THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

By: Daniel McMillin

MY TESTIMONY: PETRIFIED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

Truth is the highest aim we seek to ascertain. In order to uncover the truth, at times it is necessary to admit we are wrong and change our minds. There are some things I have learned along the way that have caused me to shift my worldview and adjust my assumptions. But nothing had altered my life so drastically until I finally realized I was wrong about the Holy Spirit.

For the longest time, I was terrified of the Trinity. To be more specific, I was scared of the Holy Spirit. Whenever I read my Bible or contemplated God, I found my thoughts in constant tension. This pressure upon my mind and soul caused me to be petrified any time I listened to a sermon or read a book and heard God’s Spirit mentioned. I have heard and seen wild speculation on the Holy Spirit that deeply troubled me. My questions about the Holy Spirit were left unanswered for many years as I wrestled with what I really believed about the third person of the Trinity. The main source of such internal conflict was centered on whether or not the Holy Spirit indwells the believer today. Within the latter part of the Twentieth century, many brethren have debated the topic of the Holy Spirit and even gone so far as to divide lines of fellowship.[1] As I would dwell and discuss the subject, I found myself in constant doubt about not only the role of the Holy Spirit but also His personhood.[2] In many ways, the Spirit was set adrift in my mind because I did not know what the Spirit (or whether the Spirit) does anything today.

The default view I was taught on the Holy Spirit was that the Spirit only indwells through the Scriptures. This position is often referred to as the “Representative” or “Word Only” view of the Spirit. The inception of this view can be seen as an innovation of the Twentieth century counteracting the charismatic movement alongside Calvinism.[3] Many of the proponents for this belief was a desire to preserve biblical authority located in the New Testament over and against personal interpretations made by those who appeal to the Spirit’s personal guidance and revelation. However, the extreme measures that this viewpoint draws run the risk of diminishing the divinity, activity, personhood, and presence of the Holy Spirit.

From my personal struggle with this subject, I can attest to this confusion and pressure socially, theologically, and spiritually. Those who hold to another view of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are viewed as outcasts and heretics, thereby labeled as “liberal,” “unbiblical,” or “false teacher.” It was incredibly difficult to properly understand the Holy Spirit due to these pressures and the absence of Trinitarian theology as a foundation which offers a constructive framework for contemplating the third person. Possibly the most troubling experience within this perspective was every time I read the word “Spirit” in my Bible I was filled with fear. I was not equipped to explain what the passage meant, and I did not want to get God wrong when I preached. And so, I overlooked the Spirit in any given text and moved on, thereby drifting further apart from God relationally. It was not until I took the time to read the Scriptures on their own terms, analyze the arguments on both sides of the debate, and review the available data in constant dialogue with others that I finally came to the conclusion that, according to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit indwells every Christian literally, directly, and personally once they are united to the Triune God through faith and immersion. The crux of the debate which eventually changed my mind was a proper exegesis of Acts 2:38. In this paper, I will investigate the “Word Only” view of the Holy Spirit, offer my criticisms to this position, and promote an alternative reading of the Scriptures which best aligns with the intended purpose of the New Testament authors who were moved along by the Spirit to reveal the Spirit. 

THE “WORD ONLY” VIEW OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: THE STATE OF THE SPIRIT DEBATE

Possibly the most influential advocate of the “Word Only” position is Guy N. Woods. When answering the question “How does the Holy Spirit dwell in children of God today?” in the Freed-Hardeman College Open Forum, Woods responded by saying, “The Holy Spirit dwells in Christians today through the word which he inspired.”[4] This paradigm for pneumatology not only acts as a directive for biblical interpretation but as the standard for orthodoxy within the churches of Christ. In contrast, the direct operation or the personal indwelling of the Spirit is regarded as a heresy by some brethren.

Franklin Camp, for instance, in his book The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, is baffled by the presence of this doctrine in light of the Restoration Movement’s attempts to get away from emotionalism and return to Scripture. Camp categorizes “the direct operation of the Holy Spirit” as “false teaching.” He suggests, “the claim of the direct leading of the Holy Spirit has no place in the church. Any attempt to justify it by passages of Scripture is a misapplication of the Scriptures.” Alternatively, Camp argues that “the Holy Spirit operates in conversion and sanctification only through the Word.”[5] Camp’s argument is the Spirit only works through the Word today by categorizing any reference to the Spirit’s work as something isolated to the first century in the miraculous age. His interpretive methodology is seen when he suggests, “Whatever the Holy Spirit does today in either conversion or sanctification, He does it by means, not directly, and the means used by the Holy Spirit is the Word. Name anything you want to that the Holy Spirit does, and the Word is the means.”[6] Camp’s hermeneutical framework for reading Scripture moves the reader to replace the word “Spirit” and insert the Bible into the explanation of those benefits that appear to describe the work of the Holy Spirit as the result of the Word of God. Additionally, Camp argues that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is miraculous rather than personal indwelling. He states, “I believe that the Scriptures teach that the gift of the Holy Spirit refers to miraculous endowments that belonged to the period when these miraculous gifts were for the purpose of confirming the apostles of Christ as His apostles and providing the church with inspiration through these gifts that came through the laying on of the hands of an apostle.”[7] 

OBJECTIONS OFFERED AGAINST THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

