Semi-Arianism was a 4th-century Christian theological position that emerged during the intense debates over the nature of Christ following the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD). It represented a deliberate middle-ground attempt to modify the stricter teachings of Arianism while still firmly rejecting the full Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.
Core of Arianism (for context)
Arius (c. 250–336 AD) taught that God the Father alone is uncreated and eternal. The Son (Jesus/Christ) was the first and highest created being—begotten by the Father at some point in time (“there was [a time] when he was not”), not co-eternal, of a different substance (heteroousios), and subordinate/inferior to the Father. The Holy Spirit was even lower in the hierarchy.
What Semi-Arianism changed
Semi-Arians (also called Homoiousians) rejected the most extreme Arian claims. They affirmed that:
Armstrong’s teaching on God (the “God Family” or binitarianism)
Armstrong rejected the Trinity as a pagan, unbiblical doctrine invented centuries after the apostles. Instead:
This is classically described as binitarianism (two Persons in the Godhead), though Armstrong extended it into a dynamic, expanding “God Family.”
How Armstrongism Relates
Armstrongism is not strict Arianism, because it explicitly denies that Christ was created and affirms His full divinity and pre-existence. However, it is a clear modern expression of Semi-Arian Christology packaged within a robust binitarian framework. It mirrors the ancient Semi-Arian emphasis on “similar (but not identical) divine substance,” the eternal begetting of the Son, subordination of the Son to the Father, and an impersonal Holy Spirit. Armstrong’s unique addition—the expanding “God Family” in which humans become literal God beings—goes beyond the 4th-century views but rests on the same foundational rejection of Nicene consubstantiality.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, Semi-Arianism, Arianism, and binitarianism—all non-Trinitarian systems—embody the same fatal refusal: they categorically reject the biblical and historic truth that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons sharing the identical divine substance. Armstrongism represents the most aggressive and successful 20th-century resurrection of this ancient error. It is no daring “restoration” of suppressed apostolic truth, but a slick, radio-era repackaging of the very Semi-Arian compromise that the early church thoroughly examined, exposed, and thunderously condemned as heresy at Nicaea and Constantinople.
For those shaped by Armstrongism, this historical connection is devastatingly clear and scripturally damning: the vaunted “God Family” doctrine—with its two separate divine Beings, impersonal Spirit, subordinationist hierarchy, and audacious promise that humans can literally become God beings—is not fresh revelation from God. It is a sophisticated echo of the 4th-century theological poison that subtly yet fatally undermines the full, unqualified deity of the Son and distorts the very nature of the Godhead revealed in Scripture.
The Bible thunders against every form of subordinationism and creaturely reduction of the Son. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3). “For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). The Father Himself addresses the Son with the words of deity: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6). Jesus boldly declared, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), prompting the Jews to seek His death “because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33) and because He was “making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Isaiah’s prophecy calls the coming Messiah “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6), while Thomas, upon seeing the risen Christ, worshipped Him as “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Paul exults that Christ is “God over all, blessed forever” (Romans 9:5) and “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).
The Holy Spirit fares no better under such systems. Far from an impersonal force or power, He is fully personal and fully divine. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit—and Peter declares they lied to God (Acts 5:3-4). We are baptized into the one name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), and the apostolic benediction places all three on equal footing: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). To demote the Spirit to an “it” is to contradict the clear witness of Scripture.
The Nicene Creed was not a pagan intrusion or Catholic corruption; it was the church’s necessary, Spirit-led bulwark defending the gospel’s core proclamation of Jesus Christ as “true God from true God,” begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. Armstrongism’s Godhead teaching, no matter how boldly or attractively proclaimed across the airwaves, does not elevate human potential—it diminishes the glory of Christ, grieves the Holy Spirit, robs God of His triune majesty, and leads souls back into the same soul-destroying errors that once threatened to unravel the heart of the Christian faith. Those who cling to it stand not in restored apostolic truth, but squarely in the long, dark shadow of a heresy the undivided early church rightly judged incompatible with Scripture and eternally dangerous to the soul.
The choice remains as stark and urgent today as it was in the fourth century: embrace the full biblical revelation of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons—or settle for the seductive half-measures of Semi-Arianism dressed in modern clothing. Only the former safeguards the deity of our Savior, the glory of the gospel, and the hope of redemption.
Silent Pilgrim
Arius (c. 250–336 AD) taught that God the Father alone is uncreated and eternal. The Son (Jesus/Christ) was the first and highest created being—begotten by the Father at some point in time (“there was [a time] when he was not”), not co-eternal, of a different substance (heteroousios), and subordinate/inferior to the Father. The Holy Spirit was even lower in the hierarchy.
What Semi-Arianism changed
Semi-Arians (also called Homoiousians) rejected the most extreme Arian claims. They affirmed that:
- The Son was not a creature made out of nothing.
