The Holy Spirit: Person or Power?

[Jason]

Here's a good argument from the "power" side:

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b08trinity/spirit.html

What sayeth ye?

[steve]

I am as open as the next guy to hearing views other than the traditional trinitarian explanation of the "godhead." This includes a willingness to consider that the Holy Spirit may not be intended to be understood as we trinitarians have usually understood (or misunderstood) Him. However, I was not impressed with this particular list of arguments. They seem to lean upon a number of logical fallacies, unsubstantiated assertions, and, in at least one case, misreading the very wording of the verses cited. This strikes me as an agenda-driven effort, and a rather careless one at that. I am still willing to hear more cogent arguments for this thesis, however.

Let me give brief appraisal of some of these arguments.

First, to observe several passages where God's power and God's Spirit are associated is not original, nor does it go any of the necessary distance toward proving the identical status of these two concepts.

The piece quotes many verses where Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "He." In acknowledging that what is done by God's power is done by God, we are not required to extrapolate that it would be natural to speak of an impersonal trait of a person by use of a personal pronoun. It would be bizarre for me to say, "I have increased my strength by weight training. He (that is, my strength) can now bench press twice my body weight."

To claim that an expression like "the Holy Spirit says..." no more suggests personality of the Holy Spirit than the expression "the scripture says..." speaks of the personality of the scriptures ignores the fact that written documents and notices quite literally do "say" things...though without the use of sound. It is considerably less natural to speak of someone's "power" saying anything.

We are apparently expected to interpret Peter's words to Ananias, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" to mean, "Why did you lie to God's power?" What can such an expression possibly mean? And why would Peter speak this way, when he could simply have said "to God"?

Likewise, ". . . How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" is supposed to mean, "why have you agreed to tempt the power of God?" Sorry. Not for my money. It is too unnatural.

"And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Spirit [read: Power of God?], whom God hath given to them that obey him."

I give this one a "maybe." That is, it would make a sensible statement—but not any more sensible than a trinitarian interpretation makes. Possibly less.

"(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"

No arguement is attached to this quote, so I can only guess that the debater wants to say that persons don't "fall upon" other persons. This is not true, however. The father of the Prodigal fell upon his repentant son (Luke 15:20).

"While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold three men seek thee."

"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."

Why would this author (Luke) speak of the "power of God" speaking, when it would be more natural to simply say that "God spoke"? If the verb was "healed," or "delivered," or "raised," or even "emboldened," then it might seem natural to speak of the power of God being the means of God doing these actions. However, when the activity is "speaking," it would be more natural to simply mention the actor as God Himself, or possibly "the word of God."

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."

"Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia."

"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."

"Wherefore (as the Holy Spirit saith, To day if ye will hear his voice . . .")

"It seemed good to the power of God?"
"Forbidden by the power of God?"
"by the selfsame power...as he will?"
"the power of God saith...?"
I'm not buying it. Too artificial.

Jesus breathed on the disciples and they received the Holy Spirit. (John 20:22). This language is understandable if a power were conveyed, but inappropriate if the Holy Spirit were a divine Person.

Why should I accept this assessment. How do we know that a spirit being cannot be transmitted this way? How often is impersonal power imparted in this manner?

Similarly, the Holy Spirit was transmitted by the laying on of hands. (Acts 8:17-19). Was this the transmission of a divine Personage within the Godhead?

This has never seemed ridiculous to trinitarians. Why should it seem so now?

The Holy Spirit was given "without measure" to Jesus. (John 3:34). "Without measure" is an appropriate description of Holy Spirit power, but it is not the kind of language ordinarily associated with a person. (Cf. Acts 10:44, "The Holy Spirit fell upon them which heard the word". Also Acts 2:17, "I will pour out of my Spirit".)

"Ordinarily associated with a person"? This is where we may err. It is unreasonable to insist that every feature of the indwelling of God (a Person) would exactly parallel being indwelt by some other person (e.g., our own selves or a demon). The personal God is not exactly parallel to other persons. He is different in many ways. Why not in this way also?

God sent the Holy Spirit to anoint Jesus. (Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:18). Is it credible that "God the Father" sent "God the Holy Spirit" to anoint "God the Son" with "God the Holy Spirit"?

I think the question is meant to be ridiculous, and, hence, rhetorical. Wherein lies the ridiculousness? Rather rational trinitarians for centuries have not seen the statement as absurd.

In 17 epistles opening with an invocation of grace and peace, in only one is the Holy Spirit referred to, and then as the means of sanctification,1 and not the source of grace. Why the invocation to God and Christ, and not to the Holy Spirit, if the latter were a Personage within the Godhead? Similarly, in the 11 occurrences of thanksgiving or blessing which follow the invocations in the epistles, not one contains any mention of the Holy Spirit.

The reader may attribute relevance to this argument as one sees fit. I find nothing in it to impress me.

The divine order is set out in 1 Cor. 11:3. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Why is there no mention of the Holy Spirit if he were a person?

I am content to ask Paul about this when I see him, if the question strikes me as sufficiently important at that time. In the meantime, it does not strike me as a cogent argument for the writer's thesis.

Jesus gave commandments by the Holy Spirit, (e.g. Acts 1:1, 2) Was this one "co-equal" commanding another "co-equal"?

There is no reference here to God giving commandments to the Spirit, so the rhetorical question is more silly than the author intended it to be. The embarrassment, however, belongs to him for his careless reading of the passage.

Although it is stated that the Holy Spirit (i.e., the "Comforter") would make his abode in the disciples, (John 14:16, 17), this does not necessarily imply the personality of the Holy Spirit, since both the Father and the Son (in the same context) were also to make their abode in the disciples. (John 14:23). Clearly then, God and his Son would abide through the Holy Spirit power. As Jesus said, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26).

I cannot make out anything in this paragraph that presents an argument. Not all statements constitute arguments.

The Holy Spirit appeared as a "dove", (Matt. 3:16), as "cloven tongues of fire", (Acts 2:3), and was accompanied by the sound of a rushing mighty wind, (Acts 2:2). If the Holy Spirit were a Person, why are the theophanies so unlike those of the Father? (Exod. 33:18-23; 34:5-7).

The angel of the Lord appeared as a fire in a bush, as a pillar of fire and as a pillar of cloud. Was he not personal?

Why is the Holy Spirit not shown as sitting on God's throne? (See Rev. 7:10 - "Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." Also Acts 7:55, 56) Why no mention of the Holy Spirit?

Could it be because He was inhabiting the Church on earth, not the throne in heaven?

The personality of the Holy Spirit is sometimes inferred from Luke 12:10 - "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven." But this passage proves too much. Orthodox trinitarians claim that the Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son2, but their interpretation of this passage places the Holy Spirit above the Father and the Son, since it is a greater offence to sin against the Holy Spirit, than against either the Father or the Son.

This argument assumes that Jesus is placing the Holy Spirit above the Father and the Son. No theologian of my acquaintance has reach such a conclusion from this passage. However, the passage does indeed seem to speak of the Spirit as a person, in juxtaposition with Christ (a person).

The word "spirit" (pneuma) in the Greek text is neuter in gender, and does not therefore, in itself, denote personality.

No such argument can be made from such gender of nouns. In Greek the gender of a word does not necessarily denote the actual gender of the object. Only an English-speaker, whose language does not contain masculine, feminine and neuter nouns, could make such an ignorant mistake. In German, for example, the word Mädchen is neuter. It means "girl"—obviously a personal being. In Greek, Jesus is called by such designations as the "Truth" (aletheia), the "Life" (zoe) and the "Wisdom" (sophia) of God—all these are feminine nouns—yet Jesus is Masculine.

[darinhouston]

I have pondered this one quite a bit, and can't fully resolve it for myself. The strongest (maybe only) scriptural argument for the individual personality of the Holy Spirit is pronoun usage. I agree that an impersonal "power" isn't all that persuasive, but a more personal and intimate "spirit" or "spiritual essence" without being strictly speaking a separate "person" is worthy of consideration I think.

I'm curious what you would do with this very long piece from the Living Church of God (I know nothing of this group)... It's quite long, so I only provide a few excerpts.

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning
By COGwriter (portions of this paper were published in The Journal: News of the Churches of God).
Abstract on Binitarianism: Was either unitarianism or trinitarianism the original view of the New Testament Church? The Bible clearly teaches from the beginning that God is one, yet currently composed of two members. This was also the view of the immediate post-New Testament Church and binitarian beliefs have been clearly held throughout Church history. Modern scholars are now coming to the same conclusion. Although some might prefer to use the term Ditheist or Dualist instead of Binitarian, those terms suggests that God is not one (yet God is one family). I chose to use the term binitarian or binitarianism to describe the correct belief about the Godhead as it is currently used by scholars and is clearer than Semi-Arian (or Semi-Arianism) which, though also historically used (by critics), would not be at all understood by most today.
***
Paul makes the duality of God clear in every book of the Bible he wrote.
All, except the Book of Hebrews, have a version of this in the introduction (the third verse in most books), "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7). In Hebrews he words it quite differently, but still shows the duality of God in the introduction, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:1-3). Paul, never, of course, included the Holy Spirit in these introductions, as it is not God.

Like Paul, Peter also made the duality of God clear in the introduction of his two books (I Peter 1:3; II Peter 1:2), where he too left out the Holy Spirit. Peter confirmed that he knew that Jesus was part of the God Family when he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Peter also confirms that the Holy Spirit is not a person when in Acts 2:17-18 he quotes Joel about God pouring out His Spirit (one does not pour out a person).
***
Here is what it is recorded that a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote on the nature of God around the middle of the fourth century,

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'.  For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9.  Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

Valentinus also wrote this in the heretical 'Gospel of Truth', "The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his Son! " (Valentinus.  Gospel of Truth.  Verse 17.  English translation by Patterson Brown).

Hence Valentinus is the earliest known professing Christian writer to make clear trinitarian claims (though he, himself, did not come up with the term trinity). It also should be noted that Valentinus was denounced by Polycarp of Asia Minor, when Polycarp visited Rome as a heretic (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4) and is considered to have been a heretic by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, most Protestants, and those in the Churches of God (in addition, the modalists, monarchians, etc. also had a heretic view of the Godhead, please article on the Trinity).
***
Dr. Arius
Dr. Arius was a teacher from Alexandria who held to the belief that God the Father was supreme in authority to Jesus, and that the Holy Spirit was not the third member of the Godhead. However, he did hold at least one belief that binitarians did not hold--he believed that Jesus had a beginning, while binitarians do not accept that.

Regarding Arius, here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia records:

He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be (Barry W. Transcribed by Anthony A. Killeen. Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

And while true Christians will understand that Christ is God and accepts the Son being under the authority of God the Father, we do not accept that He had a beginning (see Hebrews 7:3).

Perhaps, I should add what Herbert W. Armstrong wrote about Arius:

...another controversy was raging, between a Dr. Arius, of Alexandria, a Christian leader who died A.D. 336, and other bishops, over calling God a Trinity. Dr. Arius stoutly opposed the Trinity doctrine, but introduced errors of his own (Armstrong HW. Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1985, p. 54).

Herbert Armstrong is essentially stating that Dr. Arius' understanding was imperfect--and that would be at least on the point of Jesus at one time not existing.

Many people know that there was a great debate at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Although he did not wish to go to this meeting, Emperor Constantine summoned and forced Dr. Arius to attend the pagan Emperor's council.

According to historical accounts, the attendees at this council were split into three factions:

1) Arians - Supporters of the position of Dr. Arius, about 10% of the attendees. 

2) In-Betweens - Those who held a position between the Arians and Trinitarians, about 75% of the attendees. Eusebius was the main spokesperson for them. 

3) Trinitarians - Those who supported the views of Athanasius, about 15% of the attendees.
Notice that even within the Catholic/Orthodox Council, the majority of attending bishops did not hold to the trinitarian view before the Council. No matter what one may feel about the truthfulness of the trinity, how can any say that the acceptance of this doctrine is necessary for Christians as it was not the apparent belief of the majority of church leaders in the early fourth century?

Although, Eusebius led the biggest group, he did not win. After an impassioned speech by Athanasius, Emperor Constantine arose. And since he was the Emperor (plus he was dressed as a golden "angel"), his standing was noticed by the bulk of the attendees who correctly interpreted the Emperor as now supporting Athanasius. And because of Athanasius' speech and the Emperor's approval, the bulk of the attendees decided to come up with a statement on the Godhead that the Arians could not support.

This solved the Emperor's concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and pretty much drove the Arians out.

The Emperor himself specifically decided what the "orthodox" belief would be:

On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor (Eusebius. Letter on the Council of Nicaea. Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese).

Perhaps it should be mentioned here that even Roman Catholics admit that Constantine was still a pagan when he decided the nature of the Godhead for the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Notice the following:

In the dedication of Constantinople in 330 a ceremonial half pagan, half Christian was used. The chariot of the sun-god was set in the market-place, and over its head was placed the Cross of Christ, while the Kyrie Eleison was sung. Shortly before his death Constantine confirmed the privileges of the priests of the ancient gods. Many other actions of his have also the appearance of half-measures, as if he himself had wavered and had always held in reality to some form of syncretistic religion (Herbermann Charles G. & Grupp Georg. Transcribed by Rick McCarty. Constantine. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Published 1908. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Does any thinking person really feel that God would have waited hundreds of years to declare what He was and then use a pagan Emperor to decide?

Semi-Arians

The true Church of God opposed the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church at this time to become strictly trinitarian and, shortly after the Council of Nicea, most had to go into exile. Historical records at the time show that some version of binitarianism was a belief held by many professing Christians then (including many not actually in the Church of God). Some who are unitarians believe they have conflicting evidence, but part of the problem is that while it is true that Dr. Arius held a version of the unitarian position (which differs dramatically from certain current traditional unitarians), it is also true that the binitarians were considered to be 'semi-Arians' (even though there were different definitions of semi-Arians as well).

The Catholics wanted to get the some of the semi-Arians back and that is part of why they convened the Council of Constantinople in May of 381 (First Council of Constantinople. Catholic Encyclopedia). Yet, the Council of Constantinople so offended the semi-Arians that they walked out.

Here is how one author defined those who were semi-arian:

Semi Arianism... They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father." Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar ( homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate" (Pfandl, Gerhard. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AMONG ADVENTISTS. Biblical Research Institute Silver Spring, MD June 1999, http://www.macgregorministries.org/seve ... inity.html, 7/12/04).

This is consistent with Jesus' statements about Himself and that He was subordinate to the Father (John 14:28; Luke 4:43) as well as Paul's statements (I Corinthians 15:27-28).

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Semi-Arians this way, A name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth century...showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance.

Thus it is clear that many held the binitarian view at that time (including no doubt, many who were not true Christians).
Although Catholic writers have had many definitions of "Semi-Arians" (most of which disagree with the Church of God position), one that somewhat defines the binitarian view taken in this article would possibly be this one from Epiphanius in the mid-4th Century,
Semi-Arians...hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father...but has been begotten without beginning and not in time...But all of these blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father and the Son (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp.471-472).

The above description is somewhat consistent with those held by the COGs. We believe Jesus was always God and forever with the Father, but once begotten, became the Son. By not considering that the Holy Spirit is a separate Being, some form of binitarians were called the Pneumatomachi as a subset of Semi-Arians. The Catholic historian Epiphanius described them as:
A sort of monstrous, half-formed people of two natures" (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, p.471).
Hence, binitarians have long been subject to criticism by those who accepted the Nicene and later Councils.

In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa describes the beliefs of non-trinitarians as follows:

But they reveal more clearly the aim of their argument. As regards the Father, they admit the fact that He is God, and that the Son likewise is honoured with the attribute of Godhead; but the Spirit, Who is reckoned with the Father and the Son, they cannot include in their conception of Godhead, but hold that the power of the Godhead, issuing from the Father to the Son, and there halting, separates the nature of the Spirit from the Divine glory ( On the Holy Trinity. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1893. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Around 600 A.D. some true, non-trinitarian, Christians were known as Paulicians by their opponents and since they believed "Christ came down from heaven" (Herzog, “Paulicians,” Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn, Vol. 2. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp.1776-1777, http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_paul.html, 7/14/04), it appears they at least accepted the pre-existence of Christ. This combined with anti-trinitarian evidence suggests that they most likely were also binitarian.

[Paidion]

The piece quotes many verses where Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "He." In acknowledging that what is done by God's power is done by God, we are not required to extrapolate that it would be natural to speak of an impersonal trait of a person by use of a personal pronoun. It would be bizarre for me to say, "I have increased my strength by weight training. He (that is, my strength) can now bench press twice my body weight."

It would be bizarre even if you replaced "He" with the impersonal "it".

Steve, you have made many good points in your appraisal of the article in the link Jason provided which tries to establish that the Holy Spirit is a mere force or power. But the argument that Jesus (and Paul and John, for that matter) referred to the Holy Spirit as "He" will not do. For the translation "He" reflects the bias of the translator.

In Greek, the pronoun is embedded within the verb as it's ending. For example consider:

John 1:32 And John bore witness, "I saw the spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. RSV.

The Greek word is "εμεινεν". The root word is "remain" and the last two letters indicate that it is the 3rd person singular. The general form of the word is aorist active indicative. In Greek as in other languages, the embedded pronoun can be "he", "she", or "it". The following translations have "it remained": King James, YLT, KJ21, Darby, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ERV, Darby, and Rotherham, whereas these ones have "He remained": NKJV, Douay, R Webster, and NASB. The Greek doesn't indicate whether it should be "he" or "it". Some translations avoid the problem by saying, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and remain on him."

Another important matter is that in Greek, pronouns, either stand-alone pronouns or embedded pronouns, agree in gender with the noun they modify. The word for "spirit" is neuter. So we would expect any pronoun referring to "spirit" to be neuter. That does not mean that it should necessarily be translated as "it". If a neuter noun refers to a person, then we should translate it as "he" rather than "it" even if it is neuter like its antecedent

Let's look at an example where a stand-alone pronoun which is clearly masculine is used:

But when the encourager (or "advocate" or "comforter") comes, the holy spirit whom (or "which") the father will send in my name, who (or "which") proceeds from the father, that one will bear witness about me.

The demonstrative pronoun "εκεινος" (that one) is masculine. So does that prove that the Holy Spirit is personal? Unfortunately no. For the Greek word for "encourager" is masculine, and so it must be the antecedent of the masculine pronoun "εκεινος".

However, Augustus Strong, author of Systemetic Theology, indicated that it's a different situation with John 16:13.

Now when that one, the spirit of truth comes, (he, it) will guide you into all truth ...

Again, "that one" ("εκεινος") is used, and what can be its antecedent other than "spirit"? But "spirit" is neuter, and "εκεινος" is masculine. Therefore, says Strong, the Holy Spirit must be masculine.

I had been searching for clear New Testament evidence that the Holy Spirit is personal (as I believe, although I don't believe the Spirit to be a THIRD person, but rather the Persons of the Father and the Son flowing into one.) I was actually convinced by Strong. I posted the argument in a Christadelphian forum. However, one of the posters in that forum claimed that the antecedent was again "encourager", even though it occurs away back in chapter 15, verse 26. This seemed far-fetched to me, but the poster gave another example in the New Testament where the antecedent of a pronoun clearly was placed many verses prior to the pronoun.

[Jason]

Thank you for your thoughts (everyone) as there are now many things to conasider. I find this topic somewhat practical in nature because I feel like I have a relationship with the Father and the Son, but I've yet to develop a relationship with what many would call the Third Person of the Godhead. I've pretty convinced that the Holy Spirit is a personal being who empowers me, yet I don't see the scriptures where we are clearly told that he is co-equal to the Father and Son. Can I talk to the Holy Spirit? If he's a person like Jesus then why shouldn't we be talking to him? It appears that even Trinitarians, who believe he is a co-equal person of the Godhead, act as though he was just a force.

[Jill]

.

[Jess]

This is a great discussion. I have learned quite a bit by reading it. Thanks everyone for their thoughtful posts. I do have one question, however. The discussion has revolved primarily around the personhood of God's Spirit. I would agree that if we can truly find passages that address the Spirit as "HE" then there shouldn't be much doubt about His personhood. I guess I am not certain that addressing Him (sorry, my leanings are showing) as "It" rules out personhood. God is spirit and, although He has qualities which are best expressed by the masculine gender, as a spirit He really is neither male nor female and "it" may indeed be appropriate.

There is currently a deer in my front yard. If I open the window and yell I am sure it will run away. Now, my calling the deer "it" instead of "she" (it is a doe) doesn't turn it into an impersonal object or force. It is still a sentient creature with its own personality etc..

Just my thoughts.

[darinhouston]

I call my boat "her" -- does that make her a person?

[Homer]

Yes, an interesting discussion. But what must be believed about the Holy Spirit in order to be saved (or be a Christian, if you prefer)? Of the various biblical statements about what must be believed, I do not recall the Holy Spirit being mentioned, only that the Spirit is promised to believers.

I realize various councils, creeds, etc. may demand certain things, but what do scriptures say must be believed?

[look2jesus]

Here is a pretty extensive list of scripture references that, to my mind, indicate that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person:

• 1Sa 16:14 ¶ Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.
  
  2Sa 23:1 ¶ Now these are the last words of David. Thus says David the son of Jesse; Thus says the man raised up on high, The anointed of the God of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel:
  2 "The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue.
  3 The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: 'He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God.
  
  Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
  
  Isa 40:13 Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him?
  
  Isa 63:10 But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them.
  
  Eze 3:23 So I arose and went out into the plain, and behold, the glory of the LORD stood there, like the glory which I saw by the River Chebar; and I fell on my face.
  24 Then the Spirit entered me and set me on my feet, and spoke with me and said to me: "Go, shut yourself inside your house.
  25 "And you, O son of man, surely they will put ropes on you and bind you with them, so that you cannot go out among them.
  26 "I will make your tongue cling to the roof of your mouth, so that you shall be mute and not be one to rebuke them, for they are a rebellious house.
  27 "But when I speak with you, I will open your mouth, and you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD.' He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.
  
  Mic 2:7 "Is it being said, O house of Jacob: 'Is the Spirit of the LORD impatient? Are these His doings?' Do not My words do good To the one walking uprightly?
  
  Mt 10:20 "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
  
  Mt 12:32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
  
  Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
  
  Mr 13:11 "When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.
  
  Lu 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
  
  Lu 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
  
  Joh 14:17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
  
  Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
  
  Joh 15:26 ¶ "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
  
  Joh 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
  
  Ac 1:16 "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
  
  Ac 5:3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?
  
  Ac 5:32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."
  
  Ac 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.
  
  Ac 8:29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
  
  Ac 8:39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.
  
  Ac 10:19 ¶ While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.
  
  Ac 11:12 "The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man's house.
  
  Ac 13:2 While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
  
  Ac 13:4 ¶ So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
  
  Ac 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
  
  Ac 16:6 ¶ They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;
  
  Ac 16:7 and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;
  
  Ac 20:23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.
  
  Ac 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
  
  Ac 28:25 And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers,
  
  Ro 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
  
  Ro 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
  
  Ro 8:26 ¶ In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;
  
  Ro 8:27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
  
  1Co 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
  
  1Co 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
  
  2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
  
  Eph 4:30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
  
  1Ti 4:1 ¶ But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
  
  Heb 3:7 ¶ Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
  
  1Pe 1:11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
  
  Re 2:7 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
  
  Re 14:13 ¶ And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, "Write, 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!'" "Yes," says the Spirit, "so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them."
  
  Re 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come."