The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi, Paidion, et al.--
Thank you for your response. Some Q's in reply...

First, why is it that you think the Holy Spirit is "the Holy Spirit is not A person, but THE persons of the Father and the Son, extended into the hearts and minds of God's children"? What Scriptures are you looking at in support of this idea?

Also, not a question, but a clarification of the doctrine of the Trinity: this doctrine does not hold that God is a "compound God"; the word "compound" implies that God is made of "parts", and the doctrine does not hold that. Rather, the doctrine holds that there is one God, perfectly simple (not composed of any "parts"), whose nature/essence the Three Persons each perfectly possess (thus, making each of the Three Persons to be the one true God).

What else...oh, yes, what do we think about the fact that Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't we say that, first of all, this means the Holy Spirit is united with the Father and the Son (and that He has a name, namely, "the Holy Spirit"), but that He is also distinct from the Father and the Son?

Also, I did look over most of the links that Darin sent; interesting analysis of the grammar. While I will still need to finish the last part of the second link, my first thought,in response, was that I am not sure how important it is for our discussion that the Holy Spirit is referred to with a neuter or masculine pronoun (maybe the last part of the article responds to this idea). Seems that there are many other things that indicate personality (and distinct personality from the Father and the Son) for the Holy Spirit (such as the fact that the Father and the Son send the Spirit, the Spirit has a distinct sanctifying mission/action in the life of the Church, etc.)

I think, too, that, since the Son (with the Father) sends the Holy Spirit to the Church, a more fundamental question in all of this is, "Who (and what) is the Son?" We have discussed this in other threads, but probably worth re-visiting. I mean, if we say that the Son is of the same nature as the Father, then we have to admit that He is, with the Father, true God, and perfectly equal to the Father. But, if we say that He is not perfectly equal to the Father, being the one true God with the Father, then we can not hold that He is of the same nature as the Father. (This is following rules of logic: "If A, then B"; also means, "If not B, then not A". With A = "The Son is of the same nature as the Father", and B = "The Son is perfectly equal to the Father, He is the one true God with the Father.") What think ye of this?

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

Brother Alan, I only have a few minutes but I will respond since there was some interaction here with one of my points I shared in the initial post- that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a name.
You share that he does that it is 'the Holy Spirit' that is a title and not a name, Yahweh and Jesus are names.

would you care to respond to any of the other points I shared- mostly having to do with the omission of the Holy Spirit from greetings, no throne in Revelation or worship, abscent from key passages from Jesus that would be fitting if the Holy Spirit were an actual person... ect.

thanks

BrotherAlan wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:14 am

First, why is it that you think the Holy Spirit is "the Holy Spirit is not A person, but THE persons of the Father and the Son, extended into the hearts and minds of God's children"? What Scriptures are you looking at in support of this idea?

Also, not a question, but a clarification of the doctrine of the Trinity: this doctrine does not hold that God is a "compound God"; the word "compound" implies that God is made of "parts", and the doctrine does not hold that. Rather, the doctrine holds that there is one God, perfectly simple (not composed of any "parts"), whose nature/essence the Three Persons each perfectly possess (thus, making each of the Three Persons to be the one true God).

BrotherAlan, do you realize you ask Paidion what scriptures he looks at in support of his idea, but then you proceed to state something which though it MAY be "derived" from Scripture, it clearly isn't taught by Scripture and one can't point to a verse or two to prove it. Also, I hope we can all recognize that there isn't a single "doctrine" of the Trinity, though you seem to posit statements like this as a fundamental proof that we have to start from as a presupposition. To the contrary, there is much debate over the collective God (whether in a divine simplicity or as a collective compound, etc.). You tend to repeat statements like this and treat them as unassailable premises and yet they are at the far end of the debate. This is difficult to interact with, especially when you hold non-Trinitarians to more fundamental piece-wise scriptural support.

BrotherAlan wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:14 am

Seems that there are many other things that indicate personality (and distinct personality from the Father and the Son) for the Holy Spirit (such as the fact that the Father and the Son send the Spirit, the Spirit has a distinct sanctifying mission/action in the life of the Church, etc.)

