The internal indwelling of the Spirit will inevitably manifest itself in a person’s outward disposition and conduct.
J.
And what does that have to do with verse..“Spirit of God Spirit of Christ”
??!
…in Pauline theology the Spirit of Christ in the reborn is the same divine Person as the Holy Spirit, though described with relational and redemptive nuance.
The decisive text is Romans 8:9[1].
Observe the parallelism. Paul speaks first of Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, then of Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, without introducing a second entity. The syntax assumes identity, not distinction of persons. “Spirit of God” emphasizes divine origin and essence. “Spirit of Christ” emphasizes mediatorial relation and redemptive application.
This aligns with Galatians 4:6[2], showing the Spirit sent by the Father is simultaneously the Spirit of the Son.
Philippians 1:19[3] confirms again that the Spirit is described in relation to Christ’s redemptive lordship.
Theologically, the Spirit is called “of Christ” because He applies the work accomplished by Christ’s cross and resurrection. Through the Spirit, believers participate in Christ’s death to sin and resurrection life, as Romans 8:10–11[4] explains.
Therefore, in the reborn believer, there is not a separate Spirit of Christ and Holy Spirit. There is one divine Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, called the Spirit of God in relation to the Father and the Spirit of Christ in relation to the Son’s redemptive work. The distinction is relational and economic, not ontological.
Paul uses these terms synonymously to show that the Holy Spirit is the Mediator of Christ’s presence. The “Spirit of God” is the “Spirit of Christ.” They are the same third person of the Trinity, but the title “Spirit of Christ” emphasizes His role in applying the Cross and the Righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21) to the believer.
You agree??
J.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. KJV ↩︎
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. KJV ↩︎
For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. KJV ↩︎
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. KJV ↩︎
I would argue that Scripture identifies the receiving of the Spirit and faith as coterminous–they exist together and one doesn’t exist without the other. If we have the Spirit, we have faith; if we have faith, we have the Spirit.
With this in mind, Scripture constantly points to God’s work through Word and Sacrament to give us the Spirit, give us faith, work faith in us, etc.
So, if, ultimately we want to ask: Do those who are baptized receive the Spirit? The answer, I’d argue, is yes. And if we want to ask: Do those who hear the Gospel and believe receive the Spirit? The answer, I’d argue, is yes.
In Acts 2:38 there is a promise attached to Baptism: The one who is baptized receives the Holy Spirit as a gift.
In Ephesians 1:13 there is a promise attached to the hearing of the Gospel: The one who hears and believes is sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Throughout Scripture God’s work through His own given means demonstrates that God accomplishes His work, gives His gifts, and does what He says He will do.
This is why an infant who is baptized is a believer in Jesus Christ.
And this is why if someone hears, believes, but doesn’t get baptized until later is still a believer in Jesus Christ.
It’s always God’s work. God’s grace. Never what we do.
I have a problem with this @TheologyNerd.
Recent Developments in Catholic and Protestant Sacramental Theology
Over the last several decades both the Catholic and Protestant traditions have seen movements to reinterpret and reformulate sacramental theology. In the Roman Catholic Church, the scholastic framework articulated by Thomas Aquinas (among others) was the dominant perspective until the 20th century’s nouvelle théologie movement, which undertook a ressourcement: a return to Scripture, the church fathers, and the liturgy as sources in theology. Henri de Lubac’s Corpus Mysticum sought to recover the earlier communal dimension of the Eucharist—in particular the recognition that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not just the incarnate body of Jesus but also the Church. The ecclesial dimensions of the other sacraments were also recovered (e.g., de Lubac, Catholicism, 84–90).
Karl Rahner even more radically reconceived the sacraments, setting them in a relational framework, where the primary focus is on God’s self-communication (Rahner, “What Is a Sacrament?”; “Word and Eucharist”). This led to a further recovery of the symbolic dimensions of the sacraments, which had been occluded over the centuries (Rahner, “Theology of the Symbol”). Edward Schillebeeckx carried this trajectory further, articulating a theology of the sacraments as sites of encounter with God (Schillebeeckx, Christ). Both Rahner and Schillebeeckx attempted to express the eucharistic presence without recourse to transubstantiation and the philosophical system upon which it is premised. At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church had defined transubstantiation as a “most apt” (aptissime) way of describing Christ’s eucharistic presence (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon II), though this affirmation leaves open the possibility that other ways of describing the Eucharist are possible. Rahner’s theory might be called “transfinalization,” meaning that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were repurposed to be used for the end of communion between God and humanity (Rahner, “The Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper,” 307–11). Schillebeeckx’s theory was transsignification, which basically affirms that the meaning of the bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood (Schillebeeckx, The Eucharist, 122–51). Neither Rahner nor Schillebeeckx intended to deny transubstantiation. Pope Paul VI condemned both theories in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei (no. 11).
More recently, Louis-Marie Chauvet has articulated a postmodern account of Catholic sacramental theology. Chauvet’s theology works with what is called a relational ontology (as opposed to substance metaphysics) and sees the sacraments working by way of symbolic exchange. According to Chauvet, our personhood is constituted linguistically, and therefore symbolically, so language and symbol are appropriate ways of conceiving our relationship with God. Chauvet attempts to reintegrate Scripture, sacrament, and ethics and to set the sacraments in a more Trinitarian framework as opposed to the traditional Christological basis (Chauvet, Symbol and Sacrament).
Since Calvin’s day, the Reformed tradition has vacillated with regard to the sacraments. While some have maintained Calvin’s views, others suggest that his sacramental theology is incompatible with the rest of his doctrine, and so abandoned it for more Zwinglian approaches (Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 811, cited in Cunnington, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” 215; Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/4, 130). Recently, several theologians have sought to recover the sacramental dimensions of Calvin’s thought (Horton, People and Place, 99–152; The Christian Faith, 751–827; Matthison, Given For You; Hunsinger, The Eucharist and Ecumenism). Michael Horton and Nicholas Wolterstorff draw from speech-act theory to articulate an account of the sacraments as God’s promissory actions (Horton, People and Place, 108–09; Wolterstorff, “Sacrament as Action, Not Presence,” 110–14). This sets their outlook in a relational terrain. For Horton in particular the covenant remains paramount (Horton, People and Place, 100–10, 135–41).
The NET Bible (Biblia.com)).
J.
Hi,
There are 3 or 4 way to think about this for me.
-
The Holy Spirit is received when you believe and at the intent to follow one is inwardly sealed with the Holyghost.
-
The Holy Spirit is received on belief of who Jesus is and water batism a seal of your commitment to death to the self. Then one is noted to public that you are a son by empowerment of being filled by the Father and the Son. For then hypothetically it’s the Father Spirit in one who is annoited by the Holyghost.
I share my other thoughts when I get back.
Kind of think about vibration, or harmony, rather.
For example if water, brings off an Aura, like ice brings cold, snow bring freezing and Steam give off hot moist…
Even though these are united by the same chemical component, h20- they still have for lack of better wording, Aura’s. And it may be when those come together they produce power.
One of my thoughts that I want prove true are false is that the father, son and Holy ghost are at our own Baptism.
Jesus had the Father’s Spirit in Him before His water Baptism and …however it happened to Jesus in someway or another should happen to His disciples.
What would it look like for the ->heavens to open? Power?..but power from whom, sense Jesus is now back to the father?
Just some thoughts to ponder upon
So if it be true that one receives the Spirit before water baptism. When did those who received it know according to scripture?
I am exploring :The Holyghost bearing witness to the Spirit of the father that is in men.
Which beggs the question what is our Spirit.
And are we born with a spirit, or given the Holy Spirit.
Enough for now…I need a break ..peace and Blessing
Here is another good discussion-
galatians - The Spirit of his Son - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange https://share.google/qN1XJDMExPeiOXZxq
What is the difference between Spirit in and Spirit upon.
Would this have to do with what could be a difference between the The Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit?
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. [Ezekiel 36:24-27]
And And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. [Joel 2:28-29]
What it seems like to me is Spirit is within before It’s pour upon…
What might that have to do with any kind of difference?
Well according to my knowledge of the “trinity” could it be said that there is one essence…as in Spirit…
Yet having one essence as man was formed from the dust of the ground doesn’t necessarily mean 
the same roles are played.
With that said comparing man’s essence with God’s maybe physical we can see spiritually?
Just explore with me- take a journey of questions to prove or disprove if there is a difference.
Can man have the same essence ( dust) and have different roles. This is all presupposing the essence of God the father, son, and Holyghost is spirit.
How would you explain dust as one?
How would you explain Spirit as one?
Could we say by their make up- one is temporary
And the other eternal?
Could we say that they both have the same nature.
I mean how is it possible to talk about the dust of the ground being one unless we claim it has one nature, that might be said to be immaterial.
To be continued
Notes- to abstract and entangled thoughts-The majority of sites on the Net, in this subject will claim there is no difference because they use the same word pneuma. But just maybe the nature as “spirit” is the same. Yet the question is not how they are the same but how can a spirit be different.
Well Humamanity itself seems to have an immaterial narure “the dust”. However all dust/dirt is not the same. Off the top of my head, dirt can be different colors and in different places. People can use dirt for different reason: they place in bags to deter water, mix it with water to seal houses, and trackers move it to make land higher to landscape. So there is different uses for of dirt.
…continue
Now the Spirit being within before It’s poured upon is what I see.
But what type of Spirit (unbodily personal power) are we talking about…
Is there one Spirit? Or one essence? And what is the difference?
…
No, “dirt” is not a plural word; it is an uncountable (or mass) noun. It represents a substance as a whole, meaning it is treated as singular and does not take a plural form like “dirts” in standard English.
**** Usage: You refer to “the dirt” or “some dirt,” rather than “a dirt” or “many dirts”.***
**** Pluralizing: To refer to multiple instances, use phrases like “patches of dirt,” “types of soil,” or “piles of dirt”.***
**** Context: While “dirt” can refer to many things, it remains grammatically uncountable***
Anothet good post with lots of scriptures to think about.
And that question is when did Jesus receive .The promise of the Spirit…at the right hand or upon deliverence… ? Why and where was Jesus promised the Spirit so yit could be poured out.
I was trying to stay out of this, but you dragged me back in. Just joking. Seriously, I do not believe this. A baby can be dedicated to the Lord. This should be done. The Parents should agree to dedicate the upbringing of the child as God says we should. Therefore, if they agree, we dedicate the child to God.
Just a simple question, do you remember being a baby? Of course not. Would a baby remember being held by a strange man and having water dropped on its head? Let alone what that is supposed to mean?
I believe in the age of accountability. While the phrase isn’t there, the following “evidence” is in the Word.
Can the child know the difference between good and evil? In Deuteronomy 1:39, God spares the children of the rebellious Israelites from punishment, describing them as “your children who do not yet know good from bad.” This suggests a period of life where moral discernment is not yet fully formed.
In Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 7:15-16 refers to a time before a child “knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.”
When King David’s infant son died, David said, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” 2 Samuel 12:23. Many interpret this to mean David expected to see his child in heaven, implying the child was not held accountable for sin.
Jesus frequently held up children as models for the Kingdom of Heaven, saying, “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matthew 19:14.
Once the child comes to an understanding of what accepting Jesus, Sin, Salvation, and salvation really mean, THEN can he /she be baptized the way Jesus said to be. That age varies from child to child.
God bless
Peter
2 Likes
I think this reflects a very modern idea, one that places the focus on a conscious, individual, salvation choice and experience.
As I don’t believe in Decisionism, that’s simply not part of how I understand Scripture or the Christian life. We make personal, individual, conscious choices all the time in being faithful–so that’s not what I am opposed to. But in many modern Protestant traditions a very specific way of looking at the Christian life has emerged, largely out of the Second Great Awakening.
If you asked me when I first believed in Jesus, I couldn’t answer you. I don’t know, I don’t remember it. I’ve believed for as long as I have memory, and I remember some pretty old things. I remember the day my little brother was born, we’re only 2 years apart. I remember the cake I got for my 4th birthday. I don’t remember a time when I didn’t have faith in Jesus.
I wasn’t baptized as an infant. The tradition I was raised in taught a form of Decisionism and practiced Credobaptism. So I was raised and taught that “getting saved” involved a personal decision to invite Jesus into my heart and make Him my personal Lord and Savior. Which is why when I was four my parents led me through the sinner’s prayer, and again when I was eight my dad again led me through the sinner’s prayer because I was afraid I didn’t really mean it the first time. And then again, when I was twelve, I said the sinner’s prayer again by myself. And then throughout my adolescence often found myself alone, on my knees or prostrate on the floor, begging God to save me.
