Krissi

What does Jesus’ reference to “the wind” teach us about people who have been born of the Spirit? I love this! The image of living my life as if blown by unseen forces, here or there, little eddies of wind ... just lovely. This is the spiritual existence I crave. I want to be moved by the slight pressure of the Holy Spirit, just as a light wind blows my hair. The wind doesn't originate from within me, but is wholly outside of me -- the Holy Spirit's pressure isn't my own thoughts, but from outside of me, not me. I want to have the remainder of my life be motivated and directed by little puffs of spiritual wind that come from places I cannot see and take me to places I never expected to go. I want to be an autumn leaf, blown by the wind ...

What does it mean to be “born of water and the Spirit”? What do you think “water” refers to? Why have you come to this conclusion? How, then, would you paraphrase “born of water and the Spirit” to best bring out the full meaning? I would paraphrase water and spirit in such a way that those two words are not used. I would say this: To be saved means to be reconstituted by God.

When the Holy Spirit falls on the Day of Pentecost, what is the significance of the sound of wind? Of the flames? Perhaps the sensory experience of sound and wind validated or confirmed what was happening to those in the upper room, that "something powerful" had entered that room. As a thought experiment, what would it have been like had they NOT had those particular sensory experiences, but instead, the HS came down surreptitiously and entered their hearts? Would they have doubted His presence? Would they have wondered if others had a similar experience? Would they have thought they were going nuts? Wind and flames are symbols in the OT of God's power. I'm certain they thought of God as the wind whirled around the room and they saw light/flames on each of them. So many of the words we describe God "somatize" Him as well as describe Him with sensory language and explain Him in human or anthropologic terms. As humans, we can't do better. We can't say, exactly, what the HS is, so we use metaphors to describe Him. Sight and sound are visual and auditory metaphors, and are one step closer to the real thing than simply describing the HS. They experienced Him, but obliquely or metaphorically. Of the spontaneous speaking of the praises of God in other languages? As someone learning a foreign language now, I would love that experience! In all seriousness, knowing foreign languages, or being able to speak/understand another language, opens up the possibilities for mission work. Most missionaries spend many months learning languages before going on the field. Perhaps God was in a bit of a hurry -- He instantly made "missionizing" work possible with tongues. This wasn't, though, an ability to speak another language but to PRAISE GOD in another language. It seems to be specific to praise Why would God want them to praise Him in languages other than their own? Perhaps He did this as a miraculous witness to people who spoke those particular languages, a way of pulling them into the Kingdom in an intimate way that only speaking one's language can do. How does this filling conform to Old Testament patterns? It seems that fire and wind, storms and plagues -- dramatic occurrences -- are used by God frequently in the OT to reveal His power. I'm thinking, now, of Elijah calling down fire ... and then rain. But note, too, that pagan worship used fire, in particular, as a symbol of power: Baal worshipers had mountainside altars. Moses saw God as fire, but the Israelites saw God as a pillar of smoke and fire. Fire may be imprinted on our minds as something powerful, mysterious and scary. Fire is life-threatening more than life-giving. Fire destroys. So why would God choose fire as a proxy for Himself? I don't know.