GUY N. WOODS’ “WORD ONLY” VIEW

In this section, I will analyze Guy N. Woods’ pneumatology and his objections to the literal, personal, and direct mode of the Spirit’s indwelling. Woods notes, “The scriptures clearly teach that the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of those who are his own, an ever-present blessing to the enrichment of their lives throughout life.”[8] He also goes so far as to suggest the Spirit “dwells in the hearts of Christians today” but what he means by that is the Spirit dwells only through the Scriptures.[9] He suggests the “manner” and “mode” of the Spirit’s indwelling is absent from revelation. Elsewhere, Woods argues whatever the Holy Spirit does for the Christan today “He does this by means of the word of truth, his instrument.”[10] According to Woods, the Spirit strengthens (Eph. 3:16/Eph. 6:10-17; 2 Tim. 2:1), sanctifies (2 Thess. 2:13/John 17:17), saves (Titus 3:5/Jam. 1:21), justifies (1 Tim. 3:16/Rom. 5:1; 10:17), witnesses (Heb. 10:15/John 5:39), promotes divine love (Rom. 5:5/John 3:16), leads (Rom. 8:16/Ps. 119:105), and resurrects (Rom. 8:11) all believers through the Scriptures. According to this position, anything the Spirit does, the Bible is what actually does it.

The indwelling of the Spirit is among various other views in pneumatology Woods finds troubling theologically. He rejects the positions of those he considers go beyond what is stated in Scripture by grouping the various views of the Spirit in the lives of believers today, such as the indwelling of the Spirit and continuationism among the charismatics, as though there are similarities in content or evidence.

“From the fact of the Spirit’s indwelling, they assume whatever mode or manner of indwelling that suits their pre-arranged system or philosophy, ranging all the way from an alleged ‘indwelling’ of which they are without sensible evidence, to the profession of having experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues and the endowment or miraculous powers. Such conclusions are fanciful, foolish and fatal in their implications, ultimately leading to wild, enthusiastic notions regarding the ‘leadings’ of the Spirit, and often to the utter abandonment of the Word of God as in infallible standard of authority in life.”[11]

What he finds most problematic are the presuppositions of those who have decided “the mode or manner” of the Spirit that he perceives serve their polemical purposes and best fit their philosophical worldview. Notably, he attacks three views on the Spirit: (1) the personal indwelling of the Spirit, (2) partaking in Spirit baptism, and (3) practicing the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Woods finds no reasonable, biblical warrant for any of these positions and groups each as reckless, dangerous, and imaginary. Furthermore, they not only are contrary to Scripture but also disregard the Scriptures, and thereby, the authority of God. Here, I will list the various objections raised by Woods alongside my response.

Objection #1: The Indwelling of the Spirit Is Unbiblical

Woods’ primary objection to the indwelling of the Spirit is that there is no biblical basis for this perspective. Of course, with any dogma there must be an exegetical foundation to support it. Within this debate, there are passages used as prooftexts in favor of one view and vice versa. What distinguishes these two opposing viewpoints is whether or not one reading is more aligned with the logic of Scripture by applying proper hermeneutics. The standard of proper exegesis is based upon which reading respects the grammatical, historical, and theological roots planted firmly in God’s word. On both sides of the aisle, the Bible is being cited as the primary source for a proper knowledge of the Holy Spirit and whether or not He indwells.[12] In response to this objection, there is a trend in theological discourse to dismiss the opposition by saying their view is “unbiblical,” ignoring the biblical texts cited, and then champion their position as the only valid view because it is labeled as “biblical.” This is a problematic approach as it does not adequately address arguments offered by ignoring the prooftexts used in support. Woods, along with those who follow this thread of thought, must explain why their reading of Scripture is more reasonable than those who stand against them. The matter is not settled just because they assert their view is “biblical” and any other interpretation is “unbiblical.” Rather, their interpretation needs to the most probable among other readings in light of the collected biblical data. 

In favor of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, there are two types of passages. First, there are verses that refer to the promise and possession of the gift of the Spirit by New Testament Christians (Is. 32:15; 59:20-21; Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:1-4, 17, 33, 38-39). Second there are verses that speak of the Holy Spirit personally indwelling within the believer (John 14:16-17; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:13-14; 2:21-22; 2 Tim. 1:14). To offer a more thorough exegetical case, more will be said about this below where I will argue “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 is a reference to the literal, personal, and direct indwelling of the third person of the Trinity which sufficiently supplies a biblical warrant for this view. 

Objection #2: Absence of Evidence and Argument from Experience

Woods argues we can “give no tangible evidence” of the Spirit’s abiding presence as He personally indwells the believer.[13] In other words, we cannot tell the difference between the Spirit’s appearance and absence. This argument is based upon experience rather than revelation. It is a reference to something subjective or even existential as opposed to the objective, transcendent promises spoken by God in the Scriptures. Ironically, here Wood’s objection is based upon experience rather than the Word. While he argues the indwelling of the Spirit is unbiblical and reinterprets passages that say otherwise, he chooses to make an appeal grounded in one’s perspective rather than God’s clear teaching. 

            Here, it should be pointed out Woods’ assumption is not necessarily true. To begin, it is not essential for any activity in the unseen realm to be seen visually. According to Scripture, the Spirit operates in invisible ways to sanctify us and seal our salvation (Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:1-2). It is not essential for incorporeal to be seen in visible ways. For instance, angels work in ways we do not see or know as they minister to Christians who have inherited salvation (Heb. 1:14). We cannot examine the soul with an X-ray to see the Spirit at work sanctifying us nor can we see Him within us as a seal, thereby guaranteeing our salvation. It is impossible to visualize these metaphysical realities with our eyes, which is why we are called to see them by faith.

