5 Comments

1. Most of this particular post contradicts that for which I've argued on the blog. I don't think I should put a lot of time in it, but someone may think that the position I take has been now devastated by Thomas here, leaving only scorched earth all around. I'm open to change in that position, but I'm still not persuaded by what Thomas writes here. His attempts at debunking that position make it worse for me, because I'm reminded of the Shakespearean, "that who doth protest too much." Why spend so much time smacking down "in one spirit?" It doesn't change the interpretation. It's easy for me to think—well, it's the position that Pastor Brandenburg takes, so I'm going to need to spend lots and lots of effort here. I can appreciate that. I don't spend, I don't believe, the same amount of time, attempting to overturn a capital "S," Holy Spirit position. Either way, you can have the same position. However, you are more likely to be left with Spirit baptism in this chapter with the position that Thomas is defending, at least in this post. You won't with my position.

   I'll say this one thing that makes what Thomas writes here very curious. He says that "spirit of unity" is not found here or anywhere in the Bible. Wow. I just wag my head on that one. He says that "spirit of unity" is not found in Philippians 1:27, the parallel passage here. Of course, he doesn't say what it actually means either, that is, if it is not "spirit of unity" in Philippians 1:27, then what's it talking about? That would have been nice to know. Does "in one spirit" actually mean that all the people in Corinth combined has one human spirit? I don't know. He doesn't say.

   It really is obvious that Philippians 1:27 is talking about a "spirit of unity." "In one spirit," just like "one mind" and "one mouth" elsewhere, talks about a "spirit of unity." That's the exact message of those verses at the end of Philippians 1. Paul wants the saints of the church at Philippi to stand together, to stand firm in unity. He wants them united in spirit, moving the same direction, not in strife, but in togetherness.

   But Thomas says "no." Not about a "spirit of unity." Not going to say what it is, but it's not that. This kind of exegesis can hurt one's credibility. I don't want his to be hurt, because we take the same position on 1 Corinthians 12:13. Maybe 1 Corinthians 12:13 is talking about capital "S," "Holy Spirit." Maybe so. I'm not persuaded, but this kind of dealing doesn't help make the point.

   Reply

2. Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

   When I posted it, I was not at all thinking that you took that position. I was only thinking that Dr. Strouse took it. I am glad that it comes out to the same position in the end. It is your blog, and if I had been thinking that it was your position, I wouldn't have posted it at all. Since it is your blog, I don't feel inclined to defend something other than your position, although if you would like me to say more on Philippians 1:27, I'd be happy to, but I have no desire to post something on your blog that is different from your position.

   Reply

3. Thomas,

   I could have deleted the post. We've argued it in public before: http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2007/10/proof-text-perversions-1-corinthians_19.html .

   And I know we've spent some time on it in private. It's one of the three or four disagreements we've had in Bible interpretation or application, to the point where some readers probably think we should separate, since I don't take the essential-non-essential doctrine position.

   I wasn't wanting to fully rehash the whole thing, since we've gone through it once, but I don't remember your saying that "in one spirit" doesn't teach a "spirit of unity" in Philippians 1:27. That seems like a bit of overkill that is unbelievable.

   I would go further in saying that the absence of or the presence of an article before pneuma doesn't mean nothing. I'm sure Strouse knows that one doesn't need an article there for Spirit to be definite or the Holy Spirit and that wasn't his point.

   In my opinion, your arguments do better when you keep them to the ones that might work. Ones that don't work at all make it seem like you have more at stake in it than just getting it right.

   Reply

4. I've considered removing the post and all the comments, but I haven't. Why? Some of the readers might think that something's wrong between Thomas and me. Have you noticed that Thomas is the only other person who is writing on this blog? That indicates our relationship. Talking strongly doesn't mean you don't have a good relationship. Thomas sometimes fails, but he tries to be very respectful to me as his former pastor and elder. Anyone can see that. I respect Thomas as much as anyone I know. I think we should still have conversations like this, even in public.

   Reply

5. Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

   It is interesting that we had discussed this question in that previous post. I actually didn't remember that we did that. (Hopefully my exegesis is superior to my memory.) In Philippians 1:27, en heni pneumati, mia psueche (KJV, in one spirit, with one mind) looks to me like it is talking about their human spirits and human souls/minds being unified. It seems difficult to me to affirm that 1 Cor 12:13 is talking about the human spirit. If in Phil 1:27 "spirit of unity" means human spirits being unified, then I agree that they had such a spirit of unity. I had the idea that "spirit of unity' has a sense similar to what someone does who gives a talk to a responsive audience and says "there is a good spirit here," where "spirit" means attitude rather than a constituent portion of the human being. If in Phil 1:27 you mean that their human spirits were unified, I agree that that is what the verse is about; their human spirits and souls were unified. I would then agree that Phil 1:27 is about a spirit of unity. I would still have difficulty seeing how 1 Cor 12:13 could be about the human spirit, though.

   I'm probably not going to say more on this–feel free to have the last word, if you wish to do so.

   Thank you for your kind words; I respect you very greatly also.

   Reply