Trinity.

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

Fair points. I guess it just seems to me or feels as though when I am reading, that we're dealing with a "subtance" or "essence" or "divine stuff" as opposed to a "Person". Maybe it is one of those things that just escapes us since, to my understanding anyway, the Near East mind tends to personify a bit more in it's writings than we do in the West. I guess I just look at it as nowhere near iron-clad. I would sooner be willing to accept a Binatarian view of God than a trinitarian one, since at least the Binatarian view has better arguments.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Singalphile]

What I find interesting about the Holy Spirit is that, unlike Jesus, the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God/the Lord and similar language is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament.

Did the OT prophets (not to mention your regular, faithful Israelite) think of the Holy Spirit as a separate person, distinct from God somehow? Did the New Testament apostles come to understand the "another person"-hood of the Holy Spirit contrary to their Jewish upbringing and contemporaries?

Maybe, maybe not. I was listening to some of Michael Heiser's lectures on that sort of topic. Interesting. (Hat tip to morbo3000, I think).

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

You affirm that the Spirit is both God and is personal. Do you believe the Spirit communicates with the Father, as Jesus did while here on earth, or is there no communication between the Spirit and the father?

Hi Homer,
Yes, I affirm that the Spirit is both God and personal. But I do NOT affirm that the Spirit is a third Individual distinct from the Father and the Son. Indeed, I believe the Spirit to BE the Father and the Son—their extended personality (or personalities).

For that reason, it wouldn't make sense for the Spirit to talk to the Father, unless it was the Spirit in the Person of the Son. For it is not a different Individual from that of the Father and the Son. However, the Father and the Son ARE two different Individuals (though in complete harmony).

If you were able to extend your personality, say, to a friend in India, you could talk directly to that friend. But could your extended personality talk to you? No. It IS you. It cannot talk to you (unless you talk to yourself).

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

It cannot talk to you (unless you talk to yourself).

But don't we all do that silently (and some not silently)?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-hen ... 94549.html

[Paidion]

Yep, that's true, Homer

That is the question I was asked by the wife of a Baptist pastor, where I went to church in my late teens.
At the time I was a classic Trinitarian. I asked a question about the Trinity, and she responded, "There's only one God, you know."
I realized she was saying that there was only one Individual. So I asked her how Jesus could have prayed to his Father, as to another Person.
She asked, "Don, don't you ever talk to yourself?"
I realized then, that she was not a Trinitarian in the classic sense—God in three Persons.
I think her position was probably exactly like yours, Homer.
I think that is the modalist position. But I won't press that. If it is not modalism, then it is "a different kind of Trinitarianism".

[jriccitelli]

This raises an interesting question; If it is indeed true (and I believe it is) what you stated above, then could it not follow that any usage of the term "He" with reference to the holy spirit needn't require "personhood" of same? (Brenden)

True, the word ‘He’ needn’t be understood as ‘person’. But the term ‘another’ is specific, and not held to anthropomorphic restrictions, such as other such terms related to humanness: Where: he / she / it / person / soul / spirit / are immaterial, without dimension, and subject to our human terrestrial, atomic, and finite understanding. Yet: One / Only / Other / an other / are relational and dimensional enough terms to ground our basic understanding of God.

Does God really need an extra word to talk about his presence and power as a personal entity, which knows, grieves, wills, can be blasphemed, teaches, dwells, guides, loves, or is sent? … What do you feel the purpose of this "extra" description of God is? (Diz)

Yes that's true, adding or reducing what God, Jesus or The Father have said of their selves is not necessary, or good.
And, there is no need, or purpose of this "extra" description of God. God never separates God from God. Nor does God use terms that would allow anything but God be God, or where God could be in an other sense, essences, extended personalities or parts. I find no reason to go beyond: “I am the LORD, and there is no other” “Yahweh is God. There is no other” “Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me” “I and the Father are One” “Jesus is Lord” “He will give you another Helper that is the Spirit of truth” ‘Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12) etc, etc.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are clearly 'God'. Yahweh is The Holy Spirit and our help and our comfort, and yet they each talk of and speak to and of the others: ‘I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever’ (John 14:16). ‘Since I am afflicted and needy, Let the Lord be mindful of me. You are my help and my deliverer; do not delay, O my God’ (Psalm 40:17). ‘For You have been my help, and in the shadow of Your wings I sing for joy. My soul clings to You; Your right hand upholds me’ (Psalm 63:7-8). We have no other option but to believe Jesus when He said they are One.

Any One, and all as One – can act as One – speak as One – be referred to as One – understood as one – never need be thought as not being One with the Others – and yet still be refereed to as each by name. The God/lemonade example still seems enough to explain this mixture of the three. We were only familiar with lemonade in the Old Testament, but Jesus has revealed the three ingredients: sugar/water/lemon.

‘To the LORD our God they will come in dread and they will be afraid before You. Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, Because He delights in unchanging love’ (Micah 7:17-18). 'And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5). "Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either"

The Trinity does mean something very meaningful. If it is Jesus who spoke the Words in the Old Testament / if Jesus who is God died on the Cross / under His own Law / by His own Creation and creatures. And it is Jesus Himself who forgives us of the sins we have committed against Him, yes alot of perspectives are completely different if Jesus is Yahweh, and false if He is not.

[TheEditor]

I know you truly believe this, but the Biblical evidence for the personhood of the Holy Spirit seems very strong to some very sincere, well-studied people.

Hi Dizerner. I know, interesting isn't it? Many well-studied sincere people have some fundamental differences of opinion on certain issues. That's why the more I learn about why people see certain teachings so differently than I do, I start to wonder just how nailed-down God expects us to have this stuff.

As far as how this effects our basic perspectives on what God has done in reaching out to mankind via the Atonement--I don't know. As far as I can see, the shadows and types given us in the Scriptures (Abraham and Isaac come to mind) are that of a Father losing a Son to receive back something to Himself. As a parent, I am sure most realize that they would sooner endure any punishment themselves, then allow a beloved child to undergo punishment. But it appears throughout the Scriptiures and the parables of Jesus, that the Son is the one being punished and the Father has his heart broken. That's one reason I think the "Father/Son" language is used in the Bible; it is the one thing human parents can relate to. The one thing that would cut them to the quick in understanding what God the Father actually sacrificed.

Regards, Brenden.

[john6809]

As far as I can see, the shadows and types given us in the Scriptures (Abraham and Isaac come to mind) are that of a Father losing a Son to receive back something to Himself. As a parent, I am sure most realize that they would sooner endure any punishment themselves, then allow a beloved child to undergo punishment. But it appears throughout the Scriptiures and the parables of Jesus, that the Son is the one being punished and the Father has his heart broken. That's one reason I think the "Father/Son" language is used in the Bible; it is the one thing human parents can relate to. The one thing that would cut them to the quick in understanding what God the Father actually sacrificed.[/size]

I love this because it very much resonates with me as a parent. I have been guilty of being too lenient because I didn't want to cause my children any discomfort. Now I have the unenviable task of reversing course. It's hard to do but I know it's best for my children.

But I think that the more difficult realization is just how much God gave up to get so little in me. It's easy, from a human standpoint, to give up a lot in order to gain a lot. The sacrifice seems worth it. But, how many would sacrifice as much for something that is not attractive to us?

That thought both humbles me and inspires me to be more diligent in allowing Him to transform me into the image of His Son.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk