The Indwelling of The Holy Spirit

The doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is one of the most precious and, at the same time, one of the most carefully discussed subjects in New Testament theology. It is precious because it touches the believer’s union with God, his identity as one who belongs to Christ, his sanctification, his hope, and his assurance of resurrection. It is carefully discussed because sincere and Bible-minded students have long sought to understand not only whether the Spirit dwells in the Christian, but in what sense He does so. The first question is answered with clarity by the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit does dwell in the faithful child of God. The second question, though not impossible to study, requires greater caution, because the Bible emphasizes the fact of the indwelling more often and more plainly than it explains the precise mode of that indwelling.

That distinction matters. Many controversies become inflamed when men become more dogmatic about the manner of a thing than the Scriptures themselves are. The biblical student must therefore begin with what God has plainly said, build doctrine upon express teaching, honor necessary inferences without elevating them above the text, and refuse to move beyond revelation into speculation. This is especially important in a subject like the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, where the language of Scripture is rich, personal, and spiritually weighty, and where errors have arisen both from adding to the text and from explaining away the force of the text.

My own judgment is that the best reading of the biblical evidence is that the Holy Spirit personally indwells the faithful Christian in a non-miraculous manner today. By that I mean that the Spirit Himself, not merely an abstract influence, dwells in the child of God, yet He does not do so in a way that bypasses the revealed Word, gives new revelation, exerts miraculous powers, nullifies human freedom, or authorizes subjective impressions as a rule of faith. At the same time, I do not regard this question as one over which brethren ought to quarrel or divide. I have many friends who hold a non-personal view of the indwelling and whom I highly respect. They are serious students of Scripture, deeply concerned with preserving the sufficiency of God’s Word and resisting modern charismatic confusion. That concern is honorable. In this study, then, I want to argue carefully for the personal non-miraculous view, while showing charity toward those who disagree and while acknowledging what is true and helpful in the concerns that often drive other views.

The first task is to establish the fact of the indwelling itself. Here the evidence is abundant and direct. Jesus declared in John 7:38-39, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” This passage is foundational. It ties the coming gift of the Spirit to the glorification of Christ. It also identifies the recipients as believers, not merely apostles. The text plainly says that those who believed in Him “were to receive” the Spirit. One may debate how best to frame the exact nature of that reception, but one cannot honestly deny that Jesus announced a coming bestowal of the Spirit connected with His own glorification.

The importance of the glorification of Christ in this connection should not be overlooked. Jesus was glorified in His resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and enthronement. Peter makes this connection in Acts 2:32-36, where he preaches the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus and concludes that God has made Him both Lord and Christ. Immediately within that same chapter Peter promises repentant and baptized sinners, “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Pentecost is the historical realization of what Jesus anticipated in John 7. What had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified is now promised because Jesus has indeed been glorified.

Roy H. Lanier Sr. stated the matter well in The Timeless Trinity:

“This means that the Holy Spirit would be given to believers when Jesus was glorified. This word, believers, cannot be limited to the apostles; it included all obedient believers. Jesus was glorified when he was raised from the dead, was received up into heaven, was seated on the throne of his kingdom. Peter speaks of this in Acts 2:32 to 36.

Next, the apostles and prophets of Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit dwells in the children of God. Peter promised all believers who would repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins that they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). That this means they would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift will be proved later.

Paul said the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and ‘his Spirit’ dwells in children of God (Rom. 8:9-11). Again, Paul said the body of the child of God is the temple of the Holy Spirit, ‘which is in you, which you have from God’ (1 Cor. 6:19). Paul said, ‘God giveth his Holy Spirit unto you’ (1 Thess. 4:8). Last, he said God sends the Spirit of his Son, the Holy Spirit, into our hearts because we are children of God (Gal. 4:6).” p. 384

Lanier’s summary is helpful because it keeps the discussion anchored where it must be anchored, namely in the explicit affirmations of Scripture. It begins with John 7, moves through Acts 2, and then gathers the Pauline texts which explicitly speak of the Spirit’s indwelling. The doctrine is therefore not a stray inference from one difficult passage, but a coordinated teaching spread across the New Testament witness.

