The evolution of Spirit terminology

[Adino]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Regarding subsequent uses of the phrase "filled with the Spirit", as in Acts 4:31, and whether or not this is or is not suggestive of regeneration, I submit the following:

In Acts 2:41, we read that they which had gladly received Simon Peter's exhortation were baptized, numbering 3,000 souls.

There has been much argument, debate, and wonder, whether this means they were water baptized, Spirit baptized, both, or, if Spirit baptized, if they spoke in tongues, since no such mention is made.

I say it is water baptized, since water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was the only baptism Simon Peter made mention of.

So, we may very well have a large quantity of people "added to the church", who only had repented of their sins and been water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

This means of that number, whether all 3,000 or only a portion (large OR small) had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

No biggie.

Whoa…. this doesn't necessarily mean this at all. While they had not received the Spirit "in its charismata and/or manifesting unction" it is mistaken to conclude they had yet to receive eternal life. Those who repented and were baptized by Peter were absolutely guaranteed without condition they would receive the promised eternal life gifted by the Spirit (…ye SHALL RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Ghost). You cannot assume the three thousand added to the Church were not recipients of life. In fact, that they were added to the Church indicates they were accepted as fully saved by the leadership.

Then comes Acts 4:31 and the prayer meeting, where undoubtedly, many of these 3,000 disciples were present (plus any amount of the 5,000 who came to believe in Jesus due to the miracle at the Gate Beautiful), some of who, or perhaps all of whom, who were present, had not yet been filled with the Holy Spirit, i.e. been baptized with the Spirit, meaning they were not, as of yet, born from above.

Again, your premise is faulty.

But what happens? Acts 4:31 tells us "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit"!

Yes, to the point of manifestation. They received an unction resulting in boldness of speech.

Boom! Suddenly, all these extra disciples added on the day of Pentecost, in whatever number there was present at the prayer meeting, are filled with the Spirit/baptized with the Spirit/regenerated/born from above.

Again, the leadership already consider them as having been added to the Church.

So filled, here, as in Acts 2:4, is regenerative.

In regards to the other disciples who had already received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, they too, although already saved, were likewise filled, since being past tense, suggests a state or condition which had already occurred. So again, no conflict.

Except now you're suggesting the Filling in Acts 4:31 was regenerative in some and not repetitively regenerative in others. Convenient.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

In Acts 9:17, we see Saul of Tarsus, not yet saved/born again/regenerated, waiting for Ananias to come to him. And what does Ananias say:

"Jesus...sent me...that thou mightest...be filled with the Holy Ghost".

Agreed, and this later happened at the laying on of hands by Ananias, later to be connected to the impartation of 'some spiritual gift' in the lives of already saved individuals.

So here, Saul was not yet filled with the Holy Spirit. He had met Jesus on the road. He had called Jesus Lord. He had obeyed His commandment to go into the city. He was fasting. He was praying. Still not filled with the Spirit, though. Not until sometime after Ananias arrived, meaning not until Ananias arrived to give Saul instruction, was Saul saved (i.e. Saul didn't have the Spirit of Christ a la Romans 8:9, and he had not yet been baptized in order, as Ananias said it, to wash away his sins by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus).

To say he was not yet saved is an assumption based on a three stage paradigm. I would agree that only after the meeting with Ananias was Paul accepted into the Church community AS BEING saved. I'll leave the baptismal sin remission issue for another thread.

Later, in Acts 13:9, as with the disciples from Pentecost, being that filled is a past tense suggesting a current condition or state of being, means that although he wasn't being regenerated in that moment, he still was, since the day he was regenerated, filled with the Spirit.

Yes, I believe it is possible Paul lived in a perpetual state of being fully controlled by the Spirit to fulfill whatever purpose God saw fit in his life. Yet, we know this should not be considered the norm because the disciples were told to seek out those full of the Holy Ghost from within their community in Acts 6.

