew of old. John emphatically wrote, "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us...." (I Jn. 3: 1). There is the word articulated hope of being like Jesus when he returns (vs. 2). In view of this emphatic declaration, John wrote: "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" (vs. 3). Man today has a "more sure word of prophecy" and access to the "great salvation" (2 Pet. 1: 19; Heb. 2: 1-3). There is, then, certainly a significant difference between the word to the Jew and man today (see Romans 7: 25)

Eric wrote:

So maybe you need to explain what you mean by "the word being empowered through the Spirit."

Don replies:

Eric and the list, my present plans are to have a post simply on the matter of the Spirit empowering the word. However, allow me to briefly respond at this time. "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2: 37). I know, Eric, you have attempted to distinguish between the non-Christian and the Christian relative to how the Spirit works. Nonetheless, please allow me to share this with you. From the time I was about six years old, Primitive Baptist preachers ordained me to preach (they would "lay their hands on me"). Many of these preachers spent time with me to prepare me to preach Baptist doctrine. From an early age, though, I was different and questioned much of their teaching. They claimed to have the Spirit miraculously indwelling them. As a logical result, they claimed their preaching was directly Spirit supplied. "We do not have to study, Don," they explained to me, "we have the Spirit indwelling us." They said this because I would study and take notes. Verses such as Acts 2: 37 troubled me and I had difficulty reconciling them to the standard Calvinistic concept of the Spirit working separately from the word. "When they heard this" and equivalent expressions throughout the New Testament really stood out to me. All men heard the same and in precisely the same way: The Spirit worked through the word, whether they were sinner or saint.

Hear me carefully, please: Without the Spirit, the scriptures would be without their efficacy. The gospel is God's "power" but so is the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1: 16; 15: 13). Eric, I realize that you have trouble with this, but please listen again: The Spirit is the source of the energy, efficacy, and imputes in a spiritual scenario just as John was in the simple example of killing the snake with the hoe. The hoe alone is nothing, it lacks the efficacy. John empowered the hoe; so it is with the Spirit and the word, God's instrument.

Don Martin to the list:

As I mentioned, I did not read all the initial posts under the subject line of the indwelling of the Spirit. I do, though, especially thank those who have asked me questions and have even disagreed with my posts. I think the exchange has been revealing and a means for the reader to more precisely determine the truth. I have maintained that the Spirit dwells in the Christian through the word, the same way Jesus does (Eph. 3: 17). I have contended that the miraculous and simultaneous bodily indwelling of the Spirit is based on the fluidal concept of deity, God is a fluid and has no bodily location. I have also said that the teaching of the miraculous indwelling of God within the body or mind of the Christian lends itself to Pentecostalism and the claim of a special working of the Spirit apart from and outside of the word. In this, my intended final post, I want to end on a positive note by stressing the Spirit's use of the word.

Some have argued that if the indwelling of the Spirit is a matter of the word, then, atheists who memorized the word would have the Spirit. I have pointed out in my many posts that the word indwelling Christians denotes a relationship and control (I Jn. 3: 6-10). God dwells in the Christian and the Christian dwells in God (I Jn. 3: 24). The Bible apart from the work of the Holy Spirit would not have the "power" that it does, yes, I meant to say that! The gospel derives its "power" from the Spirit working through it to transform the minds and lives of people who will embrace it (Rom. 1: 16 cp. 15: 13). The Spirit is the intelligence and the word is His instrument. This is why to reject the word is tantamount to rejecting the Spirit (Acts 7). I have already used the example of Joe or John (I think I mentioned both names) killing the snake with the hoe. Joe is the intelligence, the impetus, and the efficacy and the hoe is the instrument. After this same fashion, I submit the Holy Spirit is the intelligence, impetus, and efficacy and the word is the instrument. The Bible stands alone in this regard.

I take issue with brethren who teach the direct bodily indwelling of the Spirit, but I take equal issue with brethren on the other extreme, those who believe the Holy Spirit is inactive today. I have been told, "all work has been done, the Spirit provided the word and he thereafter is inactive." Listen to me carefully, please, I do not view the Bible simply as a Book or even as a Book from God. The Bible is the medium of the powerful Holy Spirit, it is that "which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (I Thes. 2: 13). The Holy Spirit, then, is presently active from the point of one becoming a Christian and throughout the person's growth and maturation process. While it is true that the Spirit makes intercession, such has nothing to do with the indwelling issue (Rom. 8: 26, 27). The fact of God's providence also is irrelevant as far as our exchange is concerned (I Pet. 3: 12). The Spirit does not work separate and apart from the word or in addition to it. Just as Joe did not kill the snake but by means of the hoe, if you will pardon the simplicity of the illustration.

"Don is saying the same thing that I have said," is not correct if you have argued for the direct indwelling. I know that the view, "God is everywhere, therefore, he has no bodily location and is fluid" is common in the church. The first time I engaged in serious study of the fluidal concept and of the direct, without means indwelling of the Spirit was when I was nineteen. I had just successfully debated a Catholic Priest and I then challenged a United Pentecostal preacher. He accepted and I had my hands full. I have never studied so much in such a short time in all my life. The debate was very educational and helped me to see the untenability of the direct indwelling position so common in the church, even today. The Christian enjoys a special and unique relationship with the Holy Spirit. However, every aspect and nuance of this relationship is through and contingent upon the word (Eph. 1: 12-16). To advocate the miraculous and simultaneous bodily indwelling of the Spirit in the body or mind of all Christians is to set the stage for many digressions, to say nothing of the initial position being fallacious.

Again, thank all of you for your time, those who have participated and those of you who have read the exchange.

Don Martin to Steve Gallager and the list:

Steve wrote, first quoting me:

Steve to Don Martin,

While the scriptures teach the omnipresence of God, God is bodily, if you will, in heaven (Ps. 139; 2 Chroni. 6: 18 cp. 21, 23).

God is "bodily" somewhere?

"God is Spirit..." -Jn 4: 24; "a spirit does not have flesh and bones..." -Lk 24: 39

Don comments:

I imagine that Steve is joking or seeking to inject some humor into the indwelling of the Spirit discussion. While I say this, there was at least one other who did think I was advocating God has flesh and bones based on my use of the word "bodily." Words must be observed as they are used and the author allowed to define them. Again, while I think Steve is joking (I do not mind), here was my full statement:

"...Let us return to a simple biblical fact: In connection with the building of the temple in which God would dwell, the following was said: "But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built" (2 Chroni. 6: 18). God would dwell in the temple, but the temple would not contain God, he would dwell with men on earth. Notice also that heaven would not and could not contain God. Yet, we read that heaven is God's dwelling place (vs. 21, 23). God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are presently in heaven (Rom. 4, 5, etc.). What can we learn from all of this?

I believe the lesson is that God, whether the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, has a bodily definition and delineation. God is not fluid, shapeless, and some without boundary mass. This is what I mean by "bodily." God has a location as opposed to being throughout the universe or the universe itself.

How, then, could God have also dwelt in the temple and with men?. The answer is God's presence is without boundary (Ps. 139). In the sense of God's presence, he is everywhere. Do I totally understand this? No. However, this is how God was actually and literally in heaven, and yet dwelt in the temple and with men....."

Don further comments:

The scriptures are emphatic about deity not possessing flesh and bones (Lk. 24: 39; I Cor. 15: 50). However, this does not mean that God is a fluid mass, without boundary definition. In order for the Holy Spirit to simultaneously and directly indwell all Christians, he would have to be fluid. Of whatever substance God is, He is "bodily" defined.

Don Martin to Jamie Regis and the list (post one of two):

Jamie wrote:

Don Martin in his previous posts has demonstrated this strain of denial, raising objections based not upon scriptural issues but obviously upon his own discomfort with the notion of direct indwelling.

Don comments:

I thought every argument and objection that I offered against the simultaneous and direct bodily indwelling of the Spirit in all Christians was a scriptural objection, that is, appealed to scripture.

Jamie continued, first quoting me:

The latest:

"Let us return to a simple biblical fact: In connection with the building of the temple in which God would dwell, the following was said: "But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built" (2Chroni. 6: 18). God would dwell in the temple, but the temple would not contain God, he would dwell with men on earth. Notice also that heaven would not and could not contain God. Yet, we read that heaven is God's dwelling place (vs. 21, 23). God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are presently in heaven (Rom. 4, 5, etc.). What can we learn from all of this?

I believe the lesson is that God, whether the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, has a bodily definition and delineation. God is not fluid, shapeless, and some without boundary mass. This is what I mean by 'bodily.' God has a location as opposed to being throughout the universe or the universe itself.

How, then, could God have also dwelt in the temple and with men?. The answer is God's presence is without boundary (Ps. 139). In the sense of God's presence, he is everywhere. Do I totally understand this? No. However, this is how God was actually and literally in heaven, and yet dwelt in the temple and with men."

My comment upon Don's speculation:

I agree with much of what Don has written here, and I certainly agree that I do not understand all aspects of God's nature. I do not, however, believe Don's inferences constitute a substantive objection to the direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I cannot find any text in scripture in which God promised to dwell within the walls of the temple. Solomon's statement quoted by Don I believe accurately reflects the nature of God--He cannot be contained by the entire universe. I believe Don would agree that this fact applies to the Son as well as the Father and the Holy Spirit--that is, the entire universe cannot contain the Son.

But the Son dwelt within the body of Jesus on earth, dwelt within that body in every meaningful sense of the term "dwelt within," unless the Gnostics were right (and Don is not a Gnostic, though I would respectfully point out that many of the objections he has raised to the direct indwelling of the Spirit were also raised by one strain of Gnostics).

Don comments:

Jamie, you are closer to understanding my points that you realize. The reference to God not being able to be contained in the temple is pertaining to God's presence. This is what we mean by the omnipresence of God (Ps. 139). In this respect, God is everywhere. He was in the temple and among men (2 Chroni. 6: 18, 21, 23). However, he himself (bodily definition and location) was in heaven, his dwelling place (Ibid.).

Yes, Jamie, the Logos (the Word) dwelt literally in a physical body. We refer to this phenomenon as the incarnation of Jesus. Jamie, consider the language of Hebrews 10: 5:

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." In the language of John, "...Jesus Christ is come in the flesh..." (I Jn. 4: 2). Jesus, yes, the Son of God, left heaven, please notice this point (Phili. 2: 6-8). Please observe that Jesus WAS IN heaven, his location bodily speaking. He dwelt in a physical body prepared for him. Notice, a body, not bodies simultaneously. Hence, Jesus, the Word, had bodily definition and location, he was in heaven. He left heaven and dwelt in a body, one body. See the point, Jamie?

Please read post two.

Don Martin to Jamie Regis and the list (post two of two):

Jamie wrote:

But God did dwell within the Body of Jesus.

Don comments:

Jamie, I am not sure that I know what you mean by this. Jesus, the Logos, dwelt in his physical body. Jesus (the Logos in a physical body) was all God, deity, not partial (Col. 2: 9).

Jamie asked:

Here is a critical point about this objection and the other objections Don and Dudley Ross Spears have raised: they are based on suppositions which we have no way of knowing to be true--in this specific case, suppositions about the way God the Holy Spirit must "locate" Himself, and conclusions about the possibility of "confining" the Holy Spirit. If the universe cannot contain God, is it impossible for the Holy Spirit to dwell within a human body?

Don comments:

Jamie, it is my understanding that if the Holy Spirit directly and bodily indwells the body of the Christian, you would have the same phenomenon as when the Word occupied a human body, God in man, an incarnation. This is one of the primary reasons that I object to the teaching of the direct indwelling of the Spirit. Not only would you have the situation of incarnation (God indwelling a human body), but you would also have God, the Holy Spirit, simultaneously bodily indwelling the bodies of all Christians. See the point?