Acts 2:38 is particularly important. Peter says, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Whatever debates exist over the phrase “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” the promise is connected to gospel obedience, not to apostolic office alone. Peter immediately broadens the scope in Acts 2:39. “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” The language is deliberately expansive. If one reduces the promise to something that belonged only to the Twelve, the plain wording of verse 39 becomes strained. The promise is as broad as the call of God through the gospel. Since all who are called through the gospel are not apostles, the promise cannot be confined to apostolic privilege.

One should also pay attention to the placement of this promise in the structure of conversion. Peter is not describing an elite second blessing. He is not outlining a later ecstatic experience. He is speaking of what belongs to those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That means the promise is integral to New Covenant conversion itself. Whatever else may be said about it, it is not optional, peripheral, or reserved for a small class of saints.

Romans 8 provides another major pillar. In Romans 8:9 Paul writes, “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.” He then adds, “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” In verse 11 he continues, “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” Several observations should be made.

First, the indwelling is not presented as an unusual attainment of a few advanced Christians. It is a distinguishing mark of all who belong to Christ. “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” Thus, the presence of the Spirit belongs to the very definition of Christian identity. Second, Paul uses personal language. He does not merely say that the effects of the Spirit’s teaching are present. He says “the Spirit of God dwells in you.” Third, the indwelling is connected to resurrection hope. The same Spirit who raised Jesus will give life to our mortal bodies. The passage therefore links the Spirit’s present indwelling with the believer’s future bodily resurrection. That is a large theological role, not a minor metaphor.

First Corinthians 6:19 is equally significant. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?” The force of the temple imagery deserves sustained reflection. In Scripture, the temple is not merely a place associated with divine truth. It is the place of divine presence. Under the Old Testament economy, God’s special presence was associated with tabernacle and temple. When Paul says the Christian’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, he invokes this established biblical category. One must be careful not to flatten the metaphor until it means little more than “the Word influences you.” The image carries the idea of divine presence in a consecrated dwelling.

Galatians 4:6 adds another dimension. “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” Here the Spirit’s presence is connected with sonship. The Spirit is sent “into our hearts” because we are sons. This is covenantal and familial language. It speaks not merely of doctrinal instruction, but of filial relationship. Likewise, 1 Thessalonians 4:8 says, “the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.” The language remains straightforward and personal.

When one gathers these passages together, the fact of indwelling becomes undeniable. This is why the complete denial of indwelling must be dismissed. There have been, at times, attempts to evacuate the terminology altogether, as though the biblical writers never meant to say that the Spirit is truly in the Christian in any meaningful sense. But such a move fails at the most basic exegetical level. The repeated, varied, and personal affirmations are too strong. One would have to explain away John 7:39, Acts 2:38-39, Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:19, Galatians 4:6, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, among others. That is not a sound hermeneutical path.

The real discussion, then, is between those who affirm the indwelling and differ over how it is to be understood. Broadly speaking, one may identify a non-personal view and a personal non-miraculous view. The non-personal view often argues that the Spirit dwells in the Christian only in the sense that His teaching, influence, or effects dwell in the Christian through the Word. In this understanding, to say that the Spirit dwells in us is functionally equivalent to saying that the Word of Christ dwells in us, transforms us, and rules us. There is a real concern underlying this position that should be respected. Those who hold it are commonly trying to protect three important truths. They want to preserve the sufficiency of Scripture. They want to reject modern claims of direct operation and continuing revelation. And they want to avoid mystical subjectivism. Those are worthy concerns. Indeed, Scripture strongly teaches that the Spirit works through the Word He revealed. Ephesians 6:17 identifies the Word of God as “the sword of the Spirit.” James 1:18 says God “brought us forth by the word of truth.” First Peter 1:23 says we are born again “through the living and enduring word of God.” Romans 1:16 describes the gospel as “the power of God for salvation.” Second Timothy 3:16-17 teaches the sufficiency of Scripture to equip the man of God for every good work. Any view of the Spirit’s indwelling that undercuts these texts, or that makes believers dependent on impressions, nudges, voices, or revelations outside the Word, is unscriptural and dangerous.

That being said, the non-personal view, in my judgment, does not adequately account for the full force of the indwelling texts. The chief weakness of the view is reduction. It tends to reduce personal language to impersonal influence. But Romans 8 does not say merely that the Spirit’s message is in us. It says the Spirit of God dwells in us. First Corinthians 6:19 does not say the body is a temple of the Spirit’s doctrine. It says the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you. Galatians 4:6 does not say God has sent the teaching about His Son into our hearts, though surely that teaching is involved in our spiritual life. It says God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts. To insist that all such expressions simply mean the Word’s influence seems to press against the natural reading of the text.

Moreover, the New Testament distinguishes between persons and the messages they reveal. The Spirit is not identical to the Word, even though the Spirit revealed the Word and works through it. The Father is not identical to the gospel, though the gospel comes from Him. The Son is not identical to the apostolic testimony, though that testimony is about Him and from Him. Personal agency and revealed message are related, but they are not collapsible into one another. If one says that the Spirit dwells in us only in the same sense that a teacher’s lessons remain in a student’s mind, then the vivid relational language of the New Testament loses much of its force.

This becomes especially evident when one compares related biblical phrases. In Ephesians 3:17 Paul says that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. In Colossians 3:16 Paul says, “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you.” These are not identical statements, though they are related. The indwelling of Christ through faith and the indwelling of the Word of Christ are both true, but they are not mere duplicates of one another. The Word is the instrument of faith and fellowship, yet the resulting relationship is with the living Christ Himself, not with words as an abstraction. Similarly, the Spirit uses the Word, but the Spirit is more than the text He inspired.

The personal non-miraculous view attempts to do justice to both sets of texts. It affirms the Spirit as personal indweller and the Word as sufficient revelation. It says that the Holy Spirit Himself dwells in the Christian, yet He does not dwell so as to give fresh revelation, bypass the mind, coerce the will, or create a separate channel of authority alongside Scripture. The Spirit’s indwelling is real and personal, but His operation in the believer today is non-miraculous and wholly consistent with the completed revelation of the New Testament.

This view is often misunderstood by critics, so careful definition is needed. To say the Spirit personally dwells in the Christian is not to say that the Christian can feel Him apart from Scripture, hear Him apart from Scripture, or receive private messages from Him apart from Scripture. It is not to say that the Spirit takes over a Christian’s personality or makes his choices for him. It is not to say that the Christian becomes incapable of sin, or that the Spirit’s presence eliminates the need for study, discipline, prayer, and obedience. It is not to say that inward impressions are revelations from God. It is not to say that providence becomes inspiration. It is not to say that every impulse a believer experiences is the Spirit’s voice. All of those notions go beyond Scripture.

The miraculous age had a distinct purpose. Mark 16:20 states that the Lord confirmed the word by the signs that followed. Hebrews 2:3-4 says God bore witness to the great salvation “both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” First Corinthians 13 anticipates a time when partial revelatory gifts would cease. Jude 3 says the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints. The pattern is clear. The Spirit revealed and confirmed the message in the apostolic age. That message now stands complete and sufficient. Therefore, any present doctrine of indwelling must be framed within that closure of revelation.