This is the same with the disciples from Acts 13:52. They had been Gentiles, excluded from the covenant with Israel. But when they heard Paul preach that they could be included through the Messiah, Jesus, they rejoiced at the thought.

This rejoicing led to them being "filled with joy and the Holy Spirit".

They were now, at that moment, regenerated. There is no greater joy then the moment one is saved.

We are given no time frame between when those ordained to eternal life believed and when they were "filled with joy and the Holy Ghost." You assume they were not recipients of eternal life during this interval and I think that is mistaken since we are told repeatedly in Scripture that those who believe have passed into life.

You should also recognized the filling with joy and the Holy Spirit was a filling possibly given not to the new believers but to Paul and Barnabas.

Granted, in the case of the prayer meeting, in Saul's case, and in the case of the Gentile disciples in Acts 13, there is no mention of speaking in tongues.

I don't have a problem with such silence. My point here is to show how baptized and filled are synonyms and how "filled with the Spirit" as used by Luke in passages subsequent to Acts 2:4 can be and possibly was meant to be understood as regenerative.

Again, to insert Spirit baptism here is not based on evidence but personal paradigm. It is convenient you have allowed being "filled" to be both regenerative and non-regenerative.

Nicely presented post, votive!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

From Adino's questions that must be answered...

Most of everything you wrote below and quoted is assumed and asserted, never proven.

This assumes that God has granted this man repentance for "all his sins" prior to being water baptized. If not granted repentance from God, no sins are remitted, even if the man was immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ.

This showcases another flaw in the practical experience of your theology. The person who doesn't immediately speak in tongues is said to be in a state of unrepentance though in his heart and mind he has come to full repentance and thus must resort to begging God for further forgiveness of something unknown to him and for eternal life. This is nothing short of spiritual abuse and to my understanding was one of the reasons even Robert Sabin could no longer hold to the water/spirit position.

This also assumes that the Spirit has no part to play in justification, as if the inward condition of the man, i.e. a mentally held belief, is somehow sufficient for justification, when it's obvious that all definitions of faith in the Bible, as offered and accepted by God, include obedience.

Another straw man is being set up here. The mere 'mental assent' argument is not what faith alone advocates adhere to. They believe faith = knowledge (notitia) + theoretical mental assent (assensus) + TRUST (fiducia). Saving faith exists ONLY if each of these elements are present. Justification by God/the Spirit is based on this faith. The question we are led to is whether we are justified before God on the basis of this internal faith alone or only after this internal faith has engendered an act of faith, i.e., works. I advocate the position that we believe with the heart unto righteousness before God (Romans 10:8-10) and any justification involving external works is a justification from our peers (Romans 4:2).

Simon Peter said God gives the Holy Spirit to all who obey Him (Acts 5:32). If a man has been water baptized but hasn't received the Holy Spirit, it's just as logical to conclude that there is something that the man has not obeyed, and so, the Spirit is being withheld until he complies with whatever commandment of the Lord that is not being obeyed.

Yes, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey and faith is obedience. I think we both agree on that point, it's just that we seem to define faith differently. I recognize that God justifies on the basis of the internal condition of the heart before it engenders works and you seem to think God does not justify until it has engendered works.

This is circular reasoning. It is assumed that man is already justified, when there is no reason to assume such things. God justifies, not us. We should not be so quick to say one is saved based on our interpretation of what it means to be justified. Only God knows the heart. Many fakers and pretenders, including false prophets, have gone out into the world, claiming to be something they are not.

Agreed that God alone knows the heart.

Some of this has already been addressed. But yes, condemnation can be experienced while in a state of justification.

Romans 8:1 and 1 John 3:20 show that even though one might be a saint, delivered and rescued from sin, they can still experience condemnation.

"Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief".

Really? I see the Romans passage as saying that those in Christ walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh and are thus not condemned. The fact the the believer walks in faith tells us he walks after the Spirit in this regard. Those who walk after the flesh walk in unbelief.