- The Son was begotten (eternally generated) by the Father and existed before the world.
- The Son was fully divine in a real sense and “of similar substance” (homoiousios) with the Father—very close, but not identical in essence (homoousios, “same substance” or “consubstantial”).
- The Son was still subordinate to the Father in rank or authority.
Armstrong’s teaching on God (the “God Family” or binitarianism)
Armstrong rejected the Trinity as a pagan, unbiblical doctrine invented centuries after the apostles. Instead:
- God is a family or kingdom of divine spirit beings, currently consisting of two co-eternal Persons: God the Father (supreme) and the pre-existent Word/Logos (who became Jesus Christ).
- Both the Father and the Son are fully divine, uncreated, and composed of the same kind of divine “spirit essence” or “God-kind” substance.
- They are two distinct beings/persons, not one essence in three Persons. The Father is greater in authority; the Son is subordinate yet shares the divine family nature.
- The Holy Spirit is not a third Person or co-equal member of the Godhead. It is the impersonal power, mind, essence, or active force of God.
- Humans who repent, accept Christ, and endure in obedience can ultimately be born again as literal spirit children of God—added to the divine family and becoming “God beings” themselves (though the Father remains supreme).
This is classically described as binitarianism (two Persons in the Godhead), though Armstrong extended it into a dynamic, expanding “God Family.”
How Armstrongism Relates
Armstrongism is not strict Arianism, because it explicitly denies that Christ was created and affirms His full divinity and pre-existence. However, it is a clear modern expression of Semi-Arian Christology packaged within a robust binitarian framework. It mirrors the ancient Semi-Arian emphasis on “similar (but not identical) divine substance,” the eternal begetting of the Son, subordination of the Son to the Father, and an impersonal Holy Spirit. Armstrong’s unique addition—the expanding “God Family” in which humans become literal God beings—goes beyond the 4th-century views but rests on the same foundational rejection of Nicene consubstantiality.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, Semi-Arianism, Arianism, and binitarianism—all non-Trinitarian systems—embody the same fatal refusal: they categorically reject the biblical and historic truth that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons sharing the identical divine substance. Armstrongism represents the most aggressive and successful 20th-century resurrection of this ancient error. It is no daring “restoration” of suppressed apostolic truth, but a slick, radio-era repackaging of the very Semi-Arian compromise that the early church thoroughly examined, exposed, and thunderously condemned as heresy at Nicaea and Constantinople.
For those shaped by Armstrongism, this historical connection is devastatingly clear and scripturally damning: the vaunted “God Family” doctrine—with its two separate divine Beings, impersonal Spirit, subordinationist hierarchy, and audacious promise that humans can literally become God beings—is not fresh revelation from God. It is a sophisticated echo of the 4th-century theological poison that subtly yet fatally undermines the full, unqualified deity of the Son and distorts the very nature of the Godhead revealed in Scripture.
The Bible thunders against every form of subordinationism and creaturely reduction of the Son. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3). “For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). The Father Himself addresses the Son with the words of deity: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6). Jesus boldly declared, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), prompting the Jews to seek His death “because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33) and because He was “making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Isaiah’s prophecy calls the coming Messiah “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6), while Thomas, upon seeing the risen Christ, worshipped Him as “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Paul exults that Christ is “God over all, blessed forever” (Romans 9:5) and “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).
The Holy Spirit fares no better under such systems. Far from an impersonal force or power, He is fully personal and fully divine. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit—and Peter declares they lied to God (Acts 5:3-4). We are baptized into the one name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), and the apostolic benediction places all three on equal footing: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). To demote the Spirit to an “it” is to contradict the clear witness of Scripture.
The Nicene Creed was not a pagan intrusion or Catholic corruption; it was the church’s necessary, Spirit-led bulwark defending the gospel’s core proclamation of Jesus Christ as “true God from true God,” begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. Armstrongism’s Godhead teaching, no matter how boldly or attractively proclaimed across the airwaves, does not elevate human potential—it diminishes the glory of Christ, grieves the Holy Spirit, robs God of His triune majesty, and leads souls back into the same soul-destroying errors that once threatened to unravel the heart of the Christian faith. Those who cling to it stand not in restored apostolic truth, but squarely in the long, dark shadow of a heresy the undivided early church rightly judged incompatible with Scripture and eternally dangerous to the soul.
The choice remains as stark and urgent today as it was in the fourth century: embrace the full biblical revelation of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons—or settle for the seductive half-measures of Semi-Arianism dressed in modern clothing. Only the former safeguards the deity of our Savior, the glory of the gospel, and the hope of redemption.
Silent Pilgrim
47 comments:
The Messiah was not created. John 1:1-3 clearly shows this as does Colossians 1:15-17. He and the Father created all things that were created.