While we know that individual prayer is powerful (James 5:16b), Jesus indicates that group prayer is even more powerful (Matthew 18:19). Like Luke wrote above, I don't see that this verse suggests corporate prayer is "stronger" than individual prayer. I also don't think there is an additive effect if two people pray ... or five people ... ten people. I used to act as if God would hear/respond if more people prayed. Functionally, I believed this, anyway. If I had a serious problem or issue, I'd ask many people to pray for it with me, as if this would "juice" God into responding. A large prayer meeting seemed more effective than a few people, and a few people more effective than just me. I haven't acted or believed this for many years. Now, I believe God hears individual prayers as much as He hears corporate prayer. Group prayers are not more powerful. Elijah put his head between his knees, to block out sight and sound -- alone, he begged God for rain. How would you describe what was happening with this “Fellowship of the 120”? Thank you for your insight into the intensity of this period. I never really thought about how intense it must have been for the disciples to wait, expectantly, for something to happen when they didn't know what it was they were waiting for. How were they praying? For what? I imagine the eleven disciples in the upper room, praying for Jesus' return ... for His presence ... for his bodily presence ... for wisdom and guidance going forward. But the fact is they had no specific idea what to pray for because they didn't know the next step they were to take. I hesitate to make parallels between my own life and this wonderful moment in church history, but will say that right now, I don't know my path going forward. I can't see it. I don't feel His guidance or intuit His presence. So I can easily imagine what it is like to "pray into the dark" not knowing, even, how or what to pray. Have you ever been part of a group praying like this? No. I have never been with a group praying with this sort of intensity. Do you value prayer enough to gather with others to pray? How much of your church’s “prayer meeting” is spent in actual prayer? Yes, but group prayer, in my life, has been far less effective and powerful than individual prayer: I confess this. God seems grow faith in solitude -- often. Though most of us have had powerful times of growth by our "Cheriths" -- few of us have had powerful upper room experiences with others. Obviously, the disciples were together when the spirit descended on them in fuller measure, but note that for the remainder of their lives they were NOT together but alone, or with one or two trusted partners. The corporate aspect of prayer and faith seems a bit overrated, imo. We make a huge deal of the church and the body of Christ, then approach the throne of grace alone. We contemplate and pray, quietly ... in our closets, far more than with others. I do not think this is wrong. God may have designed us to come to Him in solitude. It may be the case that the body of Christ is designed to work, serve and do things, to be ACTIVE ... more than God designed the body to be contemplative and prayerful. The upper room experience may be more anomalous than a pattern.

When Nicodemus came to Jesus, do you think he was already born of the Spirit? How would we know if the HS was in Nicodemus or if Nicodemus' learning was such that he intellectually, not spiritually, intuited something in Jesus' messages? I assume that the Holy Spirit entered Nicodemus because his desire to know more about God (a pull that Nicodemus felt) was intentional: only God pulls. I assume, too, that the urge to enter, the desire for God, is also by invitation. Nicodemus had this urge, or so it seems. He wanted to know more. As you put it, entrance into the Kingdom of God "is by invitation only." He seems to have been invited. But ... there are secular people who are very curious about spiritual things, and feel an "attraction" to them. Think of all the people who join false religions or do weird things to find God (crystals, come to mind). They feel something. Some sort of curiosity or pull. I don't think this is the Holy Spirit. And, too, are scholars who write about biblical texts who seem to have no spiritual sensitivity or growth -- what caused that curiosity? Is it the same force that makes, say, a person study moss or electrons or human psych? Or, is it the Holy Spirit? Sometimes, I wish I knew the end of the story. What happened to Nicodemus? Did he become a Christian, filled with the Spirit? The fact that he subsidized Jesus' burial suggests his interest in Him continued. Maybe he was in the upper room, or outside of it, when the Holy Spirit fell. Who knows. What is the difference between people who have experienced the second birth, and those who have only experienced the first birth? Invitation. We all have the first physical birth. Very few are invited for a second spiritual birth.

In Jesus’ teaching on streams of living water from within, whom does he invite to drink? What does he promise to believers? To what degree has a spring of living water been fulfilled in your life? The invitation is universal ... though he calls only some of us to receive Him. Jesus promises that rivers of living water will flow from us, from within us to outside of us. This water is symbol of the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit, IF WE COME TO HIM AND BELIEVE, will flow out of us toward others, including, perhaps political structures and nature. I have come to Him. I struggle to believe. Increasingly, I feel the Holy Spirit's presence in my life, though I do not feel the abundance of "rivers of living waters" nor do I feel the Holy Spirit "flowing out of me."

What kinds of power does Jesus offer us in the Holy Spirit? In what ways does Acts 1:8 function as an outline or blueprint of the Book of Acts? Where do you and I fit in to fulfilling Acts 1:8? I'm struck by how Acts 1 is similar to the Great Commission: Mat 28.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the ... Acts 1.8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and ... to the ends of the earth." Authority is a form of power. It's the power to control or command or persuade ... From this I conclude that the power Jesus offers us in the Holy Spirit is authority, the power to influence others. -- Regarding how I (and you) fulfil Acts 1.8 ... I don't know about you, but I fall woefully short. If I have the HS's power of Acts 1.8, then i'm not using it effectively. It does make me wonder if the HS has actually "come on" most Christians, for if so, where is the fruit? I say this about my own life. I wonder if I'm carving out too small an area of influence, if my "service areas" assume that I'll be witnessing of my own power, not His, if I've actually received His power.