Jamie's illustration:

I am going back to this illustration which I have used repeatedly, because no one has denied or can deny its applicability.

Suppose Dudley Ross Spears states to you, "Don Martin lives in a house at 123 Elm Street." We all agree what Dudley has said; what does he mean? He might mean any of several things:

1. Don lives, personally and directly, at 123 Elm Street.

2. Don does not personally live there, but he did a lot of work on the house, and the distinctive style of his work is obvious.

3. Don used to live there and left a lot of his writings in the library of that house, and his influence pervades that house.

If Dudley says, "Don Martin lives in a house at 123 Elm Street," and doesn't add anything else, what would you conclude? If Don is alive, and lives somewhere, and there is no indication in Dudley's tone that he is not making to you a direct statement, what would you think he meant? You would conclude that he is trying to tell you that Don personally abides at 123 Elm.

Suppose further that Dudley makes this same statement to you not one time but several times, maybe 15 or 20 times. He tells you over and over again that Don Martin lives at 123 Elm. He never gives you a hint that he is not stating a fact about Don's abode.

Would you then say, "But Dudley, I don't know where Don lives, because you never told me that Don DIRECTLY AND PERSONALLY lives at 123 Elm"?

Don answers:

Jamie, you are missing the point, God has said something else. Language must be understood in the milieu in which it was written. Take this case: Don Martin lives at 123 Elm, 5667 Oak, and 6512 Pecan. Now, what are you going to say to this? The Spirit indwells all Christians (Eph. 5: 18). Now, how can Don Martin live at 123 Elm, 5667 Oak, and 6512 Pecan all at the same time? Don Martin has bodily definition and location. Don Martin is not a fluid or mass without boundary delineation. The answer would be that Don lives at these locations in his influence (my families houses). Thus it is with the Holy Spirit.

I received mail the other day from a lost cousin. I had just sent them some pictures, one including a recent photograph of me (it is amazing that she even wrote back). Her mother who knew my father said, "I thought the picture was your father, I can sure see your father in you." What is meant by this? I have physical traits of my father. "I can sure see your daddy in you," one told one of my daughters. What was meant by this? The person could see my influence in my daughter. In this precise sense, the Holy Spirit simultaneously indwells all Christians as they allow him to influence and mold their lives by means of His word (Eph. 5: 18, Col. 3: 16).

Jamie wrote:

I agree. If the Holy Spirit directly indwells my body, that indwelling is not "normal." It is in some sense miraculous, in the same sense that the day I was baptized Jesus' blood miraculously washed away my sins. Why accept one miracle and deny the other?

Don comments:

Jamie, there is a big difference between accepting the spiritual washing of Jesus' blood and in advocating a doctrine that is tantamount to the physical and miraculous incarnation doctrine: the Holy Spirit bodily indwelling flesh, all Christians at the same time. This phenomenon is limited to Jesus having a body prepared for him. This event is single in history and is limited to one entity (the Word) and one physical body.

In closing, Jamie wrote:

As I stated in my post yesterday, scripture does not teach that the indwelling of the Spirit "replaces" the word. Only the word tells us God's will. The indwelling Spirit does nothing except help us do what our intellect has apprehended we must do according to our understanding of the word. The help that the Spirit can give us is limited by the extent to which we understand the word, and by the level of our commitment to God. The indwelling Holy Spirit does not force me to do something against my will. If I will to turn away from my faith, the Spirit will not stop me. The Spirit helps me bear fruit, but I must do my part.

Don comments:

One thing a like about Jamie is that he carefully selects his words. Jamie expresses himself more precisely than I have ever seen done by many who hold the direct indwelling doctrine. "Don, you cannot understand the scriptures as well as I do," I had one person to tell me, "because you do not have the Spirit personally in you to explain the scriptures." After you carefully examine Jamie's above well qualified and thought out statement, you still have the Spirit offering special assistance. Hence, the person in whom the Spirit does not directly reside does not have this special assistance.