Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. (Acts 2:3
)
The Legacy of Arianism
Armstrongism in Contention with the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
By Scout
In the formative years of the early Christian church, Arianism was a theological orthodoxy. Arius, a Greek-speaking Berber from Libya, ca. 256-336 BC, believed and taught that there was only one God. And the Son was not God but a created being subordinate to God and separate from God. Jesus was just a creature who was granted the dignity of being the Son of God. And the Holy Spirit is not a divine being co-equal with God but was, rather, “the illuminating and sanctifying power of God, which is neither God the Father nor God the Son (Bishop Ulfilas)”. The Arian Model was proclaimed heresy and refuted in the Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) and the Trinity Model was adopted by Christianity. Classical Armstrongism is not fully Arian but could be classed as Semi-Arian. Some points at issue follow.
Arguments for the Holy Spirit as a Divine Being
1. The Holy Spirit is revealed in the New Testament as having volition. Volition is the property of a Being that possesses will rather than the property of 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 13:42. There is language that categorizes the Holy Spirit with the other persons of the Trinity such as Matthew 28:19-203. There is the Armstrongist interpretation that the Holy Spirit is a kind of energy that emanates from God the Father. A 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 15:264. Armstrongism claims that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of God. It is a force of God and also a mindset of God. Yet, the language of the New Testament indicates that the Holy Spirit is separate from the Father. Notice the logistical/spatial languagespoken by Jesus in John 16::
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”
The Father and the Holy Spirit are without a doubt in complete agreement in attitude and purpose but the scripture above indicates that they are not the same as to personhood. Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as a separate being with role and volition. Even if the prepositions of motion are allegorical, the sense that there are two persons being described is undeniable. The Holy Spirit is not just an attribute of God.
5. The role of the Holy Spirit in uniting us with Christ requires that the Holy Spirit, acting separately but in harmony with the Father as we saw in point 4 above, be a God Being. Spiritual union with Christ is not accomplished by an impersonal force like some sort of adhesive. Moreover, it is a union of humans with God and not the uniting of two beings of equal parity. There is an uplifting of humanity into the Godly domain that cannot be initiated and executed from a subordinate position. A divine person at the level of God must accomplish the union. Notice this from 1 Corinthians 12:
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
Don’t be distracted by the metaphors. They do not express the essence of what the Holy Spirit is. In the early part of the verse, the ceremony of baptism is mentioned which depicts immersion in water and then later the idea of “drinking” is mentioned. This mixing of metaphors used by Paul is not meant to imply that when we are immersed in the baptismal waters we are supposed to drink some of the water. In Jeremiah 2:13
6. Under the Armstrongist model of the Holy Spirit, it is difficult to understand how the Holy Spirit can be inherently holy. It is essentially a tool or a workable substance in that model (see citation below). The tool is not holy, it is the person who uses the tool that may be holy. The tool is just a tool. I doubt that Captain Kirk considered a tractor beam to be holy. Holy comes with being, will and intent. One may argue that it is holy because it originates with God but everything originates with God.
Arianism, the Adventists, the Church of God Seventh Day and Armstrongism
Arianism asserts the anti-trinitarian ideas that Jesus was created and the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. Arianism seems to have been a property of Millerism from the beginning of that movement. The early Adventists were semi-Arians. They believed that Jesus was created but they departed from strict Arianism by believing that Jesus did partake of the divine nature. And they believed that the Holy Spirit was a divine power. This Ariainist theme found in the Millerite-derived Church of God Seventh Day when Herbert W. Armstrong fellowshipped with them.
Robert Coulter, former President of the Church of God Seventh Day stated concerning the Trinity: “When I grew up in the church, it was Arian. It taught the preexistence of Christ, but Christ was not God…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.” By preexistence, Coulter explains that he did not mean eternal preexistence but that Jesus somewhere in the depths of the past was created by God. Classical Armstrongism follows Arianism with one exception – Armstrongists believe that Jesus is God. But they retain Arianist Subordinationism in that they believe that Jesus is a lesser God.
Armstrongists characterize the Holy Spirit sometimes as an energy and other times as a substance from which something can be composed. In an article co-authored by Garner Ted Armstrong and David Jon Hill, the Holy Spirit is defined in this way:
Robert Coulter, former President of the Church of God Seventh Day stated concerning the Trinity: “When I grew up in the church, it was Arian. It taught the preexistence of Christ, but Christ was not God…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.” By preexistence, Coulter explains that he did not mean eternal preexistence but that Jesus somewhere in the depths of the past was created by God. Classical Armstrongism follows Arianism with one exception – Armstrongists believe that Jesus is God. But they retain Arianist Subordinationism in that they believe that Jesus is a lesser God.