1 John 3:20 deals with personal condemnation and not that of God.

The point is a person justified in the eyes of God cannot be simultaneously condemned to eternal damnation by God. Good try, though.

Unbelief and/even disobedience.

If a man does not believe God can and will give him the gift of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is received by faith (Galatians 3:14) and since without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), that man, even though he was water baptized in the name of Jesus, was still in the sin of unbelief (from apistia meaning faithlessness or rebellion and disobedience).

Yes! On this we agree. In fact, the ONLY sin man is condemned for AFTER the Cross is unbelief. You throw in obedient works here as usual but this I've covered earlier.

On being simultaneously IN and OUT of Christ you said:

This is assuming that water and Spirit baptism are two separate wholes, individual from one another, instead of realizing these two are halves that when joined together, make up the one baptism mentioned in Ephesians 4:5.

Not so. If we think of them as joined together you are left with an interval of time during which there exists a theological impossibility. I realize you believe this will eventually right itself but I must point out that a theological impossibility is impossible even for a moment.

In regard to being risen with Christ you said:

The "risen" aspect of Romans 6:3 is not a literal, he stood up and got out of the water. So just because a man was immersed, it does not mean that he was truly planted into the likeness of Christ's death. Plenty of unrepentant sinners get baptized for any number of reasons.

Nor does it say that immediately upon coming up out of the water does a man automatically walk in newness of life. It reads "should" and "shall". It's not an assumed guarantee.

Again you resort to the man in limbo who thinks he's repented but has somehow forgotten to seek repentance for everything and is left in a state of confusion and the feeling of unacceptance. Nonsense.

You have agreed that a man cannot walk in the newness of life without the Spirit. Any righteous act he demonstrates can only be attributed to the Spirit because a man cannot rise to walk in the newness of life (whenever he begins after baptism) if he does not first have the Spirit of life enabling him to do so. If a man is not in the Spirit he simply cannot please God by walking in the newness of life because unless out of the flesh he is at enmity against God (Romans 8:5-8).

I would add that if someone does not immediately begin to walk in this mindset of newness of life his faith should indeed be called into question. The man baptized is to rise from baptism reckoning himself dead unto sin and alive unto Christ. This mindset of faith enables him by the Spirit to walk in good conscience and in the newness of life. The good works and/or newness of life stem from the full assurance of faith in Christ (Hebrews 10:22-24).

Be it known that we are created in Christ unto good works that we should walk in them. Realize we are first newly created - the good works follow the new creation they do not bring it into existence (Ephesians 2:10).

The Lord knows them that are His. Some will say Lord, Lord, and in possession of the Holy Spirit through demonstration of the charismata, still be told "I never knew you".

I find this of interest. You hold that a person can have the Spirit of eternal life yet remain in a state of God's condemnation. God thus gifts his spirit to those He still considers hell-bound? Again, nonsense.

There is more than one aspect to the covenant. There is the deed of the covenant, which grants a man the down-payment. But conditions are still present. Having the Lord's name, for example.

The birth is by water and Spirit through the blood, even as Christ came by water and blood and Spirit (1 John 5:6).

Experiencing one part of the covenant doesn't mean one experiences every part.

This covenantal argument can go all over the place subjectively.

The Spirit abides in anyone who has received the Spirit, provided they remain faithful and don't become a reprobate.

I would say the Spirit abides in anyone who has received the Spirit by the hearing of faith and who remains in that faith without becoming reprobate.

Yes, the Spirit bears witness. But the Spirit can also bear witness that someone, who has received It in some time of the past, can fall, be lost, and not be a child of the promise, even if they once upon a time, received It.

Again, I leave open the possibility of a person falling back into unbelief.

Again, assumption and assertion only, as you personally interpret the water and Spirit New Birth position. Maybe you're looking at it incorrectly?

Very possible, then again, maybe not ;-)

Was Christ still united with God when He was dead in the grave? Did He stop being the Son of God for three days, even though He was dead?

