The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2
- General Theology
- 85 Replies
Wonderful. Now connect that to the infilling of the Joly Spirit as shown in Acts 2Forgive me, I’m doing the best I can. I promise you, there is an answer carefully expressed; the reason why I framed my answer in church history was to provide a historical proof for your argument. But if you want brevity, here is a summary:
- Theologoumemna do not contradict Scripture, rather like doctrine, they are interpretations of Scripture.
- The difference between Theologoumemna is that unlike Doctrine, they have not been formally endorsed by enough of the Orthodox church to be regarded as part of our dogmatic theology (the actual process by which something becomes dogma is complex since we don’t have a Pope, and worthy of a thread in its own right, for that is a rabbit hole even I won’t go down).
- Some Theolougmemna are nonetheless extremely widely held, and as far as I am aware the interpretation I provided on speaking in tongues is the prevalent theologoumemnon on the subject, and is based on the Scripture detailing the reaction of the people to those who had received the Spirit - that these were real languages, and on an understanding of the interpreters St. Paul mentions as being translators, and based on the element of practical utility that seems to accompany the various gifts of the Spirit, all of which seem useful in and of themselves to ensure the safety and success of the Apostles and those who continue their work.
- This includes Orthodox monastics, because people come to see Orthodox monasteries and ask the elders questions, and interact with them, thus making prominent Orthodox monks such as Elder Ephraim, memory eternal, a kind of missionary.
- I have encountered from some members of the forum the view that Scripture only has one obvious interpretation, but this is clearly not the case; there are multiple possible interpretations of much of Scripture, which is why doctrine is of such great importance, to the extent that St. Isidore of Seville in the late 6th and early 7th century expressed a view that most traditional Christians would gravitate towards, that is summarized as “Scripture is in the interpretation, not the reading.” And we would cite 2 Peter 1:20 in support of that.
Now, the preceding posts I wrote provide a historical context that I wrote with a view towards explaining the historical context and theological rationale behind each of these five points.
Also everything written by my friend @FenderTL5 is correct. Insofar as you seem to be focusing on eschatological implications of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, that or Soteriology (the theology of salvation) are logical areas to study, but this thread also touches on the meaning of the NIcene Creed, church history (insofar as the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement is a recent phenomena whose members believe it to be a revival of the gifts of the spirit documented in Acts and elsewhere), and sacramental theology.
Upvote
0