Interesting, Derek, that you should think the verse “rather Trinitarian”! I think there is at least one person in this forum who would consider it “rather Unitarian”, and another who would consider it “rather Christadelphian”. Couldn’t Unitarians and Christadelphians argue that Jesus didn’t become “the Son of God” until He was begotten in Mary’s womb? For them, that is pretty good evidence that He didn’t pre-exist.
Yes they could argue that! Of course they would have to come up with a way to harmonize that with the rest of the bible. A monumental task to say the least!
As for the fact that the verse “mentions the Holy Spirit, the Father (most High), and The Son all in distinction from one another” does not really support Trinitarianism except in the mind of a Trinitarian.
You may be right!
For example, modalists would consider that the “distinction from one another” is a distinction, not of persons, but of modes of expression. Some consider that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you” is just a repetition for emphasis of “The Holy Spirit will come upon you”, that is, that the Holy Spirit is in fact the power of God. Jesus Himself is also called “The power of God” in 1 Cor 1:24.
The modalist explanation doesn't make sense of the fact that they are all operatiing simultaneously. Jesus is there in the water, the Spirit is descending in the form of a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven.
Do modalists think that God exresses Himself in all three “modes” simultaneously? I am not aware of it if they do.
Derek, do you yourself think that the reason Jesus is called "the Son of God" is due to his having been conceived by Mary?
Yes.
Was He not the Son of God prior to that?
The bible says that He was the Word.
Wasn't Luke actually indicating that for this reason Jesus the man would be called "the Son of God"? The early church in general, including the Nicean creed in its original form, spoke of Christ as having been begotten "before all ages". Even the early Trinitarians believed and taught this. Later, they changed the begetting of the Son from a single event to "an eternal begetting" (whatever they understood that to mean).
I realise that you're first question is rhetorical, but I would answer no! I don't think that this is what he was indicating, or I wouldn't have brought up the verse.
You are correct about the early church's view. I am not sure about the second century Christians, (this is an area of ignorance for me unfortunatly), but it is true that the mid-fourth century Christians at the council of Nicea thought this.
However, I don't think that this proves what Luke meant was anything other than what he said.
[Regarding Ex. 15:11] Derek, it is puzzling to me that you should use this verse to argue against Jesus being a Divine Individual just like the Father. Is not that, in fact, your own belief?
I understand this to be speaking to Yahweh, which is a name for the triune God. There is none other like Him. If this verse were only directed toward the Father, then it wouldn't be true.
It seems that in your point of view, (as well as that of traditional trinitarianism), there could be 5, 6 or 100 "divine individuals like the Father", since He could have "begotten" as many as He pleased. I think however, that there is one God, who is completely unique.
That one exception is the baptismal formula part of the great commission. Although Modalists claim that there is only one name “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, and that that one name is “Jesus”, and that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are but modes of His existence, I think the verse speaks of three names. I think “the name of” is understood in each case, so that it could have been written “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit”. If that were in fact the intended meaning, then three names implies three persons and hence Trinitarianism. However, since this Trinitarian baptismal formula occurs only here, and since in Acts, all baptisms are in the name of Jesus, I suspect that the Trinitarian baptismal formula was added by early Trinitarians or proto-Trinitarians. I am cannot unequivocally prove my hypothesis in the absolute way in which the comma Johanneum has been historically proven. I am presently working on this, and expect to report my findings in my next post.
I think that baptizing in the name of Jesus, is the same thing as baptizing in the trinitarian formula, or in the name of Yahweh, or any name of God.
While I agree with your opinion on the Johanine comma, I find it a bit of a stretch to swallow the bit about the trinitarian baptismal formula. But who knows, your suspicions may prove to be true! We'll see.
It is true that the three are frequently are mentioned. Nowhere does the Bible state that they are three distinct individual persons.
With one exception, none of your examples indicate a distinction of persons, and therefore do not support Trinitarianism. But verse which speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one passage no more indicate a trinity of persons, than my “cross” example indicates three objects.
But in these verses the Spirit is mentioned in a coordinate relationship with the Father and Son, whom are both persons. It is the more natural understanding, in my opinion, to see Him as a person as well.
Not only is He mentioned in coordinate relationship with the Father and Son, having His own distinct role, but He also exhibits personality. He has a will, teaches, can be grieved, sanctifies, directs, intercedes, and speaks, among other things.
But at the same time, I realize that your view of the Spirit is personal as well, and I suppose you could say the above, and hang onto your view.
Quote:
Luk 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."
This last verse is particularly relevant. Do you think that it is the "persons of the Father and Son" that descended upon the Son, as though His "person" were not already in His body?
No I don’t. Sometimes the Spirit is particularly the spirit of the Father--- “the spirit of the God” [I Cor 2:14, 1 John 4:2], and sometimes particularly the spirit of the Jesus [Acts 16:6, Philippians 1:19]. At other times, it is simply “the spirit of God” where “God” may refer to deity, where it is not specified whether it is “the spirit of the God” or “the spirit of Jesus”. In the passage you quoted it was the spirit of the Father which descended on Jesus. His own spirit was still within Him. After Jesus was raised from death, He and His Father were so united that they shared the same spirit. Thus Christ could not “send the spirit” in its fullness until He died and was raised.
So now there are two divine beings, each of whom send out their "spirits" separately sometimes, and together sometimes? Even post ressurection/ascension (Acts 16:6/Phil. 1:19)? But you say here that Jesus and the Father "share the same spirit" post resurrection, don’t you?.
Which one is "The Holy Spirit" as opposed to a Holy Spirit? How do we tell the difference when they are both called "the Holy Spirit" (Act 16:6-7/Luke 2:32)?
It seems much easier to understand these things with some type of trinitarian conception, in my opinion.
I am burnt out with discussing the trinity right now. It’s not an emotional issue with me. I am not one who thinks that your salvation depends on how you harmonize the biblical data regarding the nature of God. In fact, since you really don’t question the divinity of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit (far more important than anything imo), and you don’t believe in multiple Gods, there is a sense in which you are not terribly far from trinitarianism!
God bless brother,