The reception of the Holy Spirit is associated with justification elsewhere, and Paul expects the Holy Spirit to be received at the time of coming to faith in Acts 19:2. The people he was addressing turned out to be in an exceptional situation, but Paul's question reflects what he considered normative.
I've discussed the passage further in previous threads, like here and here.
What are your thoughts about when Abraham believed(Gen. 12 or 15)?
ReplyDeleteHere is my main piece on Genesis 15:6:
Deletehttps://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/11/a-rejoinder-to-roman-catholic-apologist.html
Here are a few other articles which mention Genesis 15:6:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/09/does-psalm-10630-31-nullify-faith-alone.html
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/09/debunking-catholic-apologist-steve-ray_3.html
Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15. I've discussed the subject before, such as in the comments section here.
DeleteFascinating post! I have never thought of this text as an argument for Sola Fide before.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see what this text demonstrates about Sola Fide. As for the reception of the Holy Spirit being associated with Justification, that seems to weaken the case for Imputation.
ReplyDeleteNick wrote:
Delete"I fail to see what this text demonstrates about Sola Fide."
You misspelled "admit". It's a-d-m-i-t, not s-e-e.
You go on:
"As for the reception of the Holy Spirit being associated with Justification, that seems to weaken the case for Imputation."
You still have a tendency to change the subject, after all these years. And you've just given us your opinion about a couple of subjects, only one of which is the topic of this thread, without arguing for either. Given your long record of behaving that way, I don't have much interest in getting into another lengthy discussion with you or any discussion at all. I'm accountable to God for how I use my time. I have a lot to do that I consider a higher priority than interacting with somebody who's shown himself to be so unreasonable on so many occasions.
Those who are interested in Nick's past behavior at Triablogue can go here for some examples, and see the thread I linked in my response to TheSire above.
That post you are linking to is *ten years old*. That is hardly a testimony of me acting in bad faith "all these years". In all honesty, I do *not* recall much interacting with you these past ten years, and I comment on your blog maybe once a year. I'm long beyond the days of lengthy discussions, since I just don't have the energy and I don't see such an approach as having much value.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, I just happened to stop by and see this post, and I shared my genuine thoughts. I see nothing within the two sentences that you shard that go towards proving Sola Fide. The very verse you cite shows that the Holy Spirit was given within the context of believing, being baptized, and having Paul lay his hands on them.
Nick,
DeleteYou've now had two opportunities to behave more reasonably than you had in previous discussions, and you've wasted both opportunities. Don't post again, here or in any other thread.
You wrote:
"That post you are linking to is *ten years old*. That is hardly a testimony of me acting in bad faith 'all these years'."
You left out the word "after". I didn't suggest that the thread I linked proves how you've behaved each year.
You continue:
"The very verse you cite shows that the Holy Spirit was given within the context of believing, being baptized, and having Paul lay his hands on them."
You're ignoring most of what I said and repeating a point I made in my original post. I referred to how "The people [Paul] was addressing turned out to be in an exceptional situation". Spelling out that exceptional situation, which isn't normative in Protestantism or Catholicism, does nothing to overturn my argument.
You refer to the "two sentences" I wrote, but you ignore most of what I said there, ignore the other threads I linked where I discuss the passage further, and ignore the relevant points I've made in our previous discussions (e.g., why a reference to faith in a passage like Acts 19:2 can't be assumed to include more than faith, such as faith combined with baptism).
I think it is unfair and unwarranted to permanently ban me, but if Steve thinks it's warranted, then I cannot stop him. I was genuinely interested in reasonable discussion on this verse, so I'm baffled at the harsh tone, despite the fact we've not really interacted the past several years.
ReplyDeleteNick,
DeleteYou were told not to post again, but did so anyway. So, that's a third time you've posted in the thread without adding anything substantive to it. Instead, you've demonstrated your unreasonableness each time.
You say you were "genuinely interested in reasonable discussion on this verse". That's a ridiculous comment to make after you entered the thread by stating your conclusion without interacting with the counterarguments already provided, attempted to change the subject, then went on to misrepresent my first response to you, restate something I'd already said as if that restatement was a refutation of my argument, then disregarded what you were told about not posting again. That's not reasonable behavior. And it comes after your long history of behaving similarly on other occasions.
Your objection to my allegedly bad "tone" is understandable given the state of our culture. That plays well with the crowd. I live in the United States. We're tens of trillions of dollars in debt at the national level. We've had tens of millions of legal abortions in recent decades. We've mainstreamed things like pornography, fornication, divorce, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism. The large majority of Americans say they find the most meaning in life from family or some other source other than God. Most Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice. Most can't name the four gospels. The average American spends more than five hours a day on sports and leisure and less than ten minutes a day on religious activities. The large majority of Americans don't want to make any significant effort to study issues like the ones this thread is focused on. Among the small minority of people who are more interested in such issues, the large majority of those people are unwilling to do the sort of research, writing, and other work that's required to address these subjects in the relevant ways. Instead, to whatever small extent they show any interest in such work, it's a matter of doing little or nothing more than watching other people do what needs done. An extremely tiny minority of people is expected to carry the burden for everybody else. Under those circumstances, it makes sense to be more careful about matters like time management accordingly, and it would be irresponsible to not be more careful. You've been given a lot of time, attention, and other opportunities to make whatever case you've wanted to make. You've wasted those opportunities in the manner I've described and documented.
But it does go over well with the crowd when you complain about tone. Similarly, a child doesn't like the tone of the parent who's rebuking him, and criminals don't like the tone of the police officers and judges who are holding them accountable. We live in a culture of children and criminals, though, so the tone complaints can get you some significant advantages in a context like that.
But there's a lot of that sort of tone, and more, in the Bible, in the church fathers, and in many other contexts in everyday life. And complaints about tone don't seem sincere enough when they're coming from somebody who has a long history of referring to how he's "obliterating" his opponents' arguments, how he's going to bring about their "downfall", how their blog might have to shut down soon in response to his arguments, and makes comments like "I know the Bible better than you and can trounce you with it".
"...so I'm baffled at the harsh tone..."
ReplyDeleteI am baffled at your level of arrogance. I have probably read over one hundred posts on your blog and witnessed how you continually mock and scoff at those you criticize. If it were physically possible, my jaw would literally drop to the ground at your perceived "self-importance."
Nick posted a fourth time, which was his second post after being told not to post anything else. He's been added to the list of people whose posts are blocked. He could have kept his old posts fully visible, but he chose to violate the rules.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete