Before I begin I should say that this became rather a long post - but I certainly enjoyed talking to myself about it all!
The only reason they could possibly think that is because of the capital put there by translaters from writings where there were no capitals.
This is one thing that Theologians and exegetical scholars rarely fall for and why they will spend an enormous amount of time discussing why the various translators may have incorrectly used lower case instead of uppercase or with the reverse and when it comes to specific translations of Greek words they can spend up to a chapter just discussing the complexities of a single word. We only have to look at how the academics interelate over the Greek word pneumatikos which is the opening of 1Co 12.
Theologians you refer to blindly follow the errors of those that go before them.
DA Carson, Gordon Fee, Bruce Winter, Anthony Thiselton, Robert Menzies, DG Dunn, Wayne Grudem, Bittlinger, Keener, etc, etc. These men stand as one in that they constantly lament the fact that the average preacher and church goer regularly uncritically accepts whatever they read from populist sources especially if their source happens to be a celebrity.
One characteristic of an academic from within any persuasion, be it Theological, medical or whatever is that they will never accept the status quo. Of course due to our fallen nature these people certainly recognise that they can be as uncritical as anyone else at times but this is why peer-review and consultation is a major component of any academics life as the saying goes, Iron sharpens Iron.
Through the work of men such as Fee, Caron Grudem and Storms (and with others) ; by the mid 90s these men were responsible for removing cessationism as a serious form of Theology to the point where a new class of believer has risen who we refer to as being open-but-cautious when it comes to the things of the Spirit. The only authors/commentators who try and pull the old humanist line that the Manifestations of the Spirit died at the end of the first century are the die-hards who are still stuck in their worldly mindsets; and it is rare to find any respected contemporary Theologian who will try and stand up for the old cessationist way of thinking cessationism and the academy do not go hand in hand.
--------------------
Perhaps I could put this question out there: "Did Jesus exhibit these fruits before the Holy Spirit came upon Him."
Can I rephrase this question by asking, did the 'God-man' Jesus exhibit the fruits of the Spirit before he was endued from Power from on High? Remember, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one essence even while he was on earth.
Even though Jesus had emptied himself of his power he was still both fully God and fully man. Both the Father and Jesus knew full well that no man could emulate him which is why the Father has given us the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus it is the work of the Holy Spirit within us who transforms our fallen human nature which is why we can display the fruits of the Spirit, unlike Jesus who had already displayed these characteristics even before his Baptism in the Jordan.
Jesus stood righteous before his Father even before his Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is why the Father said that he was pleased with his Son. Essentially Jesus (as a God-man) had done what no man could do, he lived a live that fully pleased the Father even though he had not been endued with Power from on High.
As there are
9 Manifestations of the Spirit there are also
9 Fruits of the Spirit and it is only in the power of the Spirit can we appropriate any of them. Even though it is common to incorrectly refer to the Manifestations of the Spirit as being spiritual gifts they are not something that we are given but they are exactly what Paul refers to them as manifestations of the Spirit of God who resides within the believer.
No matter how hard or affective we are in following Pauls admonition to seek the greater graces, all we are doing is simply allowing the Spirit of God to minister through us as they are not given to us an external activity or gift from the Spirit. The same goes for the Fruit of the Spirit, even though we are the ones who are now appropriating these Fruits, it is only through the activity of the Spirit of God within us that we can do so.
If we do not acknowledge them as being Fruits of the Spirit then all we are inadvertently doing is saying that they are the result of our own human effort. If we lower the benchmark by referring to the Fruits of the Spirit as being merely the result of our own human effort are we to also refer to the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit as merely being manifestations of our humanity undoubtedly you can see the problem here.
In summation the word "spirit" should not be capitalized here because it confuses the issue of the responsibility of the "fruits".
This is where the issue is not solely about
responsibility but about
agency. Even though we are each accountable to the Lord for our own actions and behaviour (responsibility) we are only able to appropriate these Fruits because they are enabled within us by the activity of the Spirit (agency). Without the Spirit we have no hope of being able to appropriate anything unless we embrace the Spirit who is the agent.
So the question is about both
responsibility and
agency or I should say
agency before
responsibility in that if we are not first empowered through the
agency of the Holy Spirit then our
responsibility means nothing.
Even though we all have the right to present our own viewpoints, if we know that we stand against virtually all thought on a specific matter then we need to present our position by acknowledging that our particular view is not in line not only with historical Christianity but with I would say virtually all respected peer-reviewed contemporary commentary. But of course a majority view doesnt always mean that someone else is wrong and we only have to look at how the majority were horrified with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit over a century ago.
Trichotomy, Dichotomy or Functional Dichotomy?
Heres where the contemporary popularity of the Trichotomous position (your own) has in my view created a few hiccups especially when it comes to Full Gospel Theology. Those who believe in the dichotomous model see man as being made up of two parts, being a body and a soul and that the Scriptures use the terms
soul and
spirit interchangeably. As I am a Functional Dichotomous I acknowledge that man is certainly
body and
soul but I recognise that the Scriptures use the terms soul and spirit in specific ways. As such I believe that man is functionally body and soul but when the Scriptures speak of the human spirit it is speaking of our demeanour, attitude, way of speech and thought.
This is similar to how people say that someone has either a pleasing or bitter spirit; they are not simply saying that a mans inner core, being his soul is pleasing or bitter (though there is a correlation), but that his words and manner of presentation is pleasing or bitter. When God looks into a man he sees his inner-soul; man can only see what comes from within the man as with his speech and overall demeanour.
Things certainly change when we are born again and are filled with the Spirit in that the born again individual then becomes body, soul and is indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
So leaving aside if your view is either correct or incorrect, the onus is now on you to demonstrate why the Church has got it wrong over the centuries as it has admittedly done with a number of its other various historical positions. But you will have to utilise the tools of the trade to be able to effectively prove your point and of course these tools are a part of the arsenal of the scholar and I grant that these tools can be used for both good and bad but with a bit of experience the bad is generally easy to pick.