Not the right question - Though his body was dead was he ever spiritually dead? I would say no. This could get into a Godhead discussion - another thread, another time.

[Adino]

In regard to the water/spirit position negating a need for the Cross you said:

This is tripe and you know it.

As if anyone ever in the history of Oneness Pentecostalism ever denied the need for the cross.

The formal Oneness Pentecostal position has always been and will always be that the cross is and was absolutely essential and is the only way, along with the burial and resurrection, by which any human can be saved. To say otherwise is a terrible straw man not worthy of someone who wants to honestly critique the doctrines of Oneness Pentecostalism.

I did not say anyone in the history of Oneness Pentecostalism ever denied the need for the cross. I said their doctrine implies such. There is a difference.

If Cornelius did not need his sins to be remitted prior to Spirit reception there was no need for Christ to come die on the Cross for the remission of the world's sins. If the Spirit can be bestowed before the cause of spiritual death has been removed then why go through the trouble of the Cross and not simply bestow the Spirit?

Sin had to be removed. We had to be reconciled by his death in order to then be saved by his life (Romans 5:10). Sin had to be dealt with in order for man to receive life. This was the good news of the resurrection. That Christ was raised from the dead proved that God held no sin against him. The sins of mankind imputed to him on the Cross were forgiven and no longer held against him. The resurrection declared the Good News of a historic forgiveness and a reconciliation. Pentecost brought the universal spirit baptism of life making it available to all who believe.

Adino, whether you realize it or not, you have, in this post, created a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy/false dilemma.

Since it was apparent you had misrepresented my actual position I will kindly disagree.

You have attempted to play water baptism against Spirit baptism in an effort to prove that neither are needed for salvation. I hope you did this in ignorance and not intentionally.

And thus the misrepresentation. While I do not believe water baptism has anything to do with salvation 'before God' it certainly plays a role with our being perceived as saved 'before our peers.' I suppose I need to clarify which definition of Spirit baptism we're talking about next. I absolutely see the universal Spirit baptism at Pentecost as necessary for salvation - without it the spirit would not be available to all who believe. Since I do not think Spirit Baptism is synonymous with being Spirit Filled I will admit I do not believe being Spirit "filled" given subsequent unction is necessary for salvation. Being Filled, in my opinion, has nothing to do with being born again.

Instead you should have attempted to reconcile the Biblical positions regarding both. Now, however, in your own view, whether you ever meant it, by attempting to show contradictions between the need for water baptism and the need for Spirit baptism, you've broken the Scripture.

Again I disagree and feel you are left with the theological contradictions engendered by the water/spirit new birth position.

We shall let the lurkers use this discussion to further their own studies!

Votive, I want to thank you for taking the time to respond. Though I do not agree with your conclusions I greatly respect that you have made the attempt to give cogent response. My post concerning the contradictions was an excerpt from a letter I sent to over 1100 Oneness ministers across the nation. I received diatribe after diatribe without a single person actually rationally addressing the points raised. You are the first to have taken up the gauntlet and very cordially I might add. Thank you again for your time.

My name is Shelby Smith. I was raised under the ministry of Marvin Arnold in southeastern Michigan beginning around 1968-69. Was an advocate of the water/spirit position for over 25 years until coming to the justification by faith* alone position.

*Faith = knowledge (notitia) + theoretical mental assent (assensus) + TRUST (fiducia) ;-)

[Adino]

Please answer this one question. If the Holy Ghost comes in automatically when a person believes, why didn't it come in when the Samaritans believed. When the Ephesians, believed?

Renee, I would say they received eternal life when they believed. All who believe have passed from death into life. They had not however received the Holy Ghost "in its charismata" or in the exhibition of signs and wonders which Luke was following as evidence of the expanding Church. I see Luke for the historic document that it is. I see Paul as explaining the theology. Luke's intent was to trace the movement while Paul's was to teach the theology of the movement. Thus when he says with the heart man believe unto righteousness I believe that a man believes with his heart to a place of justification before the eyes of God. I could go on….. but there you go.