First, I find it interesting that they were to wait together, not apart. The Holy Spirit could have easily come upon them wherever they were, in their separate homes or workplaces, but God wanted them together, in a room, when they received the Holy Spirit. Second, the Holy Spirit came on them at the same time. They all, instantly, received. This could have happened on different days or hours, but God wanted them not only together, but simultaneously to receive the spirit. Third, they all had a similar experience. Some didn't get "more" or "less" but they all spoke in tongues, etc. Hmmmm, a few comments. Receiving the HS together must have made it impossible to deny. Having the HS descend on a person who is alone could be written off as an emotional high or some sort of religious delusion but having many people experience exactly the same thing makes it much harder to discard the experience as mass delusion or emotionalism. The church today individualizes gifts -- person X has the gifts of tongues and interpretation; person Y has the gift of healing; person Z has the gift of "helps" -- but in this initial outpouring, all people had exactly the same experience. Is an equal portion of the HS the ideal, or just a starting point from which the HS gives more/differently to believers?

Q. In what sense does the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth? To the degree that we are willing and able to hear/see/perceive the Holy Spirit, He can guide. To the degree that we defer to the direction He takes us, He guides into truth. Q. Does this promise apply only to the apostolic age and its task of laying the foundations of the faith? In what sense does it apply to us today? This isn't a short answer. Many good and knowledgeable people -- John MacArthur comes to mind -- do not believe that the HS works today as it did in the apostolic age. I don't doubt Mr. MacArthur's sincerity or wisdom, but neither do I doubt Pastor Ralph's sincerity or wisdom, but, they disagree. I don't know what I believe, to be honest. I haven't seen some of the miracles to which you speak, mostly in subequatorial countries. It's not that I don't believe ... I just can attest to this. Maybe miracles do occur today. I don't doubt that in some measure the Holy Spirit is in me and working through me. The question is the boundaries or limitations imposed on the Holy Spirit since the apostolic age -- some believe those boundaries are very tight, others believe they're no different than they "used to be."

Waiting for the spirit ... do we do this today? Am I waiting for the Holy Spirit to give me His power so I can do what He asks me to do? Maybe we re-live, in small measure and in our small lives, what happened at Pentecost. If I want the power to do great things, I have to wait for the Holy Spirit to descend into me, to dwell with me. He has to make room for the Holy Spirit in me by burning some of the dross.

What benefit is there to the disciples that Jesus goes away? Somehow, Jesus' departure is linked to the fullness of the HS on the disciples (and others). Those two events are correlated. Why couldn't the HS function when Jesus was on earth? Why does Jesus have to leave before the HS comes? Whatever the reason for Jesus leaving before the Spirit comes, it's clear that Jesus saw his own "going away" as for their good. I'm not sure the passage suggests that the HS is for their good. I'm sorry but I don't see this. What I see is Jesus saying HIS OWN leaving is for their good. When he goes, the HS will come. Interestingly, in the translation you give, Jesus says "IF" I go, not "WHEN" I go. What promise do we have in John 14:12 concerning the Spirit’s power in believers? The HS empowers or makes possible to do greater things than He. It takes faith in Him to do greater things than He has done. The sequence in logic is this: 1) We must have great faith in Jesus. 2) The faith we have in Jesus enables us to do greater things "than these ..." 3) The reason why we're empowered to do these great things is that Jesus is going to the Father. So, has anyone done anything greater than what Jesus did? Greater deeds? Greater miracles? I don't think so, but I've heard people talk about the dead rising and sick healed. I've heard personal testimonies of miracles. I just don't know what to think. I've heard but never seen. I have no first-hand proof or experience. I want the power of the HS in my life. If God chooses me to do "greater things" I hope to be ready and willing.