In adulthood I slowly became dissuaded of a lot of the theological and doctrinal positions in which I had been raised; largely because it became increasingly more difficult to defend them from Scripture, or find them within the historic teaching and practice of the Christian Church. Which began a lengthy journey, which ended up with me becoming accidentally Lutheran.
The point in sharing that is this: I believe that salvation is about grace alone. And God saves us, justifies us, through faith alone. And I believe that Scripture is abundantly clear that God uses Means. I don’t spontaneously one day wake up saved–-God works through His Word and Sacraments to accomplish His work.
So I didn’t get saved because of any of my attempts when I prayed the sinner’s prayer. I was saved because Jesus died for me, because God through the power of His Gospel worked and created faith in me, before I was old enough to form memories.
There’s nothing in Scripture that says that only those who have made a personal decision to follow Jesus may be baptized. Rather, baptism is described as a genesis moment, where we are brought into mystical union with Christ (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-12, Galatians 3:27). Which is why baptism is alluded to in John 3:5, our birth from God comes not from any act of the flesh, but is spiritual–by water and the Spirit. In the same way, St. Paul says the same in Titus 3:5.
Since we know that faith does not arise from within ourselves, but from outside of ourselves as God’s gracious work accomplished by His word (Romans 10:17), then wherever that word is at work God is present and working. So, yes, the baptized infant has faith. Because baptism isn’t just getting wet, it’s union to Christ, it’s the washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:26).
So, yes, baptized infants are believers in Jesus Christ. They have faith, and they are saved because that is God’s faithful promise to all who believe in Jesus Christ.
I don’t believe in an age of accountability. I believe that human beings mature and grow, and not all at the same speed or way. As such we are growing, learning, maturing throughout our whole lives. There’s line where before that we aren’t wretched sinners and after we are suddenly wretched sinners.
I was conceived in my mother’s womb a wretch, a sinner, worthy of death and hell.
Some honest questions. If this is the case, then you would have to believe one of two things. 1 - Everyone goes to heaven for the sole reason that Christ died and rose for all. 2- God chooses who will be saved. Predestination. Therefore, whoever goes to hell, they were born to?
Truthfully, me either. I know some who could tell you the date and time and what they ate for breakfast that day. I know some others who will tell you, I do not agree, but will tell you that if you do not remember, you should question your salvation. Again, I do not agree.
Again, 1 or 2?
Yes. The Bible tells us this. It also teaches “if".”
“Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” Romans 10:9-10
If you believe.
”Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16
Translation? If you believe.
John 3:16-18 God loves all, send Christ to die for us. IF we believe in the Son, we live. IF we do not, then we are condemned already.
How does that work? If you mean we are called. Yes. If you mean we chose yes or no, then you have to understand the difference. Or are we back to 1 or2?
They do not even know their own name. How are their believers in anything? Their total existence is eat, poop, and sleep. We can and do dedicate children to God, but that is more a promise of the parent, not the child.
Correct. That is why that age is fluent. Some will understand at 5, some later, some can do rocket science at 7, and some may never reach that, which means they are totally saved by grace, and God understands the heart and mind of the individual.
Yes. We are all sinners. Jesus said, “Follow me.” If Peter, Matthew, or anyone else said no thanks, we would not have the New Testament. We have free will to say yes or no. One last question. Is Faith not a choice? Faith = If?
Peter
1 Like
Say Pneuma is the same for ghost and Spirit…
( For physical relatability- say man is the same)
Does that mean that there are not diferrent types of powers and Spirits?
( for physical relatability- does that mean there are not different man with different thoughts?)
Israel is one man? BUT AT THE SAME TIME MANY PEOPLE how is that so
To be continued- on same page
Answer Ai- In summary, it is a paradox of inheritance (one ancestor) and community (many descendants) combined with a spiritual or functional unity (“as one man” in action).
So if this be true, why can’t the Holyghost and Holy Spirit be at the same time pneuma; Spirit- with different roles?