Armstrongists characterize the Holy Spirit sometimes as an energy and other times as a substance from which something can be composed. In an article co-authored by Garner Ted Armstrong and David Jon Hill, the Holy Spirit is defined in this way:
“The truth is that the Holy Spirit is not one of the Persons of the Godhead, but is the substance of which those who are in the Godhead are composed. "God is a Spirit ... " (John 4: 24
A power? Or a substance? This seems to merge God’s essence and God’s energy and makes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit consubstantial. It seems to say there really is no discernable Holy Spirit – that the idea is at most rhetorical. One is led to ask then why does God even mention the Holy Spirit – does that not just complicate an otherwise clean and simplistic reality? Perhaps, God just has a penchant for flowery Biblical language. I think not. There is a personal, divine Being that is the Holy Spirit. Most of its metaphors are not anthropomorphic like those related to the Father and the Son that we are used to. The Holy Spirit seems to us a mystery because it is.
Armstrong, Ted and Hill, David Jon. “Who – What – was Jesus before his Human Birth?”, The Good News, January 1953.
Cartwright, Dixon, “Former Church of God (Seventh Day) president discusses Church of God history and Herbert Armstrong”, 2008.
SDANet. “Were the Early Adventists Arians?”
36 comments:
I feel embarrassed for the author. It's the same with other prominent theologians. The think they have it figured out and they are so far off base they aren't even in the park.
If the holy spirit is a divine being, Christ would have mentioned him more often in His long prayer to God the Father in the book of John.
The Trinity and personhood of the HS have been debated for hundreds of years, so I don't see it being resolved here, especially with blunt statements from scholarly works like the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
with Acts 2:38
).
)". See ISBE page 916, Word Studies on the HS, page 37-39. This would make the HS "of" God (personal possessive) but not a separate personage. Such is the conclusion of 1 Corinthians 8:4-7
, and the ISBE that concludes that "the NT is overall clearly binitarian in its data", page 917.
"the treatment of the HS is difficult, ambiguous and sometimes oblique to the interests of later trinitarianism". " Evidence for the divinity of the Spirit is thinner and HAZIER than symmetrical fifth century trinitarian statements suggest". (ISBE, 1986, vol.4, pg.916). Since it is that ambitious, maybe Captain Kirk's opinion on tractor beams can clear this up, but I don't think so.
Scout and others place a heavy emphasis on triadic formulas, which is interesting, for the ISBE relates that this argument is the "best the NT has to offer regarding the Spirit's personhood". Yet, it is also acknowledged that " it is absolutely possible that the authors of these formulas have combined a reference to a faculty or power with references to two persons".
Thomas Gaston says, "these passages cannot be taken as evidence of the belief in the co substantial unity of God. Names may be conjoined for any number of reasons (unity in greeting, purpose, etc.), so even the use of a three fold formula cannot be conclusive". (Proto-Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Centuries, 2007).
The triadic formulas are suggestive if one reads their pre concieved ideas into them. But by themselves they do not establish personhood. Also, Scripture is not consistent with " names" (compare Matthew 28:19-20
Both Bullinger and the ISBE suggest "that God's spirit is to God as a human spirit is to a human being (1 Corinthians 2:10
The Trinity remains, as Scout writes, " a mystery ". Because of this, I see no reason to demean or impose negative labels on those who have different views from the majority, for that is an Armstrong tactic pure and simple. Also, for a subject so ambiguous, it should not be the main test of orthodoxy and required for salvation as insisted upon by the late Dr. Walter Martin.
Several years ago, there was a significant number of WCG and former WCG members and ministers who had fully bought into the "One God" Theory (Arianism).
Some of those who thought that they had discovered new truth were anxious to share and argue the point on the blogs and forums, and they had collected and arranged an exhaustive number of scriptures which they used as their proof texts. They even went into the Greek. Others quoted scriptures which countered this, based on what they had learned about the "binity" from Herbert W. Armstrong, and the "trinity" from their new churches in the mainstream. All participants were very headstrong.
This exercise, for me, went off in an entirely different direction. Someone many years ago at a natural childbirth class, in which numerous pregnant couples from the WCG were participating, had passed a comment that you can prove anything you want from the Bible. At the time that comment was made, I believed that we had found and proven the truth, and that all others who did not have it were deceived. They were the ones who were proving "anything." Yet, the One God" people on the internet had taken the proof blueprint and logic learned from Armstrongism, and had applied it very convincingly to their new Arian views. The argument on the forum appeared to be a stalemate with all participants believing they had won. The takeaway from these discussions for me was that the proof methodology used in Armstrongism was flawed. You can actually use it to prove heresy, and HWA did!.
BB
The Word was God ........ and made flesh.....and "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."
The commenters here who are best appreciated and most edifying may make statements such you did, 5:18, but then they continue and present some well-thought-out counterpoint, or a completely different model. How are these theologians off base, and how, in your opinion, do they get back in the park? I personally believe the author hit a home run out of the oark, but what is your perspective or alternative? Please don't just do a driveby. Elucidate!
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:39
.
If the HS was a separate being why would Jesus have to be glorified?
Anonymous 7:20 wrote, "If the holy spirit is a divine being, Christ would have mentioned him more often in His long prayer to God the Father in the book of John."
The Holy Spirit was mentioned twice as the Comforter. Once in John 15 and once in John 16. In both cases, Jesus speaks of the Comforter as a Person.
Scout
Some good comments here. BB, you are right, even heresy can be proven lol.
This debate will rage on, of that I have no doubt. And I am not a prophet unlike some claimants. Comment at 10:48:09 AM PDT noted.
BP8 7:40 wrote, ”The Trinity and personhood of the HS have been debated for hundreds of years…”
Yes, it has been debated. And now we have on the Nicene side of the issue all of the main stream religious denominations. On the dissenting side (Arianists, Socinians), you find a collection of atypical denominations including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, Unitarians, various Millerite-derived groups and the Mormons.
Do you see a trend?
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan conclusion is the best fit to the all of the data – not just the Triads. And I do not believe the Triads alone, although powerful, are the best data out there despite what the ISBE might say. My point 5, along with the Triads, is a much stronger argument.
Scout
... and?
Anonymous 10:48 wrote, "If the HS was a separate being why would Jesus have to be glorified?"
). This work of union could not proceed until Christ came into his full ontological state, that is, glorified.
The easy answer is that the work of the Holy Spirit is to create a union between those who become Christians and Jesus Christ. As Christians, we are part of the Body of Christ and live in the "unity of the Spirit" (Ephesians 4:3
The glorification of Christ has nothing directly to do with the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Jesus wasn't doing this himself because the Holy Spirit was not a Being. Jesus had a role to perform and the Holy Spirit had a role to perform. There was a plan.
Scout
Byker Bob 8:52 wrote, "The argument on the forum appeared to be a stalemate with all participants believing they had won."
Some stalemates really are not stalemates - they are just refusals. The Bible is rich in metaphor and, unfortunately, this also makes the Bible difficult to interpret. One man's metaphor is another man's literal statement. This principle has gotten us an anthropomorphic God.
I do not believe the case for the Nicene Trinity is pre-emptive. It is just way better than anything else in town. If I am taught one day that the Nicene Trinity was a misreckoning by sincere people, I would not be perturbed. We see through a glass darkly and God is on the other side of the glass from us.
Scout
The Gist or essence of it all, Scout, is that for the Holy Spirit to do what He does, He must be interactive with humans. That demands the ability to analyze or process data from each individual Christian. And it's not just a matter of exchanging impersonal signals. He is personalizing His work, crafting it for each of us, and saving that work to our muscle memory, and character. I just don't see us getting to where we need to be with Armstrong's force or energy model. HWA was in need of a higher concept, and somehow never realized it.
Even as advanced as AI is becoming, forgetting for the moment simple energy or a force field, you still just don't attain anything close to loving mentorship without a sentient being involved. Personhood. It's something to which people may not wish to apply that name, but the activity and results are what define it, not the name.
BB
The article starts out with total nonsense (and it only gets worse from there).
In the formative years of the early Christian church, Arianism was a theological orthodoxy. Arius, a Greek-speaking Berber from Libya, ca. 256-336 BC ...
The formative years of the Christian church were during the life of Jesus and his 12 original apostles (Assuming Jesus and his 12 apostles actually existed)., Arius came by LONG after the formative years.
Further, the church in the days of Arius was no longer the "Christian church" and Jesus never would have recognized it.
This is just further evidence that most "scholarship" is loaded with nonsense.
Scout 221
).