Why do we believe that the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force or power, but a Person? What kinds of functions that we attribute to persons does the Holy Spirit do? Why is it so easy to refer to the Spirit as “it” rather than “Him”? First, I'm not a proponent of "gender neutral" language, but I do think it's odd you insist the HS is not an "it." Pneuma, the word usually translated spirit/wind is gender neutral. The Spirit of God in Genesis is actually a feminine pronoun. Now, Jesus is obviously male and God the FATHER is male, as well. So, I guess, by extension, since three-in-one, the HS is male, too? I have no problem thinking of the HS as a person. Still, I do NOT think of "his gender" as part of being a person. Honestly, Jesus himself seems sorta sexless, though the Bible says he was tempted in ways similar to the temptations that all of us experience, which usually includes sex. I think the reason we think of the Holy Spirit as an "it" is because of spiritual gifts. These gifts are not particularly masculine or feminine. I don't worry, that as I get closer to God, and become LIKE HIM, I'll become masculinized though I know people who claim that Christian faith feminizes men. Nothing about the gender of the Godhead seems vital for my faith, though I agree with you, Sir, that thinking about the HS as a person is important. I'll work on just that: thinking of the HS as a person, like Christ.

1) What does it mean to “testify”? Testify is a verb, so it's something one has to DO. From the Cambridge dictionary: "To speak seriously about something, especially in a law court, or to give or provide proof." 2) In what way does the Spirit testify about Jesus? I found it interesting that the HS does not bring new revelation -- often, charismatics, in particular, appeal to the HS for such revelation. He does, however, testify about Jesus. You list, in your examples above, a) the HS teaching about Jesus (presumably He taught the disciples and continues to teach us) b) the HS witnessing about Jesus (which is a form of proof, even legal proof if necessary) c) the HS reminding us about Jesus (to reiterate to us how serious was the Christ event in human history) 3) Can you testify from personal knowledge about Jesus? Or were the apostles the only first-hand witnesses? I try to testify, to tell people about Jesus. I wonder if it is a false statement to say we "testify with our lives." This may be an excuse to not say anything! Jesus certainly testified of himself with words, and the Holy Spirit uses the words of the Bible, as well as His soft voice in our minds, to testify of himself.

a) In what sense is the Holy Spirit “another” Paraclete? Perhaps I'm a bit backward, here, but I find it interesting that God and Jesus are also paracletes. I wonder if the trinity has more to do with the ROLES of the godhead than the PERSONS of the godhead. If so, than it makes sense that all of them were paracletes. The Holy Spirit was one of three paracletes. b) Who was the initial Paraclete? Probably God, then Jesus, then the Holy Spirit, but time isn't linear with God, so to Him, there may not have been an "initial," but only concurrent existences. c) In what way can the Holy Spirit replace him? The physical body of Jesus is gone. What we have is God expressed as the Holy Spirit, which is the same Spirit in the OT, as we saw in lesson one. d) How was he “with” the disciples? With or In. With seems to be a lesser degree, which makes sense since Jesus told them to wait until they got the greater amount of the Holy Spirit after his ascension. e) When will he be “in” them? In is the greater degree. The Holy Spirit was always there, just as God was always there, but in a confined role, perhaps. The Holy Spirit was "unleashed" after Pentecost. How was he constrained before?

I'm far more worried about how I will receive the gift than if it is the Father or the Son that sent it.

Did Jesus do miracles by reason of being the unique Son of God, or by means of the power of the Holy Spirit upon him? Why is this important for us as his disciples? In what ways does Jesus serve as our example in ministry? I'm not sure that being the Son of God and having the power of the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive -- it seems to be that AS the Son of God and WITH the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus did miracles. This is important to me because of adoption. Just as Jesus is the son of God, I am the daughter of God. If Jesus has, then, the power of the Holy Spirit, I, too, have (potentially) the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus could do miracles ... and I could do miracles?

