i definitely don't think Paul's reference to the "spirit" is bologna or just good feelings. Rather the various interpretations i've encountered thus far anyway do seem that way.

My dad is rather fond of Franklin Camp's defense of the "word only" view. However 'rational' Camp makes his explanation sound, it seems as forced an interpretation as is Calvinistic election or dispensationalism or what not. It also seems to fabricate tightly distinct categories between miraculous and non-miraculous and all the lovely-decades of debating over definitions that have followed. It certainly creates an intellectual milieu quite susceptible to deism.

i remember taking kids to a few youth rallies back when i did youth ministry and heard progressive guys equate the "spirit" with feeling good about this or that. The spirit communicating with us meant little more than whatever your gut/intuition/emotions pointed you to at the time. No offense to any of those guys, but i have no doubt that on occasions i've felt very negative about some decision on account of eating too many jalapenos the night before or having practiced very poor sleeping habits the entire week prior as opposed to any "spirit-compass" experience. Further, like i said before, if these guys are right, i'm half-way toward being a Mormon. i'll just pray and ask God for a "burning in my bosom" about anything at all (including the reliability of mormon-documents) and my good feelings will be the answer. i don't buy it. The heart is deceitful above all things, says the prophet. Mine certainly is. Self-deception is a skill at which all men gain near-instantaneous expertise. i'm very hesitant to lick my heart, hold it up to the wind, wait for the breeze and call it "The Spirit." i have no idea how i'd tell the difference between "the spirit" and a variety of other influential forces working on my intuitions and emotions.

And in Calvinism, the "spirit" seems like little more than the strings attached to the marionettes they call "the elect." Once there were motionless blocks of wood, then God put some special strings on some of them, He pulled those strings, and now some of them move. i definitely don't buy that.

Growing up in the CoC, my experience has been that you use the term "holy spirit" any time you don't really know what happened or how it happened or how to explain something. If something is mysterious or our explanation has a gap or we don't know exactly how something works, we say "oh, the spirit did that," or "it'll all work out through the holy spirit" or "i learned it from the indwelling Holy Spirit" etc. etc. So i guess this means some people decide that Paul is just vague, so we can be vague too. That seems like a cop-out in a way to me.

The majority of things i read just don't sound even near plausible to me. i only feel semi-confident in my understands of a couple passages regarding the Spirit. But not most. But like i said, i certainly don't conclude that Paul wrote bologna or warm fuzzy vagueness. i realize something critical is going on there. i'm just not sure what it is. the only thing i have is a suspicion that the administration of gifts (tongues, prophecy, healings, etc.) was far more integral and critical to the function and make up of the early church than we may have traditionally thought. Other than that, i'm largely puzzled.

–Guy

My view of the Spirit has developed over decades of study. I distinctly remember a moment when I concluded it was all just metaphor of no real substance (bologna) or warm and fuzzy vagueness.

I knew that couldn't be right, but it was the best I could come up with. But only seconds later, after a prayer for God's help, I realized I'd been reading all the passages with some false assumptions — especially about what God really expects from us.

That same day, Rom 8 and Heb 8 began to make sense to me — and became key parts of my understanding of how it all fits together. And obviously the men who wrote those chapters intended exactly that result. If Rom 8 doesn't tie up chapters 1 – 7 with a ribbon, bringing it all together for you, then you've misunderstood – because as a matter of literary structure, Rom 8 is the climax of all that goes before.

God willing, in the next few weeks I'll put up a series on the Spirit. It occurs to me that while I've written a lot on the subject, the posts are scattered across countless different series. It'd likely be helpful to consolidate the thoughts in one place and try to tie it all together.

But I doubt I can get to it before March.

first, you're interlocuter points out that the OT was not external-based, but that God desired their hearts every bit as much as now. Yet you conclude that Jesus contrasted rule-based with heart-based. i'm quite confused. Sounds like you drew AC's original conclusion, not IM's.

Second, i won't lie, i read a lot of the "Spirit" passages and am just dumbfounded. i have no idea what most of them are talking about. i've read and heard work on them by the various conservative camps and a couple progressivists. And the majority of it sounds like bologna to me. i've read guys who say "Spirit" amounts to nothing more than words on a page. i can't make much sense of first-century history if i buy that. i've heard sermons from guys who more or less said that the "Spirit" was about warm fuzzy feelings which make you feel positive or negative about something. Sounds like i'm well on my way to being a Mormon if i buy that.

And yet you're hinging quite a great deal of your ideology on these obscure passages. Seems like a gambler's hermeneutic.

–Guy

I believe you are right about worship in Spirit. However, have you considered how "love in… truth" in 1 John 3:18 might inform our understanding of John 4:24, "worship… in truth"?

I do not mean that you are wrong, but I wonder if this does not add another dimension to worship in truth.

I blogged on this here<a>.

Thanks for a good article!

I taught a lesson thirty years ago about the simplicity of the Christian faith and used the same reasoning.

It was so profound that the congregation was dumbfounded.

I'm not sure we still "get it". Your explanation is too simple. Are there any rules to follow for decorum and order that are not legalistic?

Thank you for the encouragement..

Bob