Additionally, it is untrue to say we do not have any real evidence of God’s literal, direct, and personal presence. The indwelling of the Spirit can be seen in the Christian who, according to Paul, “walk by” (Gal. 5:16), “are led by” (Gal. 5:18), “live by” (Gal. 5:25), and “keep in step with” (Gal. 5:25) the Holy Spirit. In Galatians 5, Paul lists the “fruit of the Spirit” as a sign of the Spirit-led life. When Christians exhibit “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23) this acts as evidence that the Spirit guides Christians to whom He dwells within, that is, the same people whose “hearts” the Spirit has entered (Gal. 4:6). In sum, there is evidence for Spirit’s indwelling as we see the results of transformation and sanctification lived out in the Spirit-guided life. 

Objection #3: The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit Is an Unreasonable Reading of Romans 8:11

In Romans 8:11, when Paul says, “His Spirit dwelleth in you” (KJV), Woods argues that this cannot be understood as a “literal,” personal,” or “direct” indwelling of the Spirit and suggests that those who interpret this passage accordingly are failing to exegete the passage and have made an “unwarranted assertion of a conclusion not found in the premises.”[14] In fact, he goes on to say that those who interpret passages that seemingly describe the indwelling of the Spirit as people who have “abandoned all reasonable exegesis.” The only alternative, from Woods’ point of view, is that they must have “possession of some secret and supernatural system of integration not available to ordinary students.”[15]

The major problem with Woods’ position is his assertion of categories and phrases which he assumes and places upon the text to fit his view. In the end, he concludes “it seems certain that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit dwell in the hearts of faithful disciples in exactly the same manner, i.e., through the word of truth.” He suggests, “When the Holy Spirit is allowed to control the thoughts and direct the life of the person thus influence, the Spirit dwells there—dwells there by means of the word which motivates the life. There is, indeed, no other way in which the Spirit exercises moral suasion on the mind except by means of the word of truth. One would not know that there is such a person as the Holy Spirit were it not for the word which reveals him.”[16] 

            Here, Woods does not offer a sufficient reading which demonstrates how Paul can say, “the Holy Spirit dwells in you,” but does not actually mean He dwells in the believer literally, personally, or directly. Rather than offering a preferable interpretation or a substantive objection, Woods provides rhetorical insults which attack the intelligence of those who read Paul’s words differently than him. He assumes the Trinity dwells in Christians only through the Word without offering any data to support this interpretation and ignoring passages that clearly debunk his theory. For example, he does not consider John 14-17 which speak of the personal coming of the Spirit (John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7, 13-15) and the union we share with the Triune God (John 14:17, 20, 23; 15:1-11; 17:21-23, 26). In these passages, there is no indication any of these promises are to be taken figuratively as opposed to literal. Each of these promises made to the apostles speak of the Spirit’s abiding presence within the community of the holy Trinity, the Church, as well as the real participation enjoyed in divine fellowship with God the Father, Son, and Spirit. This indwelling is personal as God’s Spirit is sent by God the Father through the Son to help, teach, remind, counsel, and guide believers. The personal indwelling of the Spirit is seen through the intimate relationship we share with the Spirit since we “know him” and He “remains” with us directly. Once the incarnate Son departs, God sends another advocate to help His disciples by being intimately “with” and “in” them.[17] 

In addition, while it is true that no one would know the Spirit without self-revelation. This was precisely the problem facing the earlies Christians post-Pentecost (Acts 19:1-10; cf. 2:17-18, 38; 11:12-18). The reason why the disciples of John were not disciples of Jesus was because they did not know the Holy Spirit. Even though both baptisms included the forgiveness of sins, the main thing that distinguished the baptism of John from Christian baptism was the New Covenant promise of the Spirit.

Objection #4: If the Spirit Indwells Believers then the Father and Son Must Also

As a counter argument, Woods notes passages in the New Testament that describe the indwelling of God the Father and Son (2 Cor. 6:16; Col. 1:27; 1 John 4:15) to demonstrate the inconsistency, or possibly, the absurdity of interpreting the Spirit’s indwelling since “no thoughtful person from thence concludes that there is an actual, literal, personal, bodily indwelling of God the Father, or of Christ, the Son, in us today. It is readily recognized that all that may be properly deduced form such statements is that in some manner they direct and influence our lives by the power they exercise upon us.”[18] Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, these passages demonstrate only the abiding presence and indwelling of the divine persons, which does not deny but supports the position. None of the passages cited by Woods talk about what God does to “direct and influence” us today. Instead, all that is stated in these passages is that God is with us because He is “in” us.

Additionally, the vast majority of Woods’ objections, in this section in particular, were examples of him begging the question without any sufficient evidence to support his exegesis or deny the simplest explanation of the passages which describe the indwelling of the Spirit. To claim “no thoughtful person” would come to these conclusions is antagonistic and ahistorical. It is antagonistic since it insults the intelligence of those who hold a view which is different from Woods’ doctrine of the Spirit. It is ahistorical as it either neglects, rejects, or revises the long-attested historical view of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. In that case, the proposed “Word Only” view of the Holy Spirit is forced to deny the historical understanding of the manner and mode of the Spirit’s indwelling and offer an explanation for why theologians for centuries have misinterpreted the Scriptures and misunderstood the Holy Spirit. Notably, this “Word Only” position is something one has to be taught, it is not intuitive in reading the Scriptures.