What does Jesus’ statement, “the Son can do nothing by himself,” indicate about his relationship with the Father? Why did Jesus have to “empty himself” from his heavenly glory when he became a man? I believe the theological word or doctrine for "emptying himself" is called Kenosis. It originally referred To Christ's willingness to put aside his divinity to assume humanity, or to empty himself of his divine powers. Later, it was applied to believers, who, in a reversal of Christ, were to put aside their humanity to assume Christ-likeness. I have no idea if any of this is true. The statement about Jesus' inability to do anything without the Father may refer to the trinity, how the three aspects of the trinity work together mysteriously -- again, I don't know. It may refer to kenosis, or the voluntary giving up of divinity by Jesus. Logically-- note that I'm not trying to sound gnostic!! -- it's hard not to think of the godhead as a hierarchy with God at the top, which would explain why Jesus couldn't do anything without God. I know this is bad theology. The chapter, though, is about the Holy Spirit, not the trinity or kenosis. It's about how Jesus was filled with the Spirit -- the contention is that without the Holy Spirit, Jesus would not have the power to do anything, that in spite of his divinity, his power came from the Holy Spirit. This seems a bit too stark to me. I'm confused. I'll continue on with this chapter to learn more.

I hadn't noticed how many references to the Holy Spirit were in the passages that dealt with Jesus' conception and birth -- thank you! 1. This section starts out by noting that the OT prophetic passages about Jesus include Isaiah's description of the Holy Spirit "resting" on Jesus. 2. Then, you mention that Mary's conception was due to the Holy Spirit in two ways: a) coming upon her, and b) bringing or giving her spiritual power. 3. This made Jesus holy. Presumably, without the HS, Jesus would not be holy. It is, then, the spiritual origin of Jesus that makes him God/holy. 4. That the relationship between God the father and Jesus the son is mediated, in some way I don't understand, by the HS The centrality of the HS in the being of Jesus is much more clear to me now.

At first, I thought the pouring out of the spirit was limited to the place/time of the OT, but when I saw that it was referred to in the NT as a prophetic passage, frankly, I got excited. For one, this is an example of how people in the NT era looked back at the older scriptures and "claimed" them as referring to their own age, or an age in the future. I'm very concerned about how to interpret scripture -- about having a consistent hermeneutic. I don't want to read something in the Bible and apply it to my life when I know it was written specifically for another person at another time. But this passage, which refers to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, has been taken as a universal and timeless passage. Not to be snarky, but has this happened? Has the Holy Spirit been poured out in great measure in any society? OR, perhaps, is this liimited to the end times when the bifurcation of saved and unsaved becomes even more stark?

To answer your question in the context of the Holy Spirit ... 1. Isaiah writes that the coming messiah will have the Holy Spirit on him: "God's Spirit will rest on him." I assume that this means that Jesus will have a much greater measure -- infinite? -- of the Holy Spirit than others in the Old Testament, though I don't see this in the text. 2. Yes, of course it was fulfilled. Jesus did experience the power of the Holy Spirit during his time on earth.

i find it interesting that the spirit comes on us to varying degrees. Moses obviously had more "spirit" than the 70 elders, who in turn had more than the ordinary Israelites. Spiritual assignments seem graduated in a similar way. It takes a lot of faith to do certain miracles, Jesus said, and it takes more faith to, say, prophecy, than to administer the tribes. I also find it interesting that the Holy Spirit is not a constant presence, but comes and goes, perhaps as needed. Did anyone ask for the Holy Spirit to come to them? Or, did it just happen. I can imagine seventy shocked elders who found themselves prophesying. No one seems to have written down what they said. And I wonder, too, if they were disappointed when the spirit lifted from them, returning them to a lesser amount and lesser status.

