The Word as a person of the trinity

[steve7150]

I would say the 'Trinity' has passed my test.





I have a question for you Matt & it's not meant to be tricky but one of the things that makes me undecided that the Holy Spirit is a person.

If the Holy Spirit is a person shouldn't He be Jesus father?

[mattrose]

If the Holy Spirit is a person shouldn't He be Jesus father?

I don't take Luke 1:35 as a sexual reference, as if the Holy Spirit provided His sperm to Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn't have sperm. The angels' language reflects Genesis 1. Just as the the Spirit of God hovered over the waters of the first creation, the Holy Spirit hovered over Mary to initiate the new creation in Jesus Christ. Pinnock says, "it is a picture of the same Spirit, who was an is active in creation, as being active now in new creation." Jesus would be called the Son of God not because He had divine DNA (what does that even me?). He was called the Son of God much as Adam may be called the son of God... insofar as both were the first men of a new creation.

[Paidion]

I've heard Steve.G say that it's OK to be undecided about an issue and learn to be at peace with that. For example i'm undecided on whether the Holy Spirit is a
person or the influence of God.

"A person" or "the influence of God"? Are those two mutually exclusive?
How about the Holy Spirit being the very Persons of the Father and the Son? Could that have been the sense in which Jesus promised that He and His Father would come to dwell with those who love Him and keep His word?

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “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 14:21-23)

[steve7150]

I don't take Luke 1:35 as a sexual reference, as if the Holy Spirit provided His sperm to Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn't have sperm. The angels' language reflects Genesis 1. Just as the the Spirit of God hovered over the waters of the first creation





Yes and in both cases it sounds more to me like the Holy Spirit is the influence and power of God rather then a person. Yet Jesus also said the unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit rather then against God.

[mattrose]

Yes and in both cases it sounds more to me like the Holy Spirit is the influence and power of God rather then a person. Yet Jesus also said the unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit rather then against God.

It is not surprising to a trinitarian that the Holy Spirit often comes across as more of an influence or the power of God rather than a person. Yet, as you said, there are other passages where the Holy Spirit seems to be treated as a person (and those, obviously, would be the ones that lead trinitarians to make trinitarian claims.)

The popular defense of the trinity would be this:
In the Bible...
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Spirit is God
There is 1 God
= Trinity

I wouldn't be quite that aggressive (the word IS, as we've talked about, is confusing in its boldness). But I would say the following:

In the Bible...
The Father is God
The Son is treated like God and is almost certainly sometimes referred to as God
The Spirit is treated like God

But, fairly ignorantly (I've never spent a ton of time researching the historical development of the trinity doctrine), I might say that the acceptance of the Spirit as a 3rd member was almost guaranteed by the the acceptance of the full deity of Christ. Once it has been established that within God there may be and indeed is 2 members, the way has been cleared for a 3rd member. In other words, if they would have started by trying to argue for the deity of the Spirit, it would have never happened, in my opinion. The revelation of Jesus Christ cleared the way for the recognition of the deity of the Spirit.

But all of that comes across as if men make God what God is. By no means! The Trinity simply IS, I believe. The Spirit has always been God. We just came to realize it.

[Paidion]

The popular defense of the trinity would be this:
In the Bible...
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Spirit is God
There is 1 God
= Trinity

If "God" is tantamount to "Trinity" then why is there not one instance in the entire Bible where the word "God" unequivocally refers to a "Trinity"?

In the New Testament, "God" ususally refers to the Father, and sometimes to the Son with regards to His divinity. But I find no reference to "God" as a Trinity.

I've mentioned the following before, but no Trinitarian seems willing to address it. Trinitarians say that "God" was born on earth as a human being. If that is true then consider the following logical argument:

Premise 1: "God" was born on earth as a human being.
Premise 2: "God"="The Trinity".
Conclusion: Therefore "The Trinity" was born on earth as a human being.

If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. Yet Trinitarians deny the conclusion but affirm the premises. That is not logically possible. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises is false. Which one?

[mattrose]

Paidion... yes, we have talked about this before... which is why I'm surprised you're still insisting that there's not been a trinitarian response.

It's actually pretty simple, I think. Trinitarians believe the word 'GOD' can be used in different ways.

Since trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are each fully God, it is appropriate to use the term 'God' to describe any of them individually. But since trinitarians believe that the three, collectively, are God, it is appropriate to refer to all 3 at once as 'God'. The language is confusing, but not contradictory. Premise 1 and 2 utilize different definitions of 'God,' and that explains why trinitarians need not reach the stated conclusion.

I think there are some passages in the Bible that are best interpreted as referring to Jesus directly as God.... so I think the 'confusion' is somewhat inevitable.

[Homer]

If the Holy Spirit is a force, power, or the "spirit" of both the Father and Son, etc., how is it the Spirit commands an action and refers to himself with the first person singular pronoun:


Acts 13:2, New King James Version (NKJV)

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

[Paidion]

Paidion... yes, we have talked about this before... which is why I'm surprised you're still insisting that there's not been a trinitarian response.

Okay, perhaps there was some kind of response, but I don't remember the syllogism being addressed.

It's actually pretty simple, I think. Trinitarians believe the word 'GOD' can be used in different ways.

The language is confusing, but not contradictory. Premise 1 and 2 utilize different definitions of 'God,' and that explains why trinitarians need not reach the stated conclusion.

That has to be the answer. Indeed, the New Testament itself uses "God" in at least two ways: in reference to the Father, and in reference to the divine essence, and that is the same sentence! (John 1:1). However, I can find no scripture using the word "God" with reference to a Trinity—except possibly comma Johanneum (which was added to the text of I John no earlier than the 10th century).

Since trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are each fully God, it is appropriate to use the term 'God' to describe any of then individually. But since trinitarians believe that the three, collectively, are God, it is appropriate to refer to all 3 at once as 'God'.

I have been trying to think of an analogy which might make these two sentences intelligible. So I tried applying it to man.

"Since you, I, and every other member of the human race are each fully man, it is appropriate to use the term "man" to describe any of us individually. Also since the billions of people collectively are "man", it is appropriate to refer to all of them at once as "man".

This analogy seems to work pretty well except for one little thing. We don't usually refer to an individual human being as "man" but rather as "a man". So by reverse analogy, we would refer to each member of the Trinity as "a God". Would Trinitarians have any problem with that? And if so, what would the problem be?

[darinhouston]

If the Holy Spirit is a force, power, or the "spirit" of both the Father and Son, etc., how is it the Spirit commands an action and refers to himself with the first person singular pronoun:


Acts 13:2, New King James Version (NKJV)

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Perhaps the same way I might say "my mind tricked me." We personify things regularly as a matter of speech, and the bible is no exception. I think many people tend to approach passages in the bible as a lawyer might parse and interpret a statute or an agreement. I think that's a mistake. It seems to me that the ancients often didn't use language as precisely or as literally as might a theologian, and we try to build theologies around sparse grammatical particulars when if we stand back a few feet, the text isn't implying what we are inferring. I think Scriptures often make a single point and the way they make the point isn't always intended to make every point the statement might make about the subject and peripheral topics. When faced with the totality of scriptures affirming monotheism, any doctrine that suggests a division or multiple personhood or the like should be equally clear before we build a doctrine around it. We like and feel compelled to resolve mysteries and close patterns. That's fine to a degree, but there should be clear reasons to need to do so in my book.

Also, when applied to something like God's Spirit, it is perhaps sufficiently referring to God Himself, that personal pronouns are entirely literally accurate regardless of whether it is a "separate" person. So, that might speak to the personal nature of the Holy Spirit, but not the notion of distinct personhood implied by the Trinity.