So sorry about the late response. For reasons I will not explain, my energy is not what it would be right now, but I am throughly enjoying this conversation. It's causing me to refine my positions on things, as I have never had to think things all the way through on matters concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before. Very grateful you posted it, and that you are being courteous.
Well, I hope in Him that I am sharing in the spirit of meekness since it is on Him to cause the increase. Only He can minister & reveal the truth.
Now. Watch this. Clearly the Thessalonians had received the Holy Spirit. Paul says so in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. But you see, the question is a matter of extent.[/QUOTE]
To what extent when read in context? Paul is just referring to when they were saved at the calling of the gospel.
1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
In the Book of Acts the Spirit fell so strongly that it appeared as tongues of fire. Did this manifestation last? This group would have included the apostles, and yet you don't hear anything else in scripture about tongues of fire continuing to appear upon them, or any of the other Christians in NT times. So it becomes a matter of degree.
That "strong" manifestation that had occurred at Pentecost was tongues being spoken in the native languages of foreign Jews visiting in Jerusalem. It was not by a degree when it is just the fulfillment of the prophesy in Isaiah 28:11-12, but ironically, that chapter is confirming what tongues are for and that is for only speaking unto the people, because it exposes what is not of Him at all.
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing
: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Those that do not hear will be led astray in the very movements they fall backwards in for following a stranger's voice, tongues without interpretation, gained by seeking another filling of the Holy Ghost.
So there can be no degree or extent of having the filling of the Holy Ghost when that filling is associated with the glory of the gospel of Jesus Christ at our salvation which is why it cannot be shared at any other time less they decrease and thus take away the glory of the Spirit of promise in His name at our salvation.
We can point to another time of a strong manifestation of the Holy Spirit on new believers when Peter & John were arrested after preaching to 5,000 Jews that were receiving the word of God as in believing in Him. After Peter's & John's release, they went into their company, the new believers, as the new believers were so impressed by Peter & John that they ready to "join" Him by praying that they too, may have the same Holy Spirit to speak with boldness the gospel of grace, and all at once, the place was shaken as the community of new believers got saved as they all spoke with one accord ( and not in tongues but in one language as in one accord ) as led by the Holy Spirit to prove that they had received the boldness of speech that Peter & John had as led by the Holy Spirit. Some will contest that they already had the Holy Spirit and that they were not new believers, but they forget to read on that this "change" in their lives had them give up everything to this "new" community of believers where everyone shared alike in that new community of believers and so they were not believers to begin with by evidence of that change in Acts 4th chapter.
To question to what degree or extent we have the filling of the Holy Spirit at any given time or at all times, we can read this.
Colossians 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and
beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving
. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
So there is no degree nor extent to the filling of the Holy Spirit at our salvation, but to His operations for why we are not to quench the Spirit.
But when he gives the command not to extinguish the Holy Spirit, IMO this would relate back to Acts 2:1-4 in that they can go from being fully caught up in the fire of God in operating in prophetic utterance to extinguishing that fire by some seeking to put a limit on what the Spirit was doing. In this sense it would not mean that they lost the Holy Spirit entirely, but simply brought it down to where the flame wasn't visible through manifestation anymore, but not that it had gone out within them any more than it went out within those on the Day of Pentecost.
I had bold and underlines that portion in your quote because in your next quote, you are arguing for what extinguish does as restricted by its definition.
I agree that most Greek words have multiple meanings. But in this case the range of meanings of this particular Greek word are restricted to "extinguish, quench, quell, and put out." There is no support for anything else from what I can see,...
So then you are leaving no actual leeway for NOT putting out the Holy Ghost completely in a believer if you stick to that restriction. So there has to be something wrong with that definition for being limited as it is, and thus incomplete.
and I have access to Liddell-Scott, which is the premier Greek Dictionary. It runs the gamut in covering all ancient Greek use, and there is no use that supports your definitions. And for me, I think we need to stay as close to the actual wording in developing our theology, rather than trying to define word meanings without support simply because it doesn't seem to agree with our theology. Certainly our theology comes into play, but we have to question if our theology is indeed accurate when we are changing the clear meaning of the words used in the text.
I don't go by Strong's anyway. I use Liddell-Scott, Mouton-Mulligan, and The Complete Biblical Library primarily.
Well, I better check with Strong's then just to see if it is different; not that it has the final authority; only He does.
The Greek word from Strong's is;
sbennumi
sbennumi
sben'-noo-mee
"a prolonged form of an apparently primary verb; to extinguish (literally or figuratively):--go out, quench."
It is the same definition, albeit a different spelling from what you had spelled it by, and yes, I dare say it is not a complete definition for us to be using as per its meaning.
Since we both agree that the Greek word has different definitions as it can only be defined by how it is used in the verses, then it should be obvious that our educated scholars of the day are not ascertaining that another definition is missing for how it is used in that verse regarding the Holy Spirit.
We can question the Biblical scholars because at one time, in the footnotes of the King James Bible, they ascertained that the behemoth in Job 40th chapter was either a hippo or an elephant but scripture would disagree with those Biblical scholars when his tail is as long as a cedar which is a tree.
And so you & I both can see as that definition of quench being restricted to putting out the Holy Spirit in the same context as fire, that there is an alternate definition missing for the Greek word from which quench was derived from.
Now here is the compelling verse. He uses a different word here, and "grieve" carries what I believe is the general sense I was trying to convey; that congregations can dampen the flame of the Holy Spirit burning within them by getting into strife (which is often the context of what does it). He becomes grieved because of their sin, and their desire to give themselves to a spirit of anger/ resentment instead begins limiting the extent to which the fires of the Holy Spirit will build up within them. This is why Paul said to Timothy "stir up the gift of God within you." The more literal rendering of the Greek there is "fan into flame the gift of God which is in you..." It means the gift is there, but until it is fanned into a burning fire it will not manifest itself with any great power or anointing upon it.
I doubt very much that fanning the flame means seeking to fill yourself up with the Holy Ghost supernaturally. Since faith is what pleases God, then surely applying faith in serving the Lord Jesus Christ will fan the flames, so to speak.
To be continued...God be willing...