For example- if God the Father is Spirit
And God the son is Spirit
Why can’t their roles be done for the same goals or purposes?
As at Jesus baptism- the Father who is Spirit reveals His son
The Dove (or bird what ever it was)in my opinion, annoits Jesus for service. Yet is Spirit.
2 different entities that are Of the same essence, right?
But, do they not, do 2 diffent things for the same end goal?
For example look at the physical relatibility of the Red sea crossing? The Rock, THE Cloud, Moses(type of deliverer)
What was the function of the Rock, and the Cloud?
To be continued-
And if this be true…why cant “ghost” at a different atmophere represent a change in a Spirits or Spirits funtion?
In the biblical account of the Exodus, the Rock and the Cloud served as tangible, miraculous manifestations of God’s presence,
guidance
, and sustenance for the Israelites in the wilderness. According to 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, these elements were also symbolic “types”—foreshadowing spiritual realities fulfilled in Christ
What should exist at or after a person’s, acting in true faith, baptism ? The opening of heaven, annoited for service, some manifestation thar the Spirit is within…or among
And now that Jesus has gone back to heaven who is doing the pouring out of the Spirit? I guess if we are to believe the Trinity exist- and know the Eseence of God manifest as 3 persons…who is pouring out their spirit? And what is that Spirit called after Jesus goes back to the Father.
( wouldn’t a distinction be made)
And what do those He is pouring out to, need to have done or possessed before the Spirit is poured out on them? If it is to believe the Father’s testimony concerning His son, whose Spirit are they receiving? The Father’s or the Son?
To be continued
Brother, we certainly agree that all men are sinners and that Jesus called men to follow Him, but the question underneath the discussion is deeper than that. The issue is not whether people respond, but what ultimately explains that response. Scripture repeatedly teaches that fallen man, left to himself, does not choose God.
Jesus Himself states this directly.
No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day[1]]
Notice the language of ability. Christ does not say men merely do not come. He says they cannot come unless the Father first acts.
Paul explains why. Humanity is not spiritually neutral but spiritually dead.
And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins[2]]
A dead person does not initiate life. Life must first be given. That is why Scripture speaks of salvation as new birth, not self-improvement.
Which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God[3]]
The text explicitly removes “the will of man” as the cause of the new birth.
Regarding your question about faith being a choice, the New Testament presents faith as the result of God’s saving work, not the independent cause of it. Paul states that salvation itself, including the faith through which it is received, is God’s gift.
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God[4]]
This does not mean people are robots or that human response is unreal. Peter truly followed Christ. Matthew truly left the tax table. But Scripture shows that their response flowed from Christ’s sovereign call and life-giving power, grounded in the redemption accomplished through His cross and confirmed in His resurrection.
So the question is not whether people believe. The question is why they believe while others remain in unbelief. According to Scripture the decisive answer is not autonomous human will but the mercy and grace of God who grants life, repentance, and faith.
J.
No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day - KJV ↩︎
And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins - KJV ↩︎
Which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God - KJV ↩︎
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God - KJV ↩︎
Ai Old testament usage
Both Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God) and Ruach YHWH (Spirit of the LORD) refer to the divine presence, power, or “wind/breath” of God in the Old Testament, with Ruach Elohim often emphasizing God’s creative power or general presence (e.g., Genesis 1:2), while Ruach YHWH highlights the personal, covenantal presence of the LORD, frequently associated with empowering individuals for specific tasks (e.g., Judges 6:34
Now this is interesting- for my question here seeing that “Lord” is used..could this be in reference to the Person of Jesus?
What would Saying “Lord and my God”…mean?
Possible answer-
Recognition of a personal relationship with recognizing Jesus divine nature?
I don’t believe everyone goes to heaven/is saved; nor do I believe anyone was predestined for hell.
However, yes, I do believe that God has chosen and predestined us in Christ.
This would involve a much longer discussion about the major differences between Lutheran and Reformed theology. And would probably require talking about what Lutherans call the Crux Theologorum.
Without going down the whole rabbit hole: Yes God chooses us, having loved and chosen us in Christ from before the foundation of the world. No, God has not chosen anyone for damnation, God desires and will that everyone be saved. So our salvation is something we can attribute only to God, who loves us and has been gracious toward us. But if we turn away or if we reject God, that is from our choice.