At this point some ask, if the Spirit personally dwells in the Christian, what does that mean in practice? The best answer is that it means what Scripture says, even when Scripture does not disclose every mechanism to our satisfaction. The Spirit marks us as belonging to God. Romans 8:9 makes His presence integral to our belonging to Christ. The Spirit is related to our sonship. Galatians 4:6 ties the sending of the Spirit into our hearts to our status as sons. The Spirit is related to our sanctity. First Corinthians 6:19 grounds sexual purity in the reality that the body is His temple. The Spirit is related to our hope of resurrection. Romans 8:11 joins His present indwelling to future bodily life. The Spirit is related to our assurance and fellowship with God. First John 3:24 says, “We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.” First John 4:13 similarly says, “By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.”

One should notice that these texts often emphasize relational and covenantal realities more than explanatory mechanics. The Spirit’s indwelling is part of the believer’s participation in New Covenant life. God is with His people. God dwells in His people. The believer is not abandoned. He belongs to God, is marked by God, and is destined for life through God. That is the doctrine’s pastoral richness. Too often the debate narrows to an abstract “how” and loses sight of the “what” and “why.”

Still, the question of “how” cannot be entirely ignored, because Scripture itself invites reflection. But here humility is essential. One can affirm personal indwelling without pretending to know more than revelation grants. In fact, one of the strengths of the personal non-miraculous view, at least as I hold it, is that it does not claim to decode the metaphysics of indwelling. It simply insists that when Scripture repeatedly speaks in personal terms, the burden of proof lies with those who would reinterpret that language as wholly impersonal. If God says the Spirit dwells in us, the simplest and strongest reading is that the Spirit truly dwells in us. If Scripture does not explain all the details of the mode of that presence, we may acknowledge mystery without surrendering the plain affirmation.

This is where the charitable statement by the late Gus Nichols is deeply valuable:

“All positions should be charitably viewed on most controversial religious subjects. Especially, should this be true concerning the ‘Indwelling of the Holy Spirit’ in the Christian.

The Holy Spirit either (1) really and truly dwells in us-faithful Christians-in a personal manner, or (2) he dwells in us in some other manner, or (3) else he does not dwell in us at all. This latter position would force one to make void many plain and easily-understood scriptures; so we dismiss it at once, and turn our attention to the first two views.

I see no reason for disturbance among us over this question so long as all believe and teach that the Holy Spirit does dwell in faithful and obedient children of God in some way. The honest but misguided interpretations which may be made in trying to show how the Spirit dwells in us should not, by those on either side, disrupt brotherly love and unity, and ravage our brotherhood. There are many reasons why one's position as to how the Holy Spirit dwells in us should never be made a test of fellowship. The only reason which needs to be stated now is, that to all who obey the gospel from the heart, the promise will be fulfilled as God planned it, whether or not we understand ‘how’ the Spirit dwells in us.” p. 155

That paragraph is remarkably balanced. It rightly rejects total denial of indwelling, because such denial contradicts plain Scripture. It recognizes two broad options remaining, personal indwelling or some other true indwelling. It urges charity rather than rupture. And it identifies the practical center of the issue. God’s promise is fulfilled to obedient believers whether or not every saint reaches the same conclusion concerning the precise manner of fulfillment. That is not relativism. It is a sober acknowledgment of the difference between the certainty of revealed fact and the lesser certainty of human explanation.

It is worth pausing here to say why the matter should not be made a test of fellowship among those who agree on the essentials. First, all faithful parties in this discussion affirm the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Second, all faithful parties affirm that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian in some true sense. Third, all faithful parties reject charismatic excess, ongoing revelation, and direct miraculous guidance today. Fourth, all faithful parties recognize the necessity of obedience to the gospel. The disagreement concerns the mode of indwelling, not the plan of salvation, not the deity of Christ, not the authority of Scripture, not the terms of entrance into Christ, and not the moral obligations of Christian living. That difference matters when one considers the seriousness of division.

There is also an important theological reason to avoid quarreling here. The New Testament presents the Spirit as part of the believer’s communion with the triune God. Second Corinthians 13:14 speaks of “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.” Ephesians 2:18 says, “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” Ephesians 2:22 says Christians are “being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” One should be slow to turn a doctrine meant to comfort, unify, and strengthen believers into a battlefield for suspicion and estrangement.