The submission that the Messiah was made is false unless someone who was not with Him in his earthly life and who did not write a book of the Bible is correct and one who was with Him in life and who wrote several books in the Bible is the one who should be ignored.
Keep bashing the herbster and his minions, but stop lying to people. Regarding a third being of some godhead, c'mon no2hwa, try to be honest. Teaching that there is an uncle holy spirit is just as bad. The Spirit is the power of the Creator (Father and Messiah). How does one know this is not some third being and that the teaching is not from scripture? Read on....
I John 5 says that those who love God keep His commandments. These commandments are not a burden. Verses 4-5 say that those who are born of God overcome the world by faith because they believe that Yeshua the Messiah is the son of God. Because of faith, He was able to abide by the Torah that He gave to Moshe for Israel without sin as believers are expected to do. Remember, He is the Yod Hay Vav Hay (LORD) of the Tanach. Paul says so - 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. The Messiah is the perfect example that John is telling his readers to follow. Verses 6-8 say that Yeshua the Messiah came by water and blood as testified by the Holy Spirit. These three things testify in agreement to prove who He is.
Some scriptures have been added to that chapter to support the belief of the catholic church like the KJV does. Research Erasmus for more information.
Also, see footnote 77 https://talmidimyeshua.org/youwillliveinthem.htm#f77 where the catholic church changes things (is lying) because it thinks it has the authority to do so which is does not - Matthew 5:16-20.
While your at it, see an example of that organization (not) proving that it supposedly has the right to change laws (Daniel 7:25) and one which it explains to the protestants that it did which they the protestants follow - footnote 86 https://talmidimyeshua.org/youwillliveinthem.htm#f86
Reposting. Not sure if firt one wen through.
The Messiah was not created. John 1:1-3 clearly shows this as does Colossians 1:15-17. He and the Father created all things that were created.
The submission that the Messiah was made is false unless someone who was not with Him in his earthly life and who did not write a book of the Bible is correct and one who was with Him in life and who wrote several books in the Bible is the one who should be ignored.
Keep bashing the herbster and his minions, but stop lying to people. Regarding a third being of some godhead, c'mon no2hwa, try to be honest. Teaching that there is an uncle holy spirit is just as bad. The Spirit is the power of the Creator (Father and Messiah). How does one know this is not some third being and that the teaching is not from scripture? Read on....
I John 5 says that those who love God keep His commandments. These commandments are not a burden. Verses 4-5 say that those who are born of God overcome the world by faith because they believe that Yeshua the Messiah is the son of God. Because of faith, He was able to abide by the Torah that He gave to Moshe for Israel without sin as believers are expected to do. Remember, He is the Yod Hay Vav Hay (LORD) of the Tanach. Paul says so - 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. The Messiah is the perfect example that John is telling his readers to follow. Verses 6-8 say that Yeshua the Messiah came by water and blood as testified by the Holy Spirit. These three things testify in agreement to prove who He is.
Some scriptures have been added to that chapter to support the belief of the catholic church like the KJV does. Research Erasmus for more information.
Also, see footnote 77 https://talmidimyeshua.org/youwillliveinthem.htm#f77 where the catholic church changes things (is lying) because it thinks it has the authority to do so which is does not - Matthew 5:16-20.
While your at it, see an example of that organization (not) proving that it supposedly has the right to change laws (Daniel 7:25) and one which it explains to the protestants that it did which they the protestants follow - footnote 86 https://talmidimyeshua.org/youwillliveinthem.htm#f86
Thanks. SP! Another great article. I have always found Armstrongism's stance on the Godhead suit disturbing but could never quit figure it out The fact that so many in Armstrongism believe Jesus is a created creature is shocking. It is also interesting watching people have a fit over the trinity as if it is a closed system.
I knew it wouldn't take long for the Messianic's to jump in with their two cents, which is about as irrelevant as HWA's version. Stop lying to the people!
7:15 and 7:11, way to bring the proof (NOT).
No need for proving something. Just bash and love the catholic pappa just like they loved herbster the apostle.
Or, try to find where the catholics came up with the trinity from the scriptures and show it. Feewings don't count.
Armstrongism represents the most aggressive and successful 20th-century resurrection of this ancient error.
Recall also that the Jehovah Witnesses are a major deviation too and perhaps more successful as they have been going a lot longer than Armstrongism and have a lot more degotees.
''I John 5 says that those who love God keep His commandments'' - your message being to preach the Torah
Perhaps you might find the time to consider more just what are these commandments in the book of 1 John, and think whether your hardline reflects these teachings. .
Students have concluded it is not a reference to the ten as such like you state or as Armstrong stated. 1 John as you read through it is not talking about the Ten Commandments or Torah. It defines God’s commandments as believing in Jesus and loving one another. These are the teachings of Christ, not the Sinai Law. The law of Christ.