Objection #5: Anything the Spirit Does the Scripture Does

Another objection raised by Woods, based upon his assumption that anything the Spirit does the Scriptures do likewise, is “the reader will be unable to think of any directives the child of God needs which the word has not supplied.”[19] In other words, there is nothing the Spirit does according to Scripture that Scripture itself does not already afford to the Christian. As cited above, Woods suggests the Spirit and Scriptures strengthen, sanctify, save, justify, witness, promote love, lead, and resurrect. The problem with this statement is its fatal inaccuracy describing the Spirit’s work.

For example, in regard to love, the Bible does not do what the Spirit does. While it is true Scripture reveals the love of God, the Bible does not love us. The Scriptures are the speech of God that God uses to say, “I love you” but this is very different than Paul’s concern who is communicating to his listeners how the Spirit loves us by justifying us, which is possible because He is the subject speaking but impossible for the Bible to do because it is not a personal being capable of loving. Additionally, Woods’ citation of John 3:16 and Romans 5:5 do not support his claim the Spirit and Scripture do the same thing. First, while John 3:16 is in the Bible, this does not mean the Bible loves us as the Spirit loves us. Second, the Spirit does not just promote the love of God. Instead, Paul says, “the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” In this way, divine love is only experienced through an intimate outpouring within the believer’s heart “through the Holy Spirit.” Thus, the gift of love is granted to the believer when they receive the gift of the Spirit Himself.

Another example is one neglected by Woods which is the avenue of prayer. While the Scriptures record many beautiful prayers spoken by faithful men and women, it does not accomplish the same actions as the Spirit in prayer. The apostle Paul said, “In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God” (Rom. 8:26-27). Notice the Spirit’s intercession in prayer as a go-between for two parties, namely, God and the believer. The reason why the Spirit is capable in interceding on behalf of humanity before God is because He knows the spirit and mind of God as well as the spirit and mind of man. While the Scriptures reveal God to man, the Scriptures do not intercede on behalf of man to God.[20]

            The argumentation used in support of this thesis—anything the Spirit does, the Scripture does—commits an error of false equivalency (A causes X, B causes X, therefore A=B). In other words, there is a conflation of agency with instrumentality. Just because the Spirit works through the Word does not mean the Word is identical to the Spirit. The Scriptures do not exhaustively outwork the activity of the Spirit and should not be replaced by them. There is a categorical difference between the Scripture and the Spirit indwelling. As H. Leo Boles notes,

“The word of God, the New Testament, the word of truth, is the Holy Spirit employs. We should not mistake the instrument for the agent; it would be folly to make no distinction between the instrument of a man that he may use in his work and the man himself. Perhaps some have made the gross error in concluding that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the presence of the word of God in the mind or memory of the Christian. It may be that we cannot tell the difference so that others may see or understand it; however, there is a difference between our words and our spirits. In like manner there is a difference in the Holy Spirit and the words of the Holy Spirit.”[21]

There is a distinction between the Spirit and the Scripture. The Scriptures are the activity of the Spirit’s divine agency.  Thus, these shared effects do not establish ontological identity. While it is true the Spirit operates through the Word, His activity should not be reducible to the Word. The Word and the Spirit are inseparable but the Spirit operates as the agent and the word as the action. C.C. Crawford helpfully clarifies, “The Holy Spirit indwells the hearts of God’s saints through the instrumentality of the Word, and where the word is not preached, not wholeheartedly accepted, not assimilated into the daily life, there the Spirit does not dwell.”[22]

THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: GOD'S PRESENCE AMONG HIS PEOPLE

The manner of God’s indwelling is a reality revealed in Scripture without exhaustive explanation of its function. Like many dogmas of the Church, Christians confess the apostolic doctrine according to what they do understand regardless of what they do not fully comprehend. There is plenty of room for mystery met with speculation and questions as we seek understanding. This subject is among those topics that require curiosity partnered with humility. While it is the case there are certain things we cannot know about the Spirit’s indwelling, this does not mean we cannot know or say anything about the matter.[23]

Gregg Allision and Andreas Köstenberger define the indwelling of the Spirit as “the fullness of plentitude of the Holy Spirit pertains to Jesus the Son of God incarnate, the filling or sufficiency of the Spirit pertains analogously to Christ’s followers.” They offer two points of clarification.

“First, while the Son and the Spirit are divine persons eternally related, Christians are not so connected with the Spirit. They are adopted sons of God, not the Son of God; thus, their relationship to the Spirit is not and cannot be one of perichoresis (mutual indwelling of the Son and the Spirit) but is one of presence (indwelling by the Spirit). Second, while Jesus the Son is filled with the Holy Spirit without measure, Christians are filled with the Spirit with a limited measure, one that is adequate for their lives in the ae of the Spirit.”[24]

Here, I will connect pneumatology to soteriology by examining Acts 2:38 to show “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is a reference to the personal indwelling of the Spirit Himself, then I will connect pneumatology to ecclesiology by viewing the Church as the community of the Spirit, and finally I will address the controversy on the Holy Spirit by bridging the gaps of disfellowship and seeking unity in the Spirit.  