[votivesoul]

Again I disagree and feel you are left with the theological contradictions engendered by the water/spirit new birth position.

And yet I believe, seeing no contradiction. To our own Master we rise or fall.

We shall let the lurkers use this discussion to further their own studies!

I concur. Debate is a work of the flesh and hampers salvation. We've talked it out, disagreed, and what more can be said?

Votive, I want to thank you for taking the time to respond. Though I do not agree with your conclusions I greatly respect that you have made the attempt to give cogent response. My post concerning the contradictions was an excerpt from a letter I sent to over 1100 Oneness ministers across the nation. I received diatribe after diatribe without a single person actually rationally addressing the points raised. You are the first to have taken up the gauntlet and very cordially I might add. Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, as well, Shelby. My name is Aaron. If what you say is true, that no one had the kindness/guts/ability/whatever, to give a doctrinal assertion of their faith, then that is truly sad. I would hope for more and better from the brethren.

*Faith = knowledge (notitia) + theoretical mental assent (assensus) + TRUST (fiducia) ;-)

You said we might be defining faith differently. I think this is so, and hence the impasse. If I misrepresented your position in any way, I apologize. I suspect any misunderstanding, which may have led to such a misrepresentation stems from that.

For me, faith is defined as such:

Faith = obedience acted out through love of God.

James 2:14-24,

14. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15. If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16. And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

I see no place in which a man can say he trusts God sufficient for salvation without having immediate proof displayed in his life. James and Paul are not at loggerheads.

I may say I have faith and claim to be saved. I may say I have received the Spirit by faith, and so have been regenerated. Some may take my claims as legit and so, proclaim me born again.

But what is that? Just words. Faith must be demonstrable through obedience. The moment any commandment of the Scripture is refused, rejected, put off, or ignored, especially in relation to the Gospel, not a soul on the planet can claim to truly love and trust God, else they wouldn't have balked at obedience.

John 14:15,

15. If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Note how we are commanded to believe the Gospel, but then are told that not all have obeyed the Gospel. This connection is telling, and defines pistis in a unique way: as active, intentional inward and outward conformity to the commandments of God.

John 12:44-50,

44. Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

This belief in God through Christ is linked to a commandment, one that leads to eternal life.

Hebrews 5:9,

9. And being made perfect, [Jesus] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him...

I find no place in Scripture where a man can say he has received eternal life without obeying God. I find many, many who are lost and condemned for disobedience.

This isn't about works of the law. It's simply doing what God commands. Noah moved with fear to obey God and so, by faith, he built the ark and saved himself and his family.

He didn't obey and build the ark because he was saved (by grace through faith, for example). He obeyed and built the ark IN ORDER TO BE SAVED from the judgment and wrath of God that was coming! Grace was the warning of impending doom and the chance to do something about it before it happened. Not a license to believe in the heart and confess with the mouth that the end of all life on earth was at hand.

So, what of Noah's faith had he not obeyed?

Easy: Death and condemnation with the rest of the world. Though he found grace, though he was a preacher of righteousness. No obedience = no salvation, no matter what else may have been present in his heart or attributed to him.

Hopefully that helps you understand where I am coming from. I believe this is a fully-orbed, Spirit-led, Judaic understanding of faith not adequately represented by the modern interpretation as given by the "faith alone" position, as usually embraced by the Evangelical forms of Western Christianity.

PS. How do you view the Lord's statements in Matthew 7:21-23 regarding them who call Christ Lord (only possible through the Holy Spirit a la 1 Corinthians 12:3), who are able to prophesy and perform miracles (two gifts of the Spirit) and yet are condemned to damnation as practitioners of lawlessness for not doing the will of the Father and so, were never known by the Lord, though they were apparently filled with His Spirit?