. Yet Paul, over and over again, calls himself, an Apostle of (one sent by) -not the HS, but CHRIST! See 1 Cor.1:1
, 2 Cor.1:1
, Eph 1:1
, Col. 1:1
, etc.
, " for Christ (not the HS) sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel ".
we read, " as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the HS said, separate ME Barnabus and Saul for the work where unto (I) have called them".
, 16:10
, 26:15-17
). In verse 2, it is Christ speaking through the power, essence, and extension of HIS very being, HIS spirit, just as He cast out demons by the spirit of (finger of) God. (compare Matthew 12:28
with Luke 11:20
).
, where "Jesus began both to do and teach until the day in which HE (by and through the HS, an extension of Himself) had given commandment (as in Acts 13) unto the apostles whom (HE) had chosen".
Ron Dart use to say it's not the truth that usually wins debates but the best debater. That's the way of the world.
Concerning your point 5, I will answer with one scripture:
Now the LORD (IS) THAT SPIRIT, and where the spirit (of) the Lord is there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17
While we're at it, I will also comment on point 1, where it says, "Paul and Barnabus were sent out by the HS", Acts 13:4
1 Corinthians1:17
In Acts 13:2
The HS is said to be speaking, but WHO actually called and sent out Paul? It was the person of Jesus Christ, not a separate personage ( see Acts 9:15
This is clearly illustrated in Acts 1:1-2
This speaks for itself!
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily - NKJV Col 2:9
.
We can't be sure the Holy Sprit is not a separate being for the mere order of things in this chapter of John
Agree.
Ron Dart, who is mentioned in a comment below, repeatedly taught for Christians to examine the sources quoted in sermons by all. No matter the subject. No matter how convincing the speaker, nor how much power they held.
He also taught to look at the personal lives of the speakers. "If a speakers wants you to do this or that, look at their real lives" he used to say. I suppose he was trying to get brethren to look at the speakers fruits in their own lives.
Ron Dart always emphasised the individual Christians walk with Jesus Christ, as we all die individually, are baptised individually and shall give an account of our lives individually. "Do NOT hang your brain up with your coat in church." was a big well known remark from 80s. Said by Ron Dart and many others.
BP8 7:49 wrote, “Now the LORD (IS) THAT SPIRIT, and where the spirit (of) the Lord is there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17
).”
Actually, what you are describing is the perichoretic relationship revealed in scripture between the three Persons that comprise the Trinity. The Father is the Son who is the Spirit. Yet they are all also different in personhood. I cannot explain the ontology. What we do have are the words recorded about them in the Bible. If the word says that Paul and Barnabus were sent out by the Holy Spirit, we can then understand that the Holy Spirit was the proximate cause of this action. But because of perichoresis or coinherence or consubstantiality, all three of the Persons can be understood to be involved. They are of one will. And the Bi-theism of Armstrongism does not permit this kind of implicit harmony.
It is entirely plausible that the Bible means what it says. In some cases, the Holy Spirit is the proximate cause and in some cases the proximate cause is Jesus. The fact that Bible relates that different Persons are involve at different times does not nullify the Biblical language that indicates that the Holy Spirit has the volition of a person. What you have presented us with is a classical example of eisegesis. You have imposed a Bi-theistic (perhaps, Binitarian) interpretation on the scripture. Whereas the logical solution is that if the scripture said Jesus did it then Jesus did it and it the scripture says the Holy Spirit did it then the Holy Spirit did it.
Scout
Anonymous 7:35
The "formative years" is not some kind of fixed chronology that you alone can pontificate on. If you want to know what I meant by the term, just ask me.
The church was no longer the Christian church? Did Christianity then die out back then? Are you an atheist or an Armstrongist? Sometimes its hard to tell.
I am saddened by your statement, "This is just further evidence that most "scholarship" is loaded with nonsense." You have done nothing less than proclaim yourself ineducable.
Scout
Eh, just go back to the original language. Ruach HaKodesh, holy breath. It is simply the power of God. It is not a person.
Byker Bob 4:51 wrote, “HWA was in need of a higher concept, and somehow never realized it.”
I agree with you on this. HWA inherited a small concept Holy Spirit from his Arian mentors. He did make a revolutionary change in the Arian viewpoint – he admitted that Jesus is God. But he also retained the Arian view that Jesus is subordinate. I have asked myself why HWA re-configured Millerite Arianism in this way for his own use. And I have a theory.
HWA believed in a church government that consisted of one autocratic leader with the authority being “top down”, as he liked to say. Unsurprisingly, HWA was that one autocratic leader and he believed he had the endorsement of God in that role because God was the same kind of leader. This meant Hierarchy. In HWA’s mind, the Godhead had to be a Hierarchy because that is the way he wanted to run his church.
I have stated many times in these pages that Armstrongists do no relate to each other through love but through Hierarchy. They are all about where one is located in the Pecking Order and how you improve your position in the Pecking Order. And this also was the fundamental educational objective of the Ambassador Colleges. Not the proclaimed objective but the pragmatic objective.
The co-equality and perichoresis of the Triune God are rooted in love. Love is the great equalizer. No matter what the role, the essence of perichoresis is love. But the Arian Godhead is a Hierarchical Godhead. There is at the top the Father, then the subordinate Son and then the Holy Spirit as a subordinate agency of the Son. So, philosophically, Semi-Arianism provided HWA with a consistent Hierarchical approach from his god at the top to the church trash at the bottom.
Scout
Scout 637 writes, and I agree, that "The Bible means what it says".
, 13:2-4
, 2 Corinthians 3:17
)!!!
Most here would accept this premise UNTIL it confirms an Armstrong explanation or conflicts with a personal interpretation,----THEN scripture becomes symbolic, metaphor, fulfilled, obsolete, spiritualized, and no longer literal.
Many of our arguments here are over this very thing----WHAT is the Bible really telling us? I'm not refuting the idea of " figures of speech ", but until we have a central Divine authority who will verbally arbitrate these scriptural disputes, the denominational count will keep growing.
In this case, and in my humble opinion, " the logical conclusion " is, if the Bible plainly says on a ratio of 10-1 that Jesus did something (He called, chose, commissioned, and sent the one's sent, the Apostles), then HE DID IT, even if a lone scripture appears to say something else. But, if we can reconcile that lone text (and we can) where it doesn't contradict, but is actually in agreement with the many plain scriptures, then all is well.
The apostles were sent forth by the HS because THE LORD Jesus Christ IS THAT SPIRIT (Acts 1:1-2
It appears that the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia DATA is correct after all!
BP8 10:51
What is you motivation for making everything the same in spite of the scripture?. If you have 1,000 statements that say one thing and one statement that says another, why disregard the one statement?
Your motivation is that you want the scripture to support your viewpoint and it doesn't.
Scout
That is certainly a different interpretation of Luke 1:35
from what we were taught by El Viejo Heriberto, BP-8! Although your concept does not invalidate my belief that the Holy Spirit is an interactive, sentient being, I believe I'll join you in the line awaiting the central Divine Authority to arbitrate it. There are too many places in scripture where the triad is invoked. Why mention three? Wouldn't that render your interpretation redundant?
Also, if Jesus was able to explain that "I and the Father are one," isn't it in a similar sense that a sentence could be written equating Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
A pastor I once listened to quite frequently stated that he believed there were certain things which God intended to be a mystery during the physical lives of His human children. Unfortunately, the very word "mystery" sets off a number of dogwhistle reactions for most people schooled in Armstrongism. The preferred belief was always that God revealed these mysteries to His endtimes apostle, who taught them to us. That homing pigeon flew the coop sometime in 1975, and so far as I can tell has never returned!
BB
Scout 1208
1000 statements to 1?
What's the matter Scout, you don't like the "trend"? You are one of the guys that goes with the mainstream where the majority rules, but apparently not here because of YOUR viewpoint.
I'm now disregarding anything. Read my comment again, and while you're at it, read again your comment at 221.
Scripture and religion can be twisted/perverted/distorted to support all manner of things, and history affirms that this has happened repeatedly over the last two millennia. Indeed, God has been used to justify the most egregious sins of humankind (like war, genocide, stealing, murdering, torture, rape, etc.). We've all witnessed the dangers inherent to proof texting firsthand in the ACOGs, and it is NEVER OK to use Scripture to make yourself or your views superior to your brothers and sisters in Christ. Finally, as the precise nature of God is a mystery to all of us, it seems a bit arrogant to assert that you or your group has the best understanding of it! Personally, I fail to see the problem with historical professions of faith which acknowledge three aspects to the Godhead - whatever you personally believe about the nature of those aspects!
God the Father and His Son have names: YHVH or Yahweh, and Yeshua or Jesus. The HS is called the HS b/c of its "nature" (for want of a better word) but doesn't have a name (!?).
BP8 1:46
Earlier you wrote, "In this case, and in my humble opinion, " the logical conclusion " is, if the Bible plainly says on a ratio of 10-1 that Jesus did something (He called, chose, commissioned, and sent the one's sent, the Apostles), then HE DID IT, even if a lone scripture appears to say something else."
If you want to use that as your hermeneutic, knock yourself out. But I think anyone who is serious about midrash could see that such an approach lacks integrity. You clearly are disregarding something if you omit an outlier that would invalidate your theory.
We are, of course, far afield from good midrash. We are debating a single example of the Holy Spirit displaying volition when there are many such examples in the NT. And I think, after examining many of these cases, it is undeniable that the Holy Spirit is spoken of by Jesus as a volitional Being. And so far I have not seen an exegesis that counters that effectively.
Scout
Anonymous 4:51 wrote, "...but doesn't have a name (!?).
The Holy Spirit does have a name. His/Her name is Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of the Triune God. But I believe that in this context that would be begging the question. So, the Holy Spirit has the name Comforter. This is Parakletos in Greek. So, a good triad would be Elohim, Yeshua and Parakletos. All the names are similar in that they reflect something about the nature of the name bearer. Two names are Hebrew and one is Greek. So, we might opt for the Hebrew name Menachem for Paraklete, as in Menachem Begin, a past Prime Minister of Israel. Maybe the Holy Spirit has a name but you will never know it.
The no-name argument is something that I think I have heard before from the Armstrongist pulpit. If you think about it, it's just a sound bite and doesn't have any real substance. It's a lame attempt at dissonance reduction.
Scout
Years ago, there was a sacred names group down inTexas, large enough to have their own forum. There were numerous former WCG members who participated in it, so, some of us from another forum hung out there for a while.
It was a unique place to visit. I was trying to wrap my mind around the reason behind a church based on sacred names, and some of the forum members really got into the Hebrew names for God, and the distinct meanings for each. There was a musician, a drummer, who wrote extensively for that site, and he posted a long list of these names. One of the names he provided for the Holy Spirit was "Ruach", or wind. Basically, it was a name that indicates the level of understanding and descriptive powers of bronze age people. I don't believe this name identifies the Holy Spirit as exclusively a force, because any spirit entity, since they are not made of matter, would have been understood as working like the wind. Even YHWH.
I've also read the writings of pastors in the mainstream who pointed out that in Old Testament times, the Holy Spirit was not an indwelling entity. When Jesus said that the Comforter would come, He was ushering in a new era, a time when the Holy Spirit became an indwelling entity within human beings, and salvation became possible. And then, this was demonstrated on Pentecost.
BB
If God is a triadic Godhead then where is the third Holy Spirit as a person in Psalm 110 for starters?
The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, Till I make your enemies your footstool'. Psalm 110:1
Psalm 110 a psalm of King David is quoted more frequently than any other psalm, possibly more than Psalm 23. Has no mention of a third God head but has LORD Yawhew Adonai talking to LORD Jesus the Christ.
I suppose this question is irrelevant and stupid to Trinitarians.
BB112
. The question I have there is, if the HS is a third separate personage in the Godhead, then "who" actually if Jesus Christ's Father? I thoroughly cover this in the comments on Lonnie's post, "Is the Trinity Suspect", 3/4/25.
I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from concerning Luke 1:35
When GTA was on the John Ankerberg show years ago, he posed this same argument against John and Walter Martin when discussing the Trinity. They were stumped and had no answer. It was so embarrassing that they deleted that segment from the main broadcast the appeared on TV.
I have been accused of imposing a binitarian interpretation on Scripture, as if Trinitarian's are not guilty of that as well. I'm merely allowing scripture to interpret scripture, and according to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, when considering Scripture alone, " the NT is overall CLEARLY binitarian in its data".
Scout 12:08 said: “BP8 10:51… If you have 1,000 statements that say one thing and one statement that says another, why disregard the one statement?
Your motivation is that you want the scripture to support your viewpoint and it doesn't.”
1) A chief principle of the OT and NT is that multiple witnesses (more than a single witness) is necessary for proof.
And 2) Your claim against BP8 and his motive can be used against you too.
"...and the Trinity Model was adopted by Christianity."
There ya go. The trinity was not a belief of the original Church (and still isn't). It was developed and was adopted much later. As with "Sunday", "Christmas", "Easter", etc., it was woven into the organizations that probably actually believed that they were followers of Christ. That's how deception works.
Post a Comment