Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Suspect?
In the commentary thread for my last post (Should the Feast Days Be Kept?), the issue of the Trinity was raised and offered as evidence that Christians should be observing the Feasts and Sabbaths of Torah. “WHAT?” some of you will ask. It was asserted that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of the Old Testament – that Christ was the one who gave the Law to Moses. Hence, for them, the Law of Moses = the Law of Christ. And, of course, everyone knows that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Now, admittedly, in the realm of human reasoning there is a superficial kind of logic to this assertion. However, as usual, if we dig a little deeper, the logic falls apart (because it relies on the Armstrongist binitarianism). In other words, a heresy built on the foundation of yet another heresy!
In response to one of the comments, I wrote: “The fourteenth chapter of John is critical to understanding this phenomenon. We read there: "6 Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.' 8 Philip said to him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' 9 Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.'" (John 14:6-11) Jesus had already told them that he and the Father were ONE (John 10:30).
Likewise, Christ alluded to another part of the Godhead in that same chapter (14) of the Gospel of John. He said: "15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 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.' 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, 'Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?' 23 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 home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:15-24) Did you get that? Jesus promised that all three parts (Father, Son, Helper/Holy Spirit) would make their home with true Christians - God with and in us!”
In response, the commentator who relied on binitarianism quoted the following passages:
1 Jn 2:1 But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate [parakleton] before the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. (BSB).
Jn 14:16) And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate [parakleton] to be with you forever— (BSB).
Rom 8:9 if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you
Gal 4:4) God sent forth [exapostello] his Son
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth [exapostello] the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Now, the commentator obviously believed that these passages supported his/her binitarianism; but if we take a closer look, we see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in these passages, and they appear as ONE and a part of each other.
Likewise, the same commentator cited a number of other passages that he/she believed would support his/her binitarianism. As one example, the commentator quoted John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” He/she then asked: “Why isn’t <it> ‘and the Word was with God and the HS’?” He/she, however, fails to acknowledge that later (in this same chapter) we read: “32 Then John testified, “I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him. 33 I didn’t know he was the one, but when God sent me to baptize with water, he told me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.” (John 1:32-34)
In similar fashion, the commentator quoted: “1Jn 1:3b and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” Then asked: “Why isn’t our fellowship with the Father, Jesus Christ and the HS?” As is usually the case with proof texting, the commentator completely ignored what followed. In the second chapter of this same epistle, we read: “20 But you are not like that, for the Holy One has given you his Spirit, and all of you know the truth. 21 So I am writing to you not because you don’t know the truth but because you know the difference between truth and lies. 22 And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. 23 Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24 So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. 25 And in this fellowship we enjoy the eternal life he promised us. 26 I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray. 27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.” (I John 2:20-27)
I don’t know about you, but that sure sounds to me like John believed that the Holy Spirit was essential to maintaining our fellowship with the Father and the Son!
The commentator then went on to list “Well-wishes with two divine sources.” In this instance, the commentator pointed to the greetings in several epistles (mostly Paul’s):
Rom 1:7b Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
1 Cor 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Cor 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Gal 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Phil 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Thess 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
1 Tim 1:2b Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Tim 1:2b Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Titus 1:4b Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Philemon 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Pet 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord
2 John 3 Grace, mercy and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father’s Son, in truth and love
--David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, p.27.
Then, he/she went on to quote from Bullinger’s commentary on Revelation: “Nowhere do we find the Holy Spirit associated with the Father and the Son in any salutation. Not even in the Pauline Epistles”
REALLY? Please notice the rest of Paul’s salutation in his epistle to the Romans:
Romans 1: 1 This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News. 2 God promised this Good News long ago through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. 3 The Good News is about his Son. In his earthly life he was born into King David’s family line, 4 and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority as apostles to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name. 6 And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 I am writing to all of you in Rome who are loved by God and are called to be his own holy people.” (Romans 1:1-7a)
Likewise, in his first epistle to the saints at Corinth, we read:
“6 Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten. 7 No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God—his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began. 8 But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord. 9 That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him.’ 10 But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. 11 No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. 12 And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.” (I Corinthians 2:6-12)
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may not be mentioned in all of the salutations; but this trio is woven into the very fabric of the New Testament (and the Hebrew Scriptures). Indeed, some of the very passages which Armstrongists use to disprove the Trinity actually demonstrate the unity of the Godhead! In the first chapter of Genesis, we read that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.” While in the New Testament, we read that God created all things by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9). So, who did the creating? Was it God, the Word, or the Holy Spirit? The answer is YES! In the Gospel of Matthew, we read that Mary “became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.” Moreover, the angel told Joseph that “the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18-20) Was the Holy Spirit involved or was the Father involved? Once again, the answer is YES! No, sorry folks, the Trinity is demonstrated in a few proof texts – it is in almost every page of the Greek New Testament!
Lonnie Hendrix/Miller Jones
22 comments:
"No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a spirit. It is the nonphysical component of me. It enables me to think, and write this. It is not a person. I don't have a person in me.
Likewise God has a Spirit. It is not a person. It is God's power - Acts 1:8. By it God creates and so much more.
Can your spirit in you be the same spirit in your physical father?
Unless you’re insane the answer is no. So why is the Spirit of God called the Spirit of Christ also? If they are two separate gods then you are a polytheist.
Holy Spirit, Father and Son all coexist and are all the one true God. It may bother you but that’s what scripture says.
Since the cannon is suspect, ALL the doctrines in it are suspect. Especially the trinity, which even the authors in the "accepted" cannon cannot agree on.
Didn't Jones recently say the bible was riddled with contradictions?
Lonnie writes, "the Father, Son and HS may not be mentioned in all the salutations, but this trio is woven into the very fabric of the NT".
I think everyone will stipulate to that, but all that really proves is that the HS is mentioned in Scripture and has a connection with the Father and Son. You have not shown what that connection is , nor demonstrated what the official Trinitarian doctrine claims, that the HS is a person, coequal with the Father and Son.
1 Corinthians 8:4-7 states, " there is none other God but one. For US, there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. However, not everyone has THAT KNOWLEDGE "!!
This tells me that the Godhead contains 2 named personages, who both are spirit, and function by and through the spirit. Both God and Christ are spirit. The HS is their personality, essence, power, and extension of their very being, and not a separate personage.
The HS is the spirit of both the Father and the Son dwelling in us, 2 Cor.6:16-18, John 14:23. 2 Cor 3:17 says, " the Lord IS THAT SPIRIT, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ".
Notice that Scripture uses plural possessive nouns and pronouns when describing the spirit, such as the spirit OF the Lord, the spirit of HIM, Romans 8:11, the spirit of HIS Son, Gal.4:6, the spirit of Christ, Romans 8:9, God's spirit, my spirit, His spirit. Doesn't sound to me like a separate person.
Scripture also tells us that the Father sends Christ and Christ sends the HS, showing that they are NOT co equal.
The title of this post asks, Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Suspect? The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia certainly thinks so! It confirms that the Trinity doctrine is not just controversial, but " ambitious, difficult, and very thin on evidence". (1986, vol.4, page 914-17, article Trinity). Scout has also said on another post that "there is not a strong Trinitarian foundation in Scripture". Interesting!
The ISBE concludes by saying, " the spirit in the NT is personally less distinct than the Father and Son, and His divinity less clearly stated. One properly concludes that the NT is overally CLEARLY BINITARIAN in its data, and (probably??) Trinitarian (page 917). Of course they have to have a disclaimer don't they?
I guess because ARMSTRONG taught binitarianism, it is automatically heresy and we must reject the data that is clearly scriptural? On this site that's considered good scholarship!
Serious mainstream Christians were still arguing about the Trinity for several hundred years after Christ's resurrection. It took several church councils to root out the disagreements, or more accurately to root out those who disagreed. The "trinity" was an early understanding of the Godhead, but it was not a majority understanding until the majority of Christians were no longer former Jews, and it was not universally treated as the one valid understanding for a couple hundred years after that.
Miller Jones wrote an effective analysis of this issue.
There is a collateral issue that I will bring up. There is much more to the anti-Trinitarian view of Armstrongists than simply rejecting the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Armstrongists believe in Subordinationism. This means that they do not believe that Jesus is co-equal with God the Father either in role or in ontology. For this reason, Armstrongists are not truly Binitarian. They are, rather, Bi-theistic. The difference is stark. Binitarianism is like Trinitarianism only the person count is two instead of three. Bi-theism is polytheism where the count of gods is two. It is the pantheon approach of the pagans. In Bi-theism there is no perichoresis or co-inherence but two separate beings. Much of the Divine Unity language in the latter part of the Gospel of John does not apply to polytheism.
Robert Coulter, past president of the General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day) identifies the CG7 as Binitarian but says their Binitarianism differs from that of HWA. I could not find information on how CG7 formulates this doctrine. So, the CG7 may be Bi-theistic like Armstrongism. All of this stems from a past history of Arianism. Coulter stated in an interview in 2008:
“When I grew up in the church, it was Arian. It taught the preexistence of Christ, but Christ was not God. I remember the first time I read the phrase "God the Son" and it made me mad. This was 50 years ago, and I didn't immediately get involved in a study.”
I think it would be surprising to many Armstrongists that when HWA fellowshipped with the CG7, they did not believe Jesus was God. Hence, they were Unitarian rather than Binitarian. Arianism was quite widespread in the Ekklesia before the Nicene Council.
So, Armstrongists not only question the status of the Holy Spirit, they question the status of Jesus. While they believe that Jesus is God, they regard him as a kind of subordinate God.
Scout
Thank you for your post Lonnie/Millar.
The Zohar, a book of Rabbinical mysticism explores the nature of God and the cosmos. The Zohar is associated with the Kabbalah, a mystical tradition that emerged in around the 12th century.
Haraz de Shlosha-The Mystery of the Three within the Zohar, talks about the nature of God, One God with three dimensions. Hear oh Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is One; the Zohar refers to God as of three heads, three spirits, three names, three appearances to describe the Divine nature. And now the Lord God has sent Me and His Spirit, Isaiah 48. Three in One, but One God. This is not an unfamiliar theme within Judaism. And acknowledged by many Rabbinical scholars. A subject up for much debate in the foreseeable future I am sure.
The trinity doctrine cannot possibly be suspect. Calling it suspect is far too kind. It's just pure garbage. Regardless of what the bible says or does not say, the trinity theory is inherently self-contradictory and confusing and impossible. So it cannot be true. It comes down to God being one being yet at the same time three separate beings. All the "scholarship" (making elaborate excuses) is smoke and mirrors. No matter how they try to spin it, they cannot make sense of it. That's why the Catholic church calls it one of the "MYSTERIES of the FAITH." It is a "mystery" because it is impossible to comprehend. If you can believe a contradiction, you can believe anything.
Really? Yes.
While Romans 1:1-7 is a salutation in a general sense, salutation or greeting can also have a specific sense.
Ro 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
“This is the form of the salutation found in most of Paul’s epistles...
“What we see in here in Romans, etc., is that the Greek greeting form has been combined with the Jewish form. The Greek says Chaire! = “Joy to you!” The Jew says Shalom! = “Peace!” Not only, however, have these two greetings been joined by Paul but they have at the same time been transformed into one distinctively Christian salutation. Note in this connection, that chaire has been changed into charis = grace” (William Hendriksen, Romans, NTC, p.48).
Aune’s “well-wishes” and Bullinger “salutations” refer to this Christian greeting (as quoted). I do not see “the spirit of holiness” referring to a third person in a trinity. But even if it did why doesn’t the grace and peace come from God, Jesus and HS?
Lonnie, your quote of 2 Corinthians 6 should have included v.13 from the KJV to support your argument.
It is suggested theat the “spirit of God” should be understood in the ‘principal’ sense as God’s spirit and Jesus’ spirit in the agency sense.
It is interesting that new ‘converts’ to the trinity see the trinity in Scripture that Trinitarian scholars are reluctant to or don’t see themselves:
Ge 1:2b And the spirit (ruah) of God moved upon the face of the waters. (AV).
Ge 1:2b and the Wind (ruah) of God hovered over the waters. (Gordon J. Wenham).
Ge 1:2b and a wind (ruah) from God sweeping over the waters— (Jewish Study Bible).
“Accordingly, there is no way to tell from the Hebrew whether one should read “spirit” or “Spirit.” To translate “Spirit” runs the risk of superimposing Trinitarian concepts on Gen. 1 that are not necessarily present” (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17, p.114).
“More specifically, if “the Spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2 cannot be identified as the Holy Spirit by the use of the phrase, and if there is no affirmation of a role of creation for the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, then the popular belief that the Holy Spirit’s role in creation is supported in Genesis 1:2 must be recognized as informed only by theological speculation. Exegetical analysis in light of biblical theology and progressive revelation suggest that the ruah here represents an extension of God’s power, like his hand or breath” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.77).
Lonnie writes:
“No, sorry folks, the Trinity is demonstrated in a few proof texts – it is in almost every page of the Greek New Testament!”.
Cornelius Aplantinga, a social trinitarian, made these comments in his article on the Trinity in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia”
"It is ABSTRACTLY POSSIBLE that the authors of these formulas have combined a reference to two persons, but it SEEMS relatively improbable. So one WARILY concludes that on balance the NT data presents and support a personal concept of the Spirit" (C. Plantinga, Jr., ISBE, Vol.4, p.916).
"In sum, the NT does testify to the Spirit's distinct personhood and divinity, but MUTEDLY AND AMBIGUOUSLY. The Spirit in the NT is personally LESS DISTINCT than the Father and Son,, and His divinity less clearly stated; He appears AS NEARLY TRANSPARENT AGENT for God and Christ. ONE PROPERLY CONCLUDES THAT THE NT IS OVERALL CLEARLY BINITARIAN IN ITS DATA, AND PROBABLY TRINITARIAN" (C. Aplantinga, Jr., "Trinity," ISBE, Vol.4, pp.916-17).
Cornelius does not appear to as confident about the trinity as you are.
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness:
So the three-person-trinity only made two persons.
Jn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I suggest that only two persons were made as they reflect God and the Word/Father and Son, hence no Trinity.
The prevailing argument on these sites used to be controlled by those who had embraced the "One God" theory in a different way. They wanted to convince everyone that Jesus was a created being Who did not pre-exist for all eternity.
What has seemed obvious to me is that the Bible refers to three conceptualizations relative to God. God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit. All are spoken of with great reverence. I really find any attempts to reduce any one of them to be unconvincing. It seems to me that they are each manifestations which are descriptive of, or embody the roles which God takes in His human childrens' lives. Frankly, why limit God to three? Perhaps three is the minimum "need to know". There may be more, but still all the same. Not Baal, not Chemosh. Just the real.
BB
Binitarianism and bitheism are heresies because they diverge from what the majority of Christian scholars and lay people believe about the nature of God. Frankly, it took me a long time to let go of HWA's teachings about the Godhead. Why? Because the doctrine of the Trinity is based on the totality of Scripture, NOT on a few proof texts. Unlike so many of his other heresies, it was a much harder subject to get my mind around. After all, the doctrine is vague - shrouded in mystery, and it intentionally leaves many questions about the nature of God unanswered. Hence, for those who have been trained to look at the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of answers, the doctrine seems too ethereal.
Even so, there is a great deal of support for the teaching within Scripture, but it does take time and effort to put it all together. For instance, the assertion that the Holy Spirit is not spoken of as a personage or having a personality contradicts a large number of scriptural passages. For example, in Acts we read: "One day as these men were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Appoint Barnabas and Saul for the special work to which I have called them.'" (Acts 13:2) "So Barnabas and Saul were sent out by the Holy Spirit. They went down to the seaport of Seleucia and then sailed for the island of Cyprus." (Acts 13:4) Here, the Holy Spirit speaks and sends people on a mission! Likewise, the account of the Jerusalem Council informs us "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements..." (Acts 15:28) A non-entity that reasons?
In the sixteenth chapter of this account, we read: "Next Paul and Silas traveled through the area of Phrygia and Galatia, because the Holy Spirit had prevented them from preaching the word in the province of Asia at that time. Then coming to the borders of Mysia, they headed north for the province of Bithynia, but again the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to go there. So instead, they went on through Mysia to the seaport of Troas." (Acts 16:6-8) Here, we find the Holy Spirit preventing them from traveling to a place on two occasions and being referred to as the Spirit of Jesus!
Later, we are informed that the Holy Spirit told Paul that prison and suffering awaited him in the near future (Acts 20:23). In this same chapter, we are informed that Paul addressed Church leaders whom the Holy Spirit had appointed (Acts 20:28). In the following chapter, we read: "Several days later a man named Agabus, who also had the gift of prophecy, arrived from Judea. He came over, took Paul’s belt, and bound his own feet and hands with it. Then he said, “The Holy Spirit declares, ‘So shall the owner of this belt be bound by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and turned over to the Gentiles.'" A mindless, non-entity? I don't think so!
Paul told the Romans, that God had given them the Holy Spirit "to fill our hearts with his love" (Romans 5:5). You know the God who is love! Likewise, Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth: "it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets." (I Corinthians 2:10) We must not forget that Jesus himself had told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would teach, comfort, and help them to remember what he had told them during his earthly ministry.
To the saints of Galatia, Paul wrote: " So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves...when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses...But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!" (Galatians 5:16-23) Talk about personality! Moreover, Paul said that the Holy Spirit was our down payment on eternal life (Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). An impersonal force imparts eternal life into mortal humans?
Paul's salutation in his second letter to the saints at Corinth:
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (II Corinthians 13:14, NLT)
Then you both disagree with Jesus himself who repeatedly in scripture was subordinate to God the Father with zero mention of any third godhead person.
Here is only a few examples:
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
John 5:19
Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.
Mark 13:32
Of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
I love this comment thank you 8:11.
That is one I missed –– to err is human, to forgive is divine — I was only thinking on the salutations at the beginning of the letters; I should have recognized it as I put some information together on 2 Cor 13:14 a couple of days ago, as I find that this Scripture was the most challenging of Scriptures to explain in relation in regard to the Trinity. But is it referring to a person?
2Co 13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ [he charis tou Kupiou Iesou Christou], and the love of God [he agape tou Theou], and the communion [koinonia] of the [tou] Holy [hagiou] Spirit [pneumatos] be with [meta] you [hymon] all [panton]. Amen.
“There is a question whether to translate koinonia as “fellowship” or as “participation.” The question is whether to take tou hagiou pneumatos as a subjective genitive or an objective genitive. The former understanding lends itself to the idea of “participation in,” or sharing in (as if koinonia = metochi kai metalipsis [“sharing and “partaking of”]) the Holy Spirit... In the light of the two genitives (he charis tou Kupiou Iesou Christou and he agape tou Theou) preceding, we have opted to translate the present as subjective also... [it] is by no means the only position that can be supported... To take the genitive as subjective is to conclude that the fellowship with the Spirit is not primarily the sharing in the Spirit, but sharing in the communion he creates among believers (Hering, 103), a sharing characterized by grace and love. But it is clearly possible to combine both syntactical points, AND THINK OF PAUL AS REMARKING ON “THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE CHURCH THROUGH THE COMMON SHARE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT” (see Hainz, Koinonia, 61)” (Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC, pp.491 & 505).
Jn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1 John 1:3 and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
The big question: if the HS is coequal with God and Jesus why he is missing in such important Scriptures where you would expect to find ‘him’; Especially at the end of Revelation which pictures the fulfilment of the goal of God, as revealed.
Lonnie, i believe the last sentence of your article/post does not read as you intended regarding proof texts?
BurtB
Lonnie at 928 writes, "the Trinity is based on the totality of scripture, not a few proof texts".
What you are doing is taking every passage that mentions the HS, reading a preconceived idea into it, then making a Trinitarian text out of it. That doesn't wash. At least a proof text proves a point!
The idea that the HS is an impersonal force without personality is very poor wording. The HS is very personable, but it needs not be a person to be such. It's personality is that of the Father and Son. Both ARE spirit! The HS is THEIR essence, power, and the extension of their very being. Can this be demonstrated?
Consider Matthew 12:28, where Christ says, if I cast out devils BY the spirit (of) God, the the KOG is come unto you. The parallel account in Luke 11:20 puts it this way: If I cast out devils by the FINGER (of) God, the KOG is come.
A finger is NOT a separate being but an extension of one's being.
Consider also Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35, where Christ is called a child of the HS, conceived by the HS, by the power of the Highest, the Father. If the spirit is an extension of the Father's essence, this makes perfect sense. If the spirit is a separate personage, it is a contradiction. Even in humans terms (like the finger analogy), A woman conceives a child that is begotten by a man's sperm. Sperm is not a separate entity but an extension of the man. The man is the father, not the sperm!
The HS is (of) God, possessed by God, part (of) God, which in effect makes it God, but not a separate entity (person) which the official narrative of the Trinity claims. Multi-part man has much to say about this other than a few proof texts.
We must believe what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:4-7. This is Bible teaching, not heresy. If you are going to judge heresy based on the opinion of a majority in the Christian world, then I'm assuming you also believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ and you accept his authority? Hmmm
Scout 332 suggests, "Armstrongites not only question the status of the HS, they question the status of Jesus. They regard Him as a kind of subordinate God"??