We have the “power” to say no.
We don’t have the power to say yes.
The will is not truly free, the will is sinful and enslaved to the fallen lusts and appetites of the flesh.
This assumes that faith is a property of human intellect. But we are talking about the supernatural faith that trusts in Christ which comes from God (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 10:17). But we can even look to the natural faith of an infant. You say an infant can only eat, poop, and sleep–and yet does not the child call out for his mother, does he not reach out almost on instinct to cleave to his mother the source of his life and sustenance? So even in the tiny infant we see a natural faith–the natural faith between infant and mother. Why should it be so shocking that when God creates a supernatural faith, one that clings to Christ as an infant clings to his mother, that it should be anything other than faith? Trust. This is not about the human ability to reason, but God’s grace.
Faith isn’t only for the learned scholar, it is not denied to someone who hasn’t taken a graduate program in theology. Faith is not restricted from the small child, or someone with learning disabilities–for the universal reality of our sin is countered by the universal love of God, and His grace, and the Gospel is for each and every one of us no matter who we are, where we are, what our condition or state is. It is for the tiny baby nestled in his mother’s arms. It is for the old sage living on the mountain. It is for the slave and the free, the Jew and the Greek, male and female, the learned and unlearned, the fool and the philosopher, the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor.
When we bring our children to the font and in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are washed clean, their sins are forgiven, they have died with Christ, buried with Christ, and have been raised to new life in Christ. They have received a new name, the Holy Spirit lives in them, they have faith–a faith that it is now our responsibility as the Church to help nurture. Because koinonia–communion and fellowship–means we carry each other in love. So we do not abandon the baptized, we become a village of faith to help each other grow in Christ.
Yes, they are the same. The difference isn’t about their identity or power; it is purely about how the English language has changed over the last 400 years. Same words, different language roots. In the original languages of the Bible, there is only one term used for both.
Greek (New Testament): Pneuma hagios * Hebrew (Old Testament): Ruach HaKodesh
Both pneuma and ruach mean “breath,” “wind,” or “spirit.” When the Bible was translated into English, two different word roots were used to describe this “breath” of God:
“Ghost” comes from the Old English/Germanic word gast (think of the German word Geist).
“Spirit” comes from the Latin word spiritus.
Why does the King James Version (KJV) use “Ghost”? When the King James Version was translated in 1611, “ghost” and “spirit” were basically interchangeable. Back then, “ghost” didn’t mean a spooky phantom in a haunted house; it simply meant the “living essence” or “immaterial soul” of a person.
Interestingly, even the KJV isn’t consistent. It uses “Holy Ghost” 90 times, but it uses “Holy Spirit” 7 times, like in Psalm 51:11. There’s no theological difference between them in the text; it was likely just the preference of the different translation committees.
Over time, the word “ghost” shifted in meaning. Today, it almost exclusively refers to the spirit of a dead person or a scary apparition. Because God is the “Giver of Life” and not a “spirit of the dead,” modern translators (NIV, ESV, NASB) use the Holy Spirit to avoid confusion and to stay closer to the original meaning of “breath” or “wind.”
Peter
First @TheologyNerd
That was beautiful. I truly mean that. However, I do not really think it matters all that much if you view Baby Baptism or Baby dedications as protecting the child. There are no children in hell. Period. There are no mentally handicapped people in hell either.
Yes, of course, the Bible does not contain one specific “Golden Verse” that explicitly says, “All children who die go to heaven.” Please do not ask for that. However, there is a very strong biblical case for what theologians often call the “Age of Accountability.”
The consensus among most scholars is that God, in His justice and mercy, does not hold children, or those with diminished mental capacity, responsible for a rejection of the Gospel before they are capable of understanding it. Here is the language the Bible uses to support this.
“And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.” Deuteronomy 1:39
This is in Isaiah 7:16
“For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.”
The Point is these verses suggest that God recognizes a period in a human life where they lack the cognitive or moral capacity to be held legally “guilty” under His law.
Jesus made this statement.
“But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’” Matthew 19:14
If the Kingdom of Heaven “belongs” to them, it stands to reason that they are not excluded from it. Jesus consistently used children as the standard for who enters His presence. In their complete innocence. The closest we can get to the Garden. Not sin-free, but no knowledge of good or evil.