ACTS 2:38 IN ITS CONTEXT: THE “GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” IS THE SPIRIT

The gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. There are three arguments that I will explore to argue for my position on the gift of the Holy Spirit. First, I will give a linguistic argument by looking at the language Luke uses to describe the gift in Acts 2:38. Here, it is notable how the word “of” is employed by Luke since it is found in the genitive case where the term is structured as what is called an “epexegetical genitive” or “genitive of appostion.” Daniel B. Wallace defines the epexegetical genitive when he writes, “The substantive in the genitive case refers to the same thing as the substantive to which it is related. The equation, however, is not exact. The genitive of apposition typically states a specific example that is a part of the larger category named by the head noun. It is frequently used when the head noun is ambiguous or metaphorical.”[25] According to Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plumber, “the epexegetical genitive provides a clarifying or explanatory identifier of the head noun, which may be in any case.”[26] Clarify, Jack P. Lewis illustrates and applies this point to Acts 2:38, “A gift of five dollars is five dollars; the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.”[27] To state it plainly, “Peter here speaks of the gift, namely the Holy Spirit.”[28]  When we read “the gift of the Holy Spirit” we may say, since this is an “appositional genitive,” when one “repents” and is “baptized” they receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit “which is” the Holy Spirit Himself.[29]

In Acts 2:38, Peter issues two commands that are followed by two promises. The two commands are “repent” and “be baptized.”[30] The two promises are the “remission of sins” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit.” One cannot apply the promise of “remission of sins” for today and then exclude the second promise of “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” If we are to regard repentance and immersion as necessary for salvation, then we must understand the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are the entailments or content of salvation. Notice the conjunction “and” between the two commands and promises demonstrates the inseparable connection between the two. The “remission of sins” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit” are an all-in-one package of salvation received through repentance and immersion. In other words, there cannot be one without the other. If repentance and immersion are inseparable then “remission of sins” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit” are also tightly connected.

Is this a gift given by the Holy Spirit or God consisting of the Holy Spirit Himself?  In response, the Scriptures declare and Luke clearly demonstrates through the words of Peter “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is the Holy Spirit Himself. Arguably, this is the most reasonable and respectable interpretation of the passage that is naturally understood through careful analysis of the grammar. It is for that reason, many interpreters of Acts 2:38 have read this passage in this way. For example, F.F. Bruce stated, “The gift of the Spirit is the Spirit Himself, bestowed by the exalted Lord under the Father's authority.” It is not the spiritual gifts that are imparted by the Spirit, but it is the Holy Spirit. Bruce distinguishes between the two by suggesting “the gifts of the Spirit are those spiritual faculties which the Spirit imparts.”[31] Jack Cottrell comments on this categorical misfire within the Stone-Campbell Movement in regards to interpreting Acts:

“It is a serious error to connect the baptism of the Spirit with the miraculous manifestations that sometimes accompanied it as signs (Acts 2, Acts 10), whether this be regarded as something available to all Christians (as in Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement) or as something intentionally limited to Pentecost and Corenlius (as often in the Restoration Movement)…it is the general experience of all Christians and is equivalent to the Spirit’s work of regeneration and the beginning of his indwelling. There is no necessary connection between baptism in the Spirit and miraculous gifts of the Spirit.”[32]

David Roper lists six reasons why the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit Himself rather than the imparting of miraculous gifts.

(1)   This gift was a universal gift, promised to all who would be baptized in water. Neither Holy Spirit baptism nor the ability to lay hands on people were universal gifts, so this gift could not refer to those.

(2)   This gift was not a miraculous gift. Although three thousand received ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’ on that day, no one other than the apostles was said to perform miracles until some years later. At that time, the apostles laid their hands on seven men and gave them miraculous abilities (6:6, 8: 8:6). This verse, therefore, does not refer to the miraculous ‘gifts [plural] of the Holy Spirit.”

(3)   This gift was not the gift of the forgiveness of sins (or salvation), for the gift of the Holy Spirit is in addition to the gift of forgiveness (v. 38).

(4)   This gift in some way relates to “times of refreshing.”

(5)   Peter spoke of God’s giving the Holy Spirit, “to those who obey him” (5:32). The Holy Spirit Himself can be a gift.

(6)   In the rest of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is said to be with all Christians (‘indwelling’ them), assuring them that they are children of God and helping them to overcome the world (Rom. 8:9, 13, 16, 17, 26; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; Gal. 4:6, 7; Eph. 1:13, 14).[33]

Secondly, we look to the context of Acts 2:38 by analyzing the Old Testament texts and the immediate context. In Peter’s speech, he cites an Old Testament passage that promises the outpouring of the Spirit to all who call on the Lord’s name (Joel 2:28-32; cf. Acts 2:17-21). This passage is partially fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4 when the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. However, this promise was not reserved for a few men and isolated to that moment, but was applied by all who called on the Lord’s name in the last days. This is later applied in Acts 2:38, where those who repented and were baptized received “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Immersion is seen as “calling on the name of the Lord” elsewhere in Acts 22:16. Additionally, this promise is made for not only those present on the day of Pentecost but also to future generations. In the proceeding verse, “the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the lord our God will call.” Peter’s statement connects the actions of repentance and baptism with calling on the name of the Lord, which binds these acts with the effects promised in Joel. Thus, those who call on the name of the Lord, when they repent and are baptized, receive the outpouring of the Spirit or the gift of the Holy Spirit. As Earl Edwards wrote, “Not only did God give the Holy Spirit to the people of that day, the passage implies that the Spirit is given to ‘those who obey Him’ in any age, including today. So, those of us who have obeyed and are in the church today have Him dwelling in us.”[34] 

            In both cases, when the apostles are baptized in the Spirit and the three thousand are immersed following Peter’s sermon, there are obvious differences but the similarity between the two events is the reception of the Holy Spirit Himself. J.W. McGarvey suggests,

“By this is not meant that miraculous gift which had just been bestowed upon the apostles; for we know from the subsequent history that this gift was not bestowed on all who repented and were baptized, but only a few brethren of prominence in the several congregations. The expression means the Holy Spirit as a gift; and the reference is to that indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which we bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, and without which we are not of Christ.”[35]

Similarly, Olbricht notes,

“Because the same phrase, ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit,’ is used in Acts 2:38, there is no reason why ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’ should be considered different in the two cases. The gift should be thought of as the Holy Spirit—not as some other gift from the Holy Spirit—unless such a conclusion contradicts other clear teachings of the Bible. This would not mean that baptism with the Holy Spirit and miraculous powers were given to all who were baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but only that they had received the Holy Spirit.”[36] 

While there are assertions made, primarily by Camp, the Book of Acts uses the phrase “the gift of the Holy Spirit” to refer to miraculous gifts (2:38; 8:20; 11:17; cf. Eph. 3:7; 4:7), it is not a necessary conclusion based upon the available data.[37] The only thing we can certainly conclude in every instance when this phrase is used in Acts is the Spirit of God is the gift received. In some cases, when the Spirit-guided mission is in view and the imparting of spiritual gifts are in view, then this is to be understood as miraculous and distinct from the reception of salvation with the gift of the Spirit who indwells the believer, which is how it is used in most cases in Acts. In either case, the Spirit necessarily indwells in both instances because miraculous gifts and salvation are not available without the Holy Spirit.

Third, the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is to be understood within a theological (specifically, soteriological, ecclesiological, and eschatological) framework. The reception of the Spirit is closely tied to repentance, baptism, and forgiveness.[38] The Triune God “saves,” Darrell Bock writes, “by providing forgiveness, sparing from wrath, and giving the Holy Spirit.”[39] Notably, the reception of the Spirit takes place following repentance and baptism. Most interpreters readily admit repentance is required but few highlight the necessity of immersion. However, G.R. Beasley-Murray boldly noted that here, “the impression is given that the gift of the Spirit will be given in or immediately upon baptism.”[40] Similarly, Cottrell argues, “The gift of the Spirit Himself as an indwelling presence is promised as the result of Christian baptism…Acts 2:38 tells us that baptism is the point of time when the Spirit enters our lives in this way.”[41] 

Patrick Schreiner notes in Acts, “the Spirit applies salvation” by drawing and joining the people of God to Christ.[42] It is the Father who sent the Son to save, and it is the Son who dies to save, but it is the Spirit who acts as an agent of the Son’s salvation. Union with God is only available through the Spirit of God. The Christian identity is wrapped up in the saving work of the Spirit who is received as a gift. Greg Allison notes, “The reception of the Spirit is part and parcel of what it means to become and live as a Christian (1:4-5; 2:38; 8:14-24; 9:17-19; 10:44-48; 11:15-18; 19:1-7).”[43] The Spirit’s indwelling signals the saved. Those who have the Spirit are labeled as “saved” and those who do not have the Spirit are labeled as “not saved.” In addition, the promise of the Spirit is connected to calling on the Lord. As Schreiner suggests, “In Acts 2, the outpouring of the Spirit leads people to call upon the name of the Lord for salvation (Acts 2:21; cf. Joel 2:32).”[44] 

THE COMMUNITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: THE SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH

The Church is the community of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13). Believers are united “in the Spirit” and participate with the Spirit. The worlds of pneumatology and ecclesiology are not often explored in great detail. Everett Ferguson offers an excellent case for understanding the relationship between the Spirit and the Church, where the Holy Spirit is present in the work of Christ’s church. He suggests:

“There is a theological sense in which the Holy Spirit creates a community, for the common participation in the Holy Spirit brings people together in community. The church is a fellowship created by the Spirit, and it is that because all share in the Spirit as the gift of Christ to his people. The church is a Spirit-filled community. The common life of the body of Christ is the life of his Spirit…the church, however, is a community, a fellowship, through the divine Spirit. Hence, in its very essence it is a divine creation, not a human product.”[45] 

He succinctly states later, “The Spirit is the life of the church. If the church is the body of Christ, the Spirit of Christ is the life of the body.”[46] The Holy Spirit is the Giver of all life that is specially manifested within the Temple of the Spirit. The Spirit is the dwelling presence of God’s temple today (Ex. 25:8; 29:45-46; Lev. 26:11-12; Num. 35:34; 1 Ki. 8:10-13; 2 Chron. 6:1-2; 7:1-3; Ps. 26:8; Is. 6:1; Ez. 36:26-27; 37:26-28; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:4-5; Rev. 21:3, 22).[47] As Boles states,

“The believer owes his salvation to the Holy Spirit. Christians are called the temple of the Holy Spirit. A group of Christians is called the temple of God and the individual Christian is called the temple of God. The Holy Spirit dwells in the temple of God. As the presence of God dwelt in the ancient tabernacle and the temple, so the Holy Spirit dwells in the church, the temple of God; in like manner he dwells in each faithful member of the church.”[48]

Ferguson describes the Spirit’s possession as a marker for church membership. That is, those who are in the Church of Christ have the Spirit of Christ. As he says, “Possession of the Spirit indicates membership in the people of God, and participation in the Spirit is the basis of the corporate life. The Spirit gives life and sustains life to the body.”[49] Only those who possess the Spirit are members of the Church because the Spirit indwells in all believers in the Church. Ferguson further notes, “this indwelling of the Holy Spirit is both individual and corporate.” In other words, the Spirit of God dwells within each believer and the entire assembly of believers. “The Holy Spirit is in the community because he is in the individual members, but it is also true that the Spirit is in the church and one receives the Spirit through connection with the Spirit-filled community. All Christians have the Spirit, and individuals have the Spirit only in the life of the community.”[50] Through his connection of pneumatology to ecclesiology, Ferguson’s words on the Holy Spirit are among some of the most profound statements that have allowed me to see the relevance and presence of the Holy Spirit today.