I never felt that way, even though there are several passages where Christ is clearly in a subordinate position to the Father (see Matthew 24:36, John 17:3, Acts 1:7, 3:20, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:24, Hebrews 1:1-3, 13).
These are not attacks on His divinity or equality with God, but merely a matter of position, role, and function.
In Scripture, women are subordinate to men in many way and matters (1 Corinthians 11:3) for God given reasons. A wife is subordinate to her husband as a matter of function, but not status or equality, for both are still considered to be " one" flesh with equal standing before God.
"If you can believe a contradiction, you can believe anything." I guess that's why Armstrongism exists.
“There’s nothing done or said that can’t be forgiven. But if you deliberately persist in your slanders against God’s Spirit, you are repudiating the very One who forgives. If you reject the Son of Man out of some misunderstanding, the Holy Spirit can forgive you, but when you reject the Holy Spirit, you’re sawing off the branch on which you’re sitting, severing by your own perversity all connection with the One who forgives.” (Matthew 12:31-32, MSG)
Anonymous 11:14 wrote, “Then you both disagree with Jesus himself who repeatedly in scripture was subordinate to God the Father with zero mention of any third godhead person.”
Jesus spoke from the perspective of his Incarnate state. He had undergone Kenosis. Counterposed against your statement are these words of Jesus:
“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
Jesus did mention the Holy Spirit in the context of the Godhead in Matthew 28:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”
Christianity has done an exhaustive study of Jesus. These issues have been long clarified. I would suggest that you do some reading in that area. You do yourself a great disservice by confining what you read to HWA’s little booklet theology. I know we re-litigate all of this in these pages, and to good purpose, but Armstrongism has only been around a few decades and Christianity has been around for two millennia. This theological clash may seem new to you but it is older than dirt. What you should do is read the chapter on the Trinity in Millard Erickson’s book titled Christian Theology. It will respond to your questions and will neatly lay Armstrongism away.
Scout
BP8 1:58 wrote, “Scout has also said on another post that "there is not a strong Trinitarian foundation in Scripture". “
Let me explain. I am saying essentially what Miller Jones stated above. You have to dig to find a Trinity of co-equal divine persons. It is not an understanding that is painted on a billboard. And the Nicene doctrine is counterposed by allegorical statements that are on the surface non-Trinitarian. But after you stitch together the fragments and strip away the allegory, you are left with the same conclusion that the brothers came to back in 325 AD. But there is enough difficult to interpret data in the Bible to make the semantic formulation of the Trinity to some degree a mystery. Beyond just the narrative formulation, the ontology will always be a mystery to persons such as we. If in my first days in Paradise, I were told that the Nicene interpretation were not fully developed, I would be surprised but it would not be a crisis of faith for me.
Strong arguments in favor of the Trinity that Armstrongism does not address:
1. The Holy Spirit is revealed in the New Testament as having volition. Volition is the property of a willful Being rather than an impersonal energy. "So Barnabas and Saul were sent out by the Holy Spirit. They went down to the seaport of Seleucia and then sailed for the island of Cyprus." (Acts 13:4) There are many such examples in the NT.
2. There is language that categorizes the Holy Spirit with the other persons of the Trinity such as Matthew 28:19-20 where it says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. These statements are known as Triads. This statement in Matthew also directly states that wherever the Gospel is proclaimed by the true church, the Trinity, the source of the church’s authority, will be proclaimed.
3. There is the Armstrongist interpretation that the Holy Spirit is a kind of energy that emanates from God the Father. The scripture is: “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) But Jesus, a member of the Trinity, also comes from the Father: “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” (John 16:28) The verbs “proceedeth from” and “came forth” are simple Greek logistical terms and are comparable.
This could go on. It’s old hat but well worth a review. Robert Coulter, former President of the Church of God Seventh Day, HWA’s home church, stated concerning the Trinity: “When I grew up in the church, it was Arian … Arianism tends to degrade the position of Christ, and it also tends to reflect on the work of the nature of the Holy Spirit, so I think some of us have come to the position of recognizing that the Holy Spirit is more than just a blind force. I think we're willing to assign personality.” I think that Armstrongists, in their opposition to the Trinity, need to reflect and determine whether they are under the influence of the lingering spirit of Arianism.
Scout
Post a Comment