As I said, I do not believe that it matters that much the different views we share. I do have one question, that I’m a bit hesitant to ask because I do not want to fall through the Rabbit hole. If infant Baptism is all needed to save that Child and protect him his whole life, then that would mean he grows up with no knowledge of God, murders a bunch of people, OSAS? He is protected because he got wet when he was a baby? I just do not get that.
Peter
Agreed.
So if the will of man is subverted, then a person who hears the Word cannot then accept what he heard and be saved?
“For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Romans 10:13-17
So you believe the one preached has no will other than to preach, and the one hearing is only hearing because God put them together? Now, if this is the case, then we agree that God put them together and drew the lost to Jesus through the preacher. However, are you saying that the preacher must preach?
Yes, understood, but they still have a choice to make to stay or go.
Amen. I agree with this one hundred percent.
Shalom, my brother.
Peter
But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his nam
~John 1:12
Observe the order of ideas.
Receiving Christ
believing in his name
becoming children of God
being born of God
The grammar shows two distinct levels.
Human response
receiving believing
Divine causation
being born of God
The participial logic in Greek implies that those who believe demonstrate that their birth has its source in God rather than human initiative.
Therefore the phrase not of the will of man does not mean human beings cannot believe the gospel after hearing it. Rather it means the new birth itself is not produced by human decision or effort.
In theological language this is a statement about causation not about the existence of faith.
Faith is the instrumental response to the Word.
~Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God[2]
Regeneration is the efficient cause of the new life.
~John 3:5–6
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit[3]
Thus the Johannine grammar maintains two truths simultaneously.
Humans genuinely believe the gospel when they hear it.
But the origin of the spiritual life that makes them children of God is not human will but divine action.
In other words the verse denies that regeneration originates in human volition. It does not deny that people respond to the preached Word in faith.
This also aligns with the broader Johannine theology where divine initiative precedes human response.
~John 6:44
No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him[4]
The drawing of the Father explains why some believe when they hear the Word while others do not.
So the logic of the text can be summarized grammatically.
Hearing the Word produces faith.
Believing receives Christ.
But the new birth that makes one a child of God originates not in human will but in the sovereign action of God.
Shalom.
J.
But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name KJV ↩︎
So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God KJV ↩︎
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit KJV ↩︎
No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day KJV ↩︎
Corlove
Peter
YES WE KNOW THE WORD PNEUMA IS THE SAME…
HOWEVER ARE YOU SAYING THERE ARE NOT UNBODILY PERSONAL POWER THAT HAVE DIFFERENT FUNTIONS, DEPENDING ON THEIR ATMOSPHERE OR SURROUNDING.
How do explain: Winds created by pressure differences in the atmosphere are generally called pressure gradient winds or atmospheric circulation, classified based on their scale and permanency into global/planetary winds (Trade Winds, Westerlies, Polar Easterlies) and local/regional winds (monsoons, sea breezes, katabatic winds). They blow from high-pressure zones to low-pressure zones.
Here is a breakdown of the different types of winds:
- Global (Planetary) Winds: These are large-scale, permanent wind systems that distribute heat around the globe due to uneven solar heating.
- Trade Winds: Located near the equator (0° to 30°), blowing from east to west.
- Westerlies: Located at mid-latitudes (30° to 60°), blowing from west to east.
- Polar Easterlies: Located at high latitudes (60° to 90°), blowing from east to west.
- Local/Regional Winds: These are smaller-scale winds that change based on time of day or season.
- Monsoons: Seasonal reversals of wind direction, bringing dry winters and wet summers.
- Sea and Land Breezes: Daily, localized winds caused by differential heating of land and water.
- Katabatic Winds: Cold, dense air rushing downslope, often found in valleys.
- Anabatic Winds: Warm air rising up slopes.
- Jet Streams: High-altitude, fast-moving narrow bands of
How Would one explain the Spirit of Christ in an earthly body, verses the Spirit of the Father in Christ.
And when Christ goes back to the father is He going back in the same form He came? If not why&how, if so how&why?
Why is it that water h20 can have different names depending on the atmosphere but we are saying types of unbodily personal power can’t?