What is the primary purpose of God putting his Spirit upon selected individuals in the Old Testament? What effect does the Spirit seem to have upon their relationship with God? I'm not certain we know God's purpose in giving his Holy Spirit to certain individuals. We only know the consequences or results of this gift, that the chosen people were empowered to perform a certain assignment He had given them. But God's purpose in choosing a particular person ... I'm not sure. It's His purpose. He seems to hold the reasons for His actions close to Himself. We do know something of the effects of receiving the Holy Spirit -- power and the ability to hear God's voice, to know what He wants that individual to do. It seems that life is more clear after the anointing with the Holy Spirit. More focused. They are able to do their assignments. Does God withdraw His spirit when the person is done with his task? Does a prophet only prophecy for a season? What happened to the artist who designed and created the stuff in the temple -- when he was done, did the Holy Spirit leave him? I'm wondering about the persistence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, in cases like Saul, the spirit can be withdrawn, but in most of these other men's life, the spirit wasn't withdrawn because of any sin or sinful attitude ... but was it withdrawn because the task was completed? I pray, Lord, for your anointing. I ask that you send to me a Samuel who will pray with me, anoint me, and infuse me with your Holy Spirit. I ask for an assignment. I ask to be led clearly, to be obedient to that voice, and to hear your audible, unambiguous commands. I ask to be transformed, to be a different person than I am now. I ask, too, to be one of those special people called to service, a woman who needs your Holy Spirit to perform your assignment. Send someone with a flask, Lord, to anoint me. Make your will clear and known. Guide my every step. Amen

People who have spiritual mentors are blessed -- I am not one of them. God has never chosen to place me with someone more spiritually mature, so I've had to struggle through sanctification by myself. I think my experience is the norm, not the exception. Most Christians are not mentored. So, given the fact that most Christians have never been mentored, and, sadly, do not trust other Christians with deeply revealing/personal information, God must reach down and help Christians discern His voice. In a way, not having deep, trusting fellowship forces the Christian to skips steps in his or her maturity from babe to advanced. The middle steps would normally be taken in small groups and with trusted friends. Since these trusted relationships don't exist, neither does the "horizontal" counsel of which you speak. In fact, there's no counsel at all. Discernment, then, is wholly vertical, between me and God. If I hear God wrongly, I have to trust God to re-straighten my path. There is no human counsel -- failure is possible, but God, Himself, must correct me. Failure is possible with counsel, too. In these circumstances, outgrowing a mentor does not happen.

At the end of your lesson, you said, Ralph, that although we're still imperfect, we should seek God's will and voice. It's interesting that hearing God's voice has morphed into knowing His will. Makes sense. I am willing to obey? I believe I am. I pray similarly to you. I constantly TELL God what I think and desire, then tell Him I want to SUBMIT to whatever He wants for me, and then ASK Him what His will is in this regard. TELL ... SUBMIT ... ASK. Your bottom line, though, is that I don't know God's will because I'm a horrible Christian. You may be right. I sin often, though not nearly as much as I used to ... the trend is good. At least I confess often, or when I think of something I've done or (mostly) thought. I like to think my confession cancels my sin -- but the blood of Christ cancels sins I haven't confessed, too. I'm struggling with memories and thoughts, now, recurring ideas I can't quite shake. As I've prayed, the content of my thoughts has morphed. They're less longing for the good of the past, for the imaginative re-telling of the past, and more this-day sorta stuff. But they're still thoughts ungrounded to my current situation in life, my reality. They're not forward-looking. Perhaps, because of these thoughts/memories/longing I'll never be good enough to hear him? Is this what you're saying, that there's some marker or level of maturity I have not reached that is necessary for God to break through and speak to me? This is what I'm hearing, that I'm too sinful, too proud, too unconfessed ... whatever. I don't measure up. I'm not good enough. So God remains silent as the tears drip down my face, as they are now.

Voice of the flesh -- When I feel that death is preferable to living; when I feel that the trial I am now enduring, though temporary, will never end, that this is it ... life is over. When I feel God wants me to live a small, insignificant, dull life, one that is small and punishing. My flesh screams for a meaningful and big life. My flesh hates the life I'm forced to live now. My flesh doesn't sing in prison, like Paul, but screams to get out. Voice of the world -- When I want recognition for what I can do and don't want to work anonymously or in the dark. The world's voice, to me, sounds like awards and public honours. Voice of the devil -- When I want power, to associate with a particular group of people, to have great influence. Sometimes Satan tells me that I should be with them because I could use my influence for the good, that I could be a little light in a place with no light, but I know this is false. t would be throwing away my calling and life.