BRIDGING THE GAP: UNITY, DOCTRINE, AND RESTORATION IN AND THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Holy Spirit is portrayed as the person who unites Christians together (1 Cor. 12:12-13; 2 Cor. 13:13-14; Eph. 4:3-4; Phil. 1:27; 2:1) but sadly the Church has divided over the Holy Spirit. This is, of course, to our disadvantage. For any hope of unity, we must seek a proper understanding of the Spirit who not only is among the seven essential doctrines of the early Church but is the key to Christian unity today.[51]  The spirit of the Restoration Movement is inspired by the example of the Bereans in Acts 17. Christians are to be like the Bereans who go back to the Bible and reexamine what they have heard to see if it aligns with God’s revelation. This pursuit of restoration is a constant cycle of returning to the Scriptures to ascertain the truth of God’s will. There should be this freedom among God’s people who study the Bible together to discuss the truth of God’s word. Yet, there have been major divisions among our brethren who stop appealing to the Scriptures and instead resort to previous debates, sermons, and preachers as though the matter is settled. All of this is for nought as those who oppose the indwelling of the Spirit do not diminish the clarity of revelation nor do they forfeit the authenticity of this reality. Instead, as Jim Gardner comments, “The spiritual reality of God dwelling within Christians is unaffected by how we characterize it. If we choose to call it representational or metaphorical, his presence is still genuine and true.”[52] Regardless of whether we recognize it or not, God is present with His people through His Spirit.

The most troubling part of this discussion is the loss of gospel ethics. These heated debates have led to lost friendships, careless mischaracterizations or slander, frivolous disfellowship, and, worst of all, obscurity of pneumatology. The Church should look towards the example laid before us by Guy N. Woods and Gus Nichols who maintained fellowship, recognized this topic is a nonessential doctrine, and continued to dialogue so they may refine their beliefs on the Scripture. The charity among these brethren is worthy of imitation in all doctrinal disputes. There can be disagreement among Christians, but we should not forfeit the Christian values of charity and unity.

My desire is that Christians would decipher between central doctrines and matters of opinion—to major on the majors and minor on the minors—so they may prioritize unity, promote sound doctrine, and provide restoration. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an important topic, but it is not the most important topic. Disfellowship is a last resort employed out of necessity against apostates and heretics who have abandoned the Gospel, the Church, and Christ. Those who lean one way or another on this matter do not commit theological treason. This is a subject open to debate since it is not central to the formulation of the Gospel. As such, when lines are drawn, they should be erased and it is about time we erase these lines of disfellowship and regain broken bonds between our brethren so we may enjoy the sweet unity of the Holy Spirit.

Works Cited:

[1] Mac Deaver and Marion Ronald Fox, The Deaver-Fox Debate: The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit—Literal or Figurative (Spring, TX: Bible Resources Publications, 1995); Mac Deaver and Bill Lockwood, The Deaver-Lockwood Debate: Mac Deaver & Bill Lockwood on the Work of the Holy Spirit (Austin, TX: Biblical Notes, 1998); Mac Deaver and Jerry Moffitt, The Deaver-Moffitt Debate: The Work of the Holy Spirit within the Christian (Marietta, OH: Therefore Stand Publications, 2002); Guy N. Woods and Given O. Blakely, Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: A Debate between Guy N. Woods and Given O. Blakely (Marlow, OK: G.N. Woods, 1985).

[2] My list of friends and family are not exhaustive, but these are among the most impactful discussion partners on the subject: Donnie DeBord (my mentor), Tyler Johnson (my friend), Tim and Donna McMillin (my parents), Cheyenne Sellars (my fiancé), and Jeremiah Settles (my friend).

[3] Franklin Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption (Birmingham, AL: Roberts & Son, 1974); Curtis A. Cates, Does the Holy Spirit Operate Directly Upon the Heart of a Saint?: A Review of Neo-Calvinism Among the Lord’s People (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications, 1998). Z.T. Sweeney, The Spirit and the Word (Guardian of Truth, 2004).

[4] Woods, Questions and Answers, II:280. Italics original.

[5] Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, 2.

[6] Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, 24.

[7] Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, 131. For an alternative understanding of the Spirit in conversion and sanctification, see Tom Alexander, “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion: An Examination of the New Testament” in Evangelicalism & the Stone-Campbell Movement. Ed. William R. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002), 125-137; Robert C. Kurka, “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion: Why Restorationists Appear to Be out of the Evangelical Mainstream” in Evangelicalism & the Stone-Campbell Movement. Ed. William R. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002), 138-151.

[8] Woods, Questions and Answers, I:277. As evidence, he lists Romans 8:11, 16, 26 and 2 Corinthians 3:17 as examples of what the Spirit does on a daily basis.

[9] Woods, Questions and Answers, I:277.

[10] Woods, Questions and Answers, II:279.

[11] Woods, Questions and Answers, I:278.

[12] See Gobel Music, A Resource and Reference Volume on the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Colleyville, TX: Goebel Music Publications, 2000)

[13] Guy N. Woods, “The Gift of the Holy Spirit,” Firm Foundation 55 (3/22/1938), 2.

[14] Woods, Questions and Answers, I:278.

[15] Woods, Questions and Answers, I:279.

[16] Woods, Questions and Answers, I:279.

[17] Richard Bauckham, “The Trinity and the Gospel of John” in The Essential Trinity: New Testament Foundations and Practical Relevance. Ed. Brandon D. Crowe and Carl R. Trueman (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2016), 113-117; Anthony Billington, “The Paraclete and Mission in the Fourth Gospel” in Mission and Meaning: Essays Presented to Peter Cottrell. Ed. Anthony Billington, Tony Lane, and Maz Turner (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995), 90-115; Clive Bowsher, Life in the Son: Exploring Participation and Union with Christ in John’s Gospel and Letters, NSBT (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2023), 25-54; Gerald Bray, “The Work of the Spirit (Romans 8:1-17).” Evangel 19 (2001): 65-69;Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God, BTNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2009), 393-400; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel, NSBT (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 93-104, 135-148, 153-163; Frank Pack, “The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel.” ResQ 31 (1989): 139-148; Brandon D. Smith, The Biblical Trinity: Encountering the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Scripture (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2023), 61-68; Stephen S. Smalley, “‘The Paraclete’: Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996); Scott R. Swain, “John” in The Trinity in the Canon. Ed. Brandon D. Smith (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2023), 212-216.

[18] Woods, Questions and Answers, I:278.

[19] Woods, Questions and Answers, II:279.

[20] Richard J. Dillon, “The Spirit as Taskmaster and Troublemaker in Romans 8.” CBQ 60 (1998): 682-702; James D.G. Dunn, “Spirit Speech: Reflections on Romans 8:12-27” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65^th Birthday. Ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999), 82-91; Earl D. Edwards, also Protecting Our “Blind Side”: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2007), 179-202; Gordan D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009); Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “‘Life-Giving Spirit’: Probing the Center of God’s Pneumatology.” JETS 41 (1998): 573-589; Roger L. Hahn, “Pneumatology in Romans 8: Its Historical and Theological Context.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 21.1-2 (1986): 74-90; Brian Richard Kenyon, The Role of the Holy Spirit according to Romans 8 (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 1995); Douglas J. Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters: The Gift of the New Realm in Christ, BTNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2021), 475-466; Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology (Tübingen, DEU: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

[21] H. Leo Boles, The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature and Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1999), 204-205.

[22] C.C. Crawford, The Eternal Spirit (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1973), II:625. Italics Original. Cited by Kurka, “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion,” 140.

[23] For an extensive examination on the Spirit’s indwelling, see David Lee Wright, The Personal Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2000).

[24] Gregg R. Allison and Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Holy Spirit (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2020), 404.

[25] Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2000), 52.

[26] Andreas J. Köstenberger, Benjamin L. Merkle, and Robert L. Plumber, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek:  An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2020), , 104. Italics original.

[27] Jack P. Lewis, Basic Beliefs (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2013), 123.

[28] Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plumber, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, 104. Italics original.

[29] Craig L. Blomberg and Darlene M. Seal, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 35.

[30] “Peter specifies two things his listeners must do (repent and be baptized) and makes two promises concerning what they will receive (forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit). We may speak of these four elements as the Pentecostal package because they are considered as a unit, here and throughout most of the New Testament.” (Blomberg and Seal, From Pentecost to Patmos, 34-35)

[31] F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 77.

[32] Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 296.

[33] David L. Roper, Acts 1-14, TFT (Searcy, AR: Resource, 2001), I:87-88.

[34] Earl D. Edwards, Father, Son, Spirit & Word (Yeomen Press, 2017), 155. See also Protecting Our “Blind Side,” 179-187.

[35] J.W. McGarvey, Acts (Cincinnati, OH: Standard, 1889), 39.

[36] Owen Olbricht, The Holy Spirit: Person and Work (Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1999), 166.

[37] Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit, 134-138. (1) Acts 8:20—The apostolic power to impart spiritual gifts; (2) Acts 10:45—The pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the household of Cornelius; (3) Acts 11:17—Includes both Pentecost and the household of Cornelius; (4) Ephesians 3:7—Miraculous endowment of the apostle Paul; and (5) Ephesians 4:7, 11—Miraculous gifts for : a) apostles, b) prophets, c) evangelists, d) pastors, e) teachers — all miraculous.

He suggests, “the difference between a spiritual gift and the gift of the Holy Spirit is that a spiritual gift referred to a particular manifestation, while the word ‘gift’ is a general term that was used for the miraculous, and included all that there was in Joel’s prophecy.” (138)

[38] David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 155.

[39] Darrell L. Bock, A Theology of Luke and Acts: God’s Promised Program, Realized for All Nations, BTNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2012), 259.

[40] G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1973), 105.

[41] Cottrell, The Faith Once for All, 61.

[42] Patrick Schreiner, The Mission of the Triune God: A Theology of Acts (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 68.

[43] Gregg R. Allision, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 47.

[44] Schreiner, The Mission of the Triune God, 68.

[45] Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), 103-104.

[46] Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 107.

[47] G.K. Beale and Mitchell Kim, God Dwells Among Us: A Biblical Theology of the Temple, ESBT (IVP Academic, 2014); G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004); J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, God’s Relational Presence: The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019); J. Daniel Hays, The Temple and the Tabernacle: A Study of God’s Dwelling Places from Genesis to Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2016).

[48] Boles, The Holy Spirit, 205.

[49] Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 107.

[50] Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 108.

[51] Graham A. Cole, He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 219-221; Matthew Levering, Engaging the Doctrine of the Holy Spriit: Love and Gift in the Trinity and the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 267-308.

[52] Jim Gardner, Thinking through Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 2022), 176.