(BTW, I will make a new post for this discussion).

[votivesoul]

Some final thoughts, Adino.

Within the framework and definition of faith as I have given it above, I think you'll find that there is no contradiction or theological impossibilities.

This grants harmony between all the "believe and be saved" passages you shared, while not in anyway negating the water and Spirit passages likewise required for salvation.

Additionally, not all of what I wrote was to be set in stone (regenerative use of filled in Acts 4:31, for example). Only to show that there is enough room within the context to take such a view, sufficient to say that neither explanation ought to be ruled out, thus putting a kibosh on dogmatic stances.

A part from all that, though there is a part of me that wants to go and tit for tat your most recent comments, I resist the urge, since, as I mentioned, debate, or eris, meaning to wrangle and quarrel (so as to have the final say just to prove who's right), isn't Godly.

So I hope you understand why I didn't engage again on that level. While we may agree in certain aspects, it's obvious we disagree, at a fundamental level, on what it takes to be saved.

We have, I conclude, thoroughly admonished one another (at least twice in this post), and while I make no accusation or personal attack, we are both commanded, once the admonitions have been offered, to let the issue and the person, go their own way to judgment (Titus 3:10).

So perhaps we will interact on a different subject, but I think we have to close our conversation now, at least on this particular issue.

[pilgram]

"debate, or eris, meaning to wrangle and quarrel (so as to have the final say just to prove who's right), isn't Godly."

That is wise and also good advice. I wonder does God in His Word provide any scripture for this? Though I have only been a member for a few weeks and have only visited a few times I have found your posts to be thoughtful and thought provoking for which I am appreciative. I bookmarked your blog and will check it out when I get a chance. God bless brother.

[Adino]

I have a jujutsu class to teach tonight. I'll try to get back to you soon. A good conversation to have would be whether God recognizes a yet to be demonstrated faith and whether he justifies on the basis of that internal faith of the heart prior to such manifestation. Does God justify us by faith or by acts of faith?

I do not have a tendency to call an apple an apple tree. I believe it is a mistake to call "fruits of" faith, "acts engendered by" faith, "works of" faith…. justifying faith in God's eyes. I do believe such acts bring justification…. just not before God in regard to salvation (Romans 4:2). With the heart man believes unto righteousness [before God] (Romans 10:10). I would hold that the "obedience of faith" is in fact that…. the obedience of trusting in the record God gave of his son (1 John 5:10-13).

Very good to have met you, votive… thank you again for the chat

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by pilgram

"debate, or eris, meaning to wrangle and quarrel (so as to have the final say just to prove who's right), isn't Godly."

That is wise and also good advice. I wonder does God in His Word provide any scripture for this? Though I have only been a member for a few weeks and have only visited a few times I have found your posts to be thoughtful and thought provoking for which I am appreciative. I bookmarked your blog and will check it out when I get a chance. God bless brother.

Thank you very much, pilgram. I look forward to seeing you over at votivesoul.wordpress.com.

Regarding a Scriptural reference:

Galatians 5:19-21,

19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20. Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21. Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

If you notice the highlighted word above, that is the Greek word eris, and it means:contention, strife, wrangling

Wrangling, in particular means to quarrel or brawl. If neither party refuses to give quarter and let the fight go, it usually ends up with a termination of the friendship, something obvious contrary to the will of God, hence why it's a work of the flesh that interferes with one's ability to inherit the kingdom of God.

Eris is likewise translated as strife, debate, and contention (at least in the KJV).

Strife: Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 3:3, Philippians 1:15, and 1 Timothy 6:4

Debate: Romans 1:29 and 2 Corinthians 12:20

Contention: 1 Corinthians 1:11 and Titus 3:9

You'll note, too, that in 2 Corinthians 12:20, both "debates" and "strifes" are present, but only "debates" is eris. "Strifes" is from a related word eritheia, meaning a partisan and fractious effort to jockey/politic for office or position, always in an immoral way.