In the previous article, I mentioned that one of the primary objections to a literal, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that the Bible also says things like “Christ is in you” and “you are in Christ” and we don’t take those phrases literally. I think this “same use of language” objection is the best argument against a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit; nevertheless, I am not convinced by it for the following reasons:
First, this objection is a simple category mistake. It is possible for the same word or phrase to be used in a variety of different ways. After all, just because a dog runs and my nose runs does not mean they both run in the same way. Also, Jesus is described as a lamb, and disciples are described as sheep, but that does not mean we are metaphorical ovines in the same manner. Likewise, figurative use of “dwelling” language regarding Christ does not mean “dwelling” language regarding the Holy Spirit must be figurative as well.
Second, and with the above in mind, note the difference in language used. The dwelling language regarding Jesus is figurative, as the Bible itself indicates. I readily admit that the man Jesus does not dwell in me or I in Him, humanly speaking. Jesus is spoken of as our head, as our new Adam; we unite with Jesus when we are baptized, we are in covenant union with Him. These are terms pointing to relationally being “in” Christ in a metaphorical way. But, what about the Holy Spirit? Regarding the Holy Spirit, the Bible does not speak in covenantal or headship terms; rather, the Holy Spirit is said to dwell within us to do something within us (Rom 8:13–14; Eph 3:16; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2; see also Ezek 36:27) and to seal us for salvation (Eph 1:13–14, 4:30; 2 Cor 5:5; Rom 8:9–15). The most striking difference in language is that the Bible uses temple imagery of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (1 Cor 6:19), but never of Christ. Temple imagery implies God’s actual, personal presence, not metaphorical influence. In the New Testament, the nature of that personal presence is the Spirit dwelling in the believer, making our bodies temples of God.
Third, the objection fails to take the Trinity into full account. Christ is said to be in us by virtue of the Spirit being in us (Rom 8:9–11). It would be strange for the Bible to say that Christ is in us by virtue of His Spirit in us, who does not actually dwell within us. With the Trinity in mind, we can say that even though the persons of the Father and Son do not dwell within us, they do dwell within us to the extent that they are one with the Spirit who is within us.
Finally, the objection fails to actually account for verses such as Rom 8:9–11 and 1 Cor 6:19–20. Rather than address the actual verses, the objection sidesteps those texts and tries to draw a logical conclusion that is then used to cast confusion on such verses. I suggest that such attempts are analogous to those who say Acts 2:38 cannot mean that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins because elsewhere the Bible says if you believe you will be saved. In both cases, the actual text of Scripture is not addressed, it is simply sidestepped and other verses / logic are cast up as a smokescreen. It amounts to obfuscation, not observation.
Again, the “same use of language” objection is the best argument against the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit I have come across; nevertheless, I believe it falls under scrutiny. Scripture is clear: the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer in a literal and personal manner.
Studies in the Bible 