Something can be "personal" while not being a person -- a phone call or a handwritten letter can be considered "personal" yet that tells us nothing of whether it is an actual distinct person. (incidentally, a letter can be "sent," so use of terms like sent doesn't really tell us whether it is a person or not). Some claim the H.S. to be an impersonal force/power. Yet, even if it is the power or interactive aspect of the Father and/or the Son, that doesn't mean it's impersonal -- even if we agree it's "personal" in some sense, it also doesn't tell us whether it is a distinct "person."

Real quick, Darin, as I gotta run... But, when I, in my last post, was stating what the doctrine of the Trinity says, I was...
1.) Simply stating what it SAYS (at least according to traditional Catholic theology).
2.) NOT giving a Scriptural defense of the doctrine (I can do that another time, but I wasn't even attempting to do that in the last post; I just wanted to clarify misconceptions of the Trinity, at least as the Trinity is understood by Catholics).

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

Fair enough, but it sounded like a response or proof instead of an aside. I do think it detracts somewhat from this more fundamental question of personality, however, and so I'll create a new thread for those interested in pursuing Divine Simplicity.

Hi Brother Alan, you wrote: First, why is it that you think the Holy Spirit is "the Holy Spirit is not A person, but THE persons of the Father and the Son, extended into the hearts and minds of God's children"? What Scriptures are you looking at in support of this idea?

I think I already answered that question. Jesus said to Judas, "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." (John 14:23).

My understanding is that the Father and His Son dwell in some special sense in Heaven. So how would they make their dwelling with those who love Jesus? Would it not be by means of their Spirit?

Also, not a question, but a clarification of the doctrine of the Trinity: this doctrine does not hold that God is a "compound God"; the word "compound" implies that God is made of "parts", and the doctrine does not hold that. Rather, the doctrine holds that there is one God, perfectly simple (not composed of any "parts"), whose nature/essence the Three Persons each perfectly possess (thus, making each of the Three Persons to be the one true God).

If there's ONE God made up of three Persons, then each of those three Persons is part of God.

The ONE God is "perfectly simple" only if that ONE God is a single Individual.

The latter is the way Jesus Himself viewed God. In His prayer, Jesus addressed the Father as the ONLY true God! (John 17:3)

If the Father is the ONLY true God, then the ONLY true God does not consist of three divine Persons.

What else...oh, yes, what do we think about the fact that Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Don't you find it odd that His apostles never did this, but baptized in the name of Jesus only. Here are two examples:

(Acts 2:38) And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 10:48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Do you know of ANY record in the New Testament which states that the apostles baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If Jesus had commanded that, then surely the apostles would have obeyed. The verse that says He did command it, is Matthew 28:19. Those words are not found in any extant manuscript that is dated prior to A.D. 300. And it is not found in any of the other three gospel records.

My guess is that Jesus didn't give that command at all, and that it somehow got slipped into Matthew's text by a later Trinitarian.

Paidion,
Thanks for the reply, brother.

In response to the opinion that My. 28:19 is a later addition, I found this one article (among others) giving counter-evidence. Let me know what you think of this: https://carm.org/is-matthew-28-19-a-later-addition

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

We tend to read Matthew 2819 as current Americans with the assumption of the word ‘name’. It carries with it the description or meaning of authority, and therefore is not a proof text for the trinity like many assume.
People may then reply and say that only a person has authority, however the constitution has authority for one example the presence of a person via representation carries the authority.

Just thought I would throw that in there.

Thanks guys

παιδίον,

You wrote:

Matthew 28:19. Those words are not found in any extant manuscript that is dated prior to A.D. 300. And it is not found in any of the other three gospel records.
Do you know of ANY record in the New Testament which states that the apostles baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If Jesus had commanded that, then surely the apostles would have obeyed. The verse that says He did command it, is Ma
My guess is that Jesus didn't give that command at all, and that it somehow got slipped into Matthew's text by a later Trinitarian.

But we find the formula in the Didache, which most scholars date to the time the Apostle John was still alive, 70-80AD:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not of the in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before

.