Trinity.

[Jose]

Here are a few ways in which I differ from the author:

1. I have no problem with capitalizing "the Holy Spirit", for surely the spirit of God—his extended personality—IS God. It is written that God Himself is spirit.

I have no problem capitalizing either, although I don't think it matters since the biblical authors didn't practice it.

2. The author affirms that the spirit of God is personal, and I agree. Yet he emphasizes that the spirit is the "power of God", and this almost sounds impersonal at times.
Though, of course, according to the NT, the spirit of God is both the persons of the Father and the Son as well as their power.

I'm not sure how you differ with the author here, it appears that you agree with him on both points. (You are both affirming that God's Spirit is personal and is His power.)

3. The author claims that the spirit of God is not omnipresent. I don't know why he says that. Isn't that how God is omnipresent? Through his spirit?

I think you may have misread what he said. At the top of page 2 he says that the Spirit is omnipresent. Here is the quote:
"In reality, because the spirit of God is actually God’s own outreach to humanity it is omnipotent. Indeed, according to 1 Corinthians 2:10: “the Spirit searches everything.” It is also omnipresent (Ps. 139:7). But there is no third person in a supposed Godhead who is either omnipotent or omnipresent."

4. Like Dizerner, I also had a problem with his saying that you cannot drink a person. I had thought of the same thing as Dizerner about eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. In addition, I would ask, if the spirit is personal as the author affirms, are you not drinking the persons of the Father and the Son? But if the spirit is merely the power of God, how can you drink power? Well, maybe there are people here on earth who drink power—those who attempt to dominate others.

The author's point is that metaphors are used when talking about the Spirit which are not normally used when speaking of persons. One doesn't "pour" or "breathe" or "drink" a person. [Edit] I can see how "drinking" could bring to mind "drinking" Jesus' blood, but I think the point still stands as there are so many other metaphors that would not apply to a person. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit. Was another co-eternal being poured on Jesus?

But if the spirit is merely the power of God, how can you drink power?

The author doesn't say that the Spirit is "merely" the power of God and nothing else. He has an entire page stating that the Spirit is NOT abstract power but power associated with a person who is the Father.

Paidion, I appreciate your feedback but I think at least two of your objections were based on misunderstanding what the author said.

[jriccitelli]

Jose, who is Jesus to you then. Is He a created being, or is he God?

The one thing that would cut them to the quick in understanding what God the Father actually sacrificed' (Brenden)

In the story of Abraham, Abraham was sacrificing his own son. And this is what happened at the Crucifixion. Once we realize Jesus is also the Judge, Creator and God Himself. He who wrote the Law, and who made death the penalty for sin, also takes the penalty for sin Himself, in our place. God is both the Son and the Father, and they are One God. So it can be said that God offered the sacrifice of Himself, unto Himself, to save us. He is both The Priest and The Sacrifice. No One else could do this, unless they were two in One.

[TheEditor]

God is both the Son and the Father, and they are One God. So it can be said that God offered the sacrifice of Himself, unto Himself, to save us. He is both The Priest and The Sacrifice.

You have likely heard the illustration in sermons about the Bridge when talking about the Ransom. The one where the bridge worker needed to manually hold the tracks via a lever in order for the train not to go over the edge, but in order to do so, he cannot leave the lever to resue his son who is on the tracks. The reason this analogy became so popular (so popular that it made it's way into the Kingdom Hall) is because of the emotional impact on the heart.

Arcaneness may have it's appeal to the mind (it does to mine anyway) but your somewhat anagogical understanding or explanation of the Ransom robs it of its emotional impact, in my opinion

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[jriccitelli]

"... The Holy Spirit being referred to in powerful metaphorical descriptions is cause perhaps to see him more dynamically, but not less personally or reverentially' (Diz)

True, God is not a man or created thing that has a true reference in nature in any form. We have to remember that all these biblical descriptions are finite descriptions of an incredible unfathomable God.

You have likely heard the illustration in sermons about the Bridge... The reason this analogy became so popular (so popular that it made it's way into the Kingdom Hall) is because of the emotional impact on the heart. Arcaneness may have it's appeal to the mind (it does to mine anyway) but your somewhat anagogical understanding or explanation of the Ransom robs it of its emotional impact, in my opinion (Editor)

My note on the priesthood and sacrifices are biblical, sorry, if it is only Gods Word. But I believe it is enough. The analogy of the train and bridge story is not in the bible. I have no real problem with it, but I can't look at it as anything other than 'a maybe' it because it has no direct comparison to scripture. The story of Abraham is a direct relation to the atonement, and the Lamb of God, as well it has a direct relation to sacrifice and Gods Commands. Any diversion on this concept is not necessary, or wise. I believe the bible has enough content to give a foundation to the what, who and why of Calvary. And other made up analogies often induce a misunderstanding, in my opinion.

God spent a lot of pages and time laying out the detail and commands surrounding atonement for sin, Commands to keep regarding them, the priesthood, the reasons and the meanings behind them. The fact that God is the Son and He is the Father, only confirms their Closeness and Love, for Spirit and nature are closer than blood. The Trinitarian God is by definition much more One with the pain suffered by Christ Jesus on the cross, than a god who is not Truly and Actually the same One with Christ.

[Jose]

Anagogical...I learned a new word today!
Thanks, Brenden!

[TheEditor]

JR,

You seem to get derailed everytime I bring in ancillary information. I jokingly referred to your "engineer's mind" once; but seriously, Are you an engineer? People that I have had dealings with that are engineers always seem to lose the forest for the trees.

My point was not that the Scriptures are insufficient. Nor was my point that the analogy I referred to was somehow more complete than any used in the Bible. If you feel I was saying this, then by all means, never ever use anything but a Scripture to make a point; and I will keep a spread sheet handy to make sure you're keeping in line.

Just to show I am capable of using Scripture alone:

The narrative of Abraham and Isaac; Father offering up his only beloved son? Or mystery of the trinity?

In every parable of Jesus I see many moral lessons--many of them focusing on forgiveness or love or stewardship. For instance, the Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son--God's love and forgiveness; the parables of the Good Samaritan and the unmerciful servant--our need to emulate God's love and forgiveness; the parable of the Talents--stewardship; the Parable of the persistent widow--the need to be persitant in our prayer; the Parable (or perhaps, more accurately, account) of the Widow's Mite--the need to give out of our want; The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector--the need to avoid self-righteousness and to walk humbly.

In none of these do I see an over-arching message of the divine mystery of the trinity and the need to know it. This alone does not make it true, or untrue. But to hear some talk, I would think that it should have made its way into some the parables of Jesus. Why this doctine has become a cherished doctrine upon which all truth in Scripture hinges, I'm sure I'll never know.

Regards, Brenden.

[Michelle]

Anagogical...I learned a new word today!
Thanks, Brenden!

Same here! Although I probably won't use it in conversation since I have no idea how to pronounce it, I like that this term exists.

[dizerner]

You have likely heard the illustration in sermons about the Bridge when talking about the Ransom. The one where the bridge worker needed to manually hold the tracks via a lever in order for the train not to go over the edge, but in order to do so, he cannot leave the lever to resue his son who is on the tracks. The reason this analogy became so popular (so popular that it made it's way into the Kingdom Hall) is because of the emotional impact on the heart.[/size].

Stories like these can, I think, be used to convey Gospel truths in a simple manner, but perhaps we should be careful not to leave out more nuanced details. There is something called sin which had to be dealt with on the cross, and this story picture just paints things as a heroic act in an unfortunate situation. We have some more characters in this play, we have Satan and sin and judgment and rebellion, we have people who are enemies of God and angels and demons, we have holiness and worship and idolatry and ignorance, we have choices and decisions of what to value and whom to obey. God is a King not a bridge worker, and we are sinners, not mere train passengers, and his Son didn't happen to be in the way, he was specifically sent for one purpose, to take the punishment we deserve, and thus offer us love and life and amnesty if we accept his rule and reign of grace. Maybe it's "picking at nits" as a parable permits inexactitude, but I'm always worried when we phrase things a little more pleasing to our soulish way of looking at life, and a little less Biblically. I feel this parable of the bridge worker is demeaning to the person of God and also saying his judgments against sin are unfair so he himself has to basically decide between two different innocent groups of people, his son or the passengers. Now if we retold the story as, every passenger in that train having sinned deeply against the bridge worker, who then sent his son, who was also a King, to try to stop the train, and the passengers all treated his son with contempt, and said they knew better and were happy on the train they were going, and then that Son deliberately stepped in front of that train taking the fate the passengers themselves deserved, so that any passenger that wanted could get off the train's destination—well here we have something a bit more Biblical.

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

[TheEditor]

Yeah, I think it is picking at nits. The fact is, had Jesus used a similar illustration, with a worker and a son in whatever occupation, volumes would have been written about what it meant. The point of any illustration is to highlight one point; to get lost in the details is to miss the point at best, and at worst, which is the case with many gimmicky sectarian views, read far too much into the details of the parable. Trust me, I know.

Read through all of Jesus' parables; there are many words that are used as embellishments to paint a picture; there are inexact statements.

Whoever thought up the "Bridge/Train" analogy, it seems to me, was focusing on the loss of the Bridgeman. The point wasn't to focus on sin or anything else. But I think we're getting off "track".

Regards, Brenden.