The personal non-miraculous view also helps preserve the balance of biblical language regarding the Godhead. The Spirit is not a mere force. He is personal. He speaks in Acts 13:2. He can be lied to in Acts 5:3. He intercedes in Romans 8:26-27 in a sense appropriate to personhood. He can be grieved according to Ephesians 4:30. Because He is personal, it should not surprise us that His presence with believers is described personally. To say that He personally dwells in the Christian is not theological excess. It may actually be the most natural extension of the Bible’s personal doctrine of the Spirit.

Yet that same personal doctrine requires discipline. Because the Spirit is personal, some have wrongly supposed that they can enjoy personal communication from Him apart from Scripture. But that does not follow. The Holy Spirit is a person, but He has chosen to reveal and confirm the faith through the apostolic word. The fact that He is personal does not authorize private revelations. Scripture defines the bounds of our knowledge here. The Spirit is personal, His indwelling is personal, but His revealed way of instructing and governing the church today is through the once-delivered Word.

It should also be said plainly that this indwelling is not miraculous and does not mean that the Spirit speaks apart from Scripture or causes a man to do things beyond his will. That clarification is essential. If one fails to say this, then the personal view can be mistaken for modern enthusiasm. But if one says only that the Spirit works through the Word and never clarifies the Spirit’s real presence, then one may flatten the doctrine into something less than the text appears to say. The biblical balance must be maintained. The Spirit really dwells in the Christian. The Spirit does not give new revelation. The Spirit does not replace Scripture. The Spirit does not override human responsibility. The Spirit’s presence and the Word’s sufficiency stand together.

Some have appealed to parallels between the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The New Testament speaks of the Father dwelling in believers, Christ dwelling in believers, and the Spirit dwelling in believers. John 14:23 says, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our dwelling with him.” Colossians 1:27 speaks of “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Ephesians 3:17 says Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. These passages should not be treated carelessly. They suggest that covenant communion with God is described in indwelling terms across the persons of the Godhead. If one takes the Spirit’s indwelling as wholly non-personal, then one must ask whether the Father’s and Christ’s indwelling are also to be flattened in the same way. It is better, in my judgment, to understand these as real covenantal presences of divine persons, mediated through faith and the revealed Word, but not exhausted by reduced impersonal categories.

At the same time, one should not claim to explain the ontological mechanics of divine indwelling. God is infinite, spiritual, and transcendent. His presence is not spatial in the crude sense in which material things occupy space. The very nature of divine presence calls for analogical speech. Scripture tells us that God is in heaven and yet near to His people. Christ is at the right hand of God and yet dwells in our hearts through faith. The Spirit is sent into our hearts and yet is not thereby localized as though confined by bodily dimensions. These realities surpass simplistic categories. Therefore, humility is not weakness here. It is faithfulness.

The doctrine of indwelling should produce holiness and appreciation for God’s gifts. Paul’s use of it in 1 Corinthians 6 is ethical. Because your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, you must flee immorality. The doctrine is not a curiosity for speculation. It is a reason for purity. Likewise, the doctrine should produce hope. Romans 8:11 ties the indwelling Spirit to resurrection. The believer’s future life is not grounded in vague optimism, but in the presence of the same Spirit who raised Jesus. The doctrine should also produce assurance, though never careless presumption. First John connects the gift of the Spirit to the believer’s abiding in God, yet that very same epistle insists upon obedience, love, and doctrinal faithfulness as marks of those truly born of God. Thus, the Spirit’s indwelling is not a substitute for faithful living but part of the divine reality that undergirds it.

The doctrine also contributes to a fuller understanding of conversion. Conversion is not merely an outward transition from one community to another. It is entry into a new realm of life. The believer is forgiven, reconciled, added to Christ, and given the Spirit. This should deepen our appreciation of baptismal obedience in Acts 2:38. The passage does not present baptism as a bare ritual. It stands within the gracious cluster of New Covenant blessings, including remission of sins and reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. That does not erase the need for careful exegesis of the phrase itself, but it does mean that the Spirit’s gift should not be treated as an afterthought.

Because scholarship often demands that one evaluate objections carefully, let me state some common concerns raised against the personal non-miraculous view and respond briefly. One objection says that if the Spirit personally dwells in the Christian, then one has opened the door to charismatic theology. That does not follow. The abuse of a doctrine does not nullify its proper use. One may affirm the Spirit’s personal indwelling while explicitly rejecting ongoing revelation, direct operation apart from the Word, and miraculous gifts today. Another objection says that if the Spirit personally dwells in the Christian, then there is no meaningful difference between that and the false doctrine of irresistible grace or mystical guidance. Again, that does not follow. Scripture can affirm divine presence without teaching divine coercion. God’s nearness does not cancel human agency. Another objection says that because Colossians 3:16 speaks of the word of Christ dwelling in us, this must explain away all indwelling language. But related truths do not automatically collapse into identity. The Word dwells in us. Christ dwells in us. The Spirit dwells in us. These truths interrelate without becoming interchangeable in every respect.

By contrast, I freely acknowledge the strength of the non-personal view in its emphasis on scriptural sufficiency and its allergy to mystical religion. Those are not small strengths. In our present religious climate, where many claim the Spirit told them this or led them there, a strong insistence that the Spirit does not speak apart from Scripture is urgently needed. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with brethren who hold the non-personal view in opposing such errors. I simply believe that one can defend scriptural sufficiency without trimming away the personal force of the indwelling texts.

In the end, then, I remain persuaded that the personal non-miraculous understanding best gathers the biblical evidence. John 7 points to a real future reception of the Spirit by believers after Christ’s glorification. Acts 2 promises the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who obey the gospel. Romans 8 makes possession of the Spirit integral to belonging to Christ and ties the indwelling Spirit to resurrection. First Corinthians 6 presents the body as the Spirit’s temple. Galatians 4 describes God sending the Spirit of His Son into our hearts. First Thessalonians 4 says God gives His Holy Spirit to us. Taken together, these texts sound most natural when read as affirming that the Spirit Himself truly dwells in the faithful child of God.

And yet, because I want to speak as carefully as the Scriptures speak, I do not claim exhaustive comprehension of the mode of that indwelling. I affirm the reality of it, the personal nature of it, and the non-miraculous context of it. I deny that it entails new revelation, private illumination apart from Scripture, or coercive inner control of the believer. I affirm that the Spirit works in harmony with the Word He revealed and that all Christian doctrine and practice must be tested by that Word.

I also want to say plainly that I will not quarrel over this matter with faithful brethren. I have many friends who hold a non-personal view of the indwelling, and I highly respect them. They love the truth, honor the authority of Scripture, reject human innovation, and seek to preserve the church from error. Such brethren are not to be caricatured or treated as enemies. We may continue to study together, sharpen one another, and press toward clearer understanding without breaking fellowship over a question of mode where all agree that the Spirit truly dwells in the faithful in some way and where all reject the false doctrines that commonly accompany abuse of the subject.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit should therefore be approached with reverence, joy, and restraint. Reverence, because it concerns the presence of God with His people. Joy, because it is part of the believer’s great New Covenant inheritance. Restraint, because not every question that can be asked has been answered in the same degree by Scripture. If we keep those three qualities together, we will handle this doctrine well. We will affirm what God has revealed. We will refuse what men have invented. We will cherish the gift without turning it into a source of speculation or strife. And we will let the truth accomplish its intended end, namely deeper gratitude to God, greater holiness in life, stronger hope in resurrection, and warmer love among brethren who seek together to honor the Spirit through fidelity to the Word He gave.

Works Cited

Lanier Sr, Roy, The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries, Sain Publications, 2008

Nichols, Gus, Lectures on the Holy Spirit, Amridge University, 2018