And if one decides to reject these lessons in 1 John and hunkers down to keep the ten - next consider if one is brave how is it one is actually ''keeping'' law at the astronomically high level as spoken of by Jesus.
Are we not trying to understand and explain something that is beyond our ability? Imagine trying to explain to a 14th century person some detail concerning microorganisms or computers or AI. It is far beyond his ability to understand and the vocabulary of the time is totally inadequate. Moses wrote that the secret things belong to God. Paul wrote that we have all that we need to equip us for every good work. At 77 years of age I have come to the point where I am comfortable not knowing the answer to all the questions I've wrestled with over the years. When asked some questions, it's easier for me to simply say, "I don't know." or "I don't fully understand," and to move along from there.
So, clearly Armstrong got it right.
Silent Pilgrim
Very interesting analysis. I would point out one nuance.
I do not believe Armstrongism is Binitarian but rather Bitheistic. Their doctrine of God is an instance of polytheism that involves currently only two, distinct God beings. In the future, as more God beings enter the Armstrongist God Family, we will get into God as a large population. The concept of God as multiple beings at that time will exceed the polytheism of the pagan religions numerically.
Binitarianism asserts that God and Jesus are of one substance. This means that they have a perichoretic relationship. This is not what HWA means by substance. He means a kind of spirit that may be used for fabrication. HWA never uses the term substance in relation to God in the Nicene sense. He always uses it to mean a durable medium, kind of like matter, in which God creates and works. So, if an Armstrongist asserts that the Father and Son are of one substance, the Armstrongist is talking about something totally different from the Nicene concept. He is asserting that the Father and the Son are made from the same spirit stuff but are two distinct beings with no perichoretic relationship. They may be one in will but they are not one in essence. HWA believed that God was of spirit “composition”. (Bad choice of words. It implies that God was composed by someone somehow.) And the idea that the Father and the Son were somehow united in essence through consubstantiality never enters the picture. If person with a Nicene vocabulary talks to an Armstrongist about this topic, expect confusion.
Note: I believe that God is absolute. There cannot be more than one absolute being. This means that if there is a three-personed God, the persons must share being absolute. To do this, they must be of the same essence in the perichoretic sense. Hence, a bitheistic god is not absolute but consists of two beings that limit each other.
Scout
Another interesting post by Silent Pilgrim and perceptive comment by Scout.
God is what God is - whatever that means. God is not male or female. God doesn't have a penis or a vagina. God is not human. God is not created. God is NOT limited by our understanding.
God IS overwhelming. God is beyond ALL that we know or think we know. God is beyond everything that we have ever experienced. God is multi-faceted. Hence, three manifestations of ONE God is not only consistent with Scripture; it is also entirely plausible.
In the final analysis, however, the way that you or I perceive the reality of God does NOT change that reality one iota. God said "I AM WHAT I AM," and that pretty much tells us everything we need to know. Scripture presents three manifestations of God. I think that it is a serious mistake to try to explain away or dismiss any one of the three.
I think that the Council of Nicaea got it right (there is wisdom in a multitude of learned counselors). Definitions are important. In other words, anyone who attempts to explain the nature of God with a denial of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit should justly be characterized as heretical (whatever moniker they choose to identify their theology by (unitarian or binitarian).
Great thing about all this is that the simplest explanation, in reality, is it's all nonsense.
SP writes in his concluding remarks, "all non trinitarian systems embody the same fatal refusal: they categorically reject the BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL TRUTH that the Father, Son, and HS are one God in 3 coequal PERSONS sharing the identical divine substance".
That is a bold statement. But can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt from the Bible and history, considering both by their very nature are not exact science, but have always been open to interpretation?
One interpretation of BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL TRUTH can be found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1988, vol.4, article, Trinity, where the opening paragraph states:
" Though 'Trinity' is a SECOND CENTURY term found nowhere in the Bible, and the scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement, the NT does contain ? most of the building materials for LATER doctrine. In particular, while insisting on one God, it presents Jesus Christ as the divine Son in distinction from God the Father, and PROBABLY presents the HS as a divine person distinct from both. (Probably=maybe)! Obvious problems admittedly are attached to both claims; indeed, 'Persons' as a trinitarian term has itself been controversial since Augustine, and especially in the modern period. Still, the the doctrine does lie in Scripture in solution (? whatever that means). The NT presents events, claims, practices, and problems from which CHURCH FATHERS crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries. " (page 914). So much for iron clad biblical and historical truth that can't be questioned!
Other admissions by the ISBE: "The treatment of the Spirit is difficult, ambiguous, and sometimes even oblique to the interests of LATER trinitarians", page 916. Really?
" Evidence (which is what we're after) for the divinity of the Spirit is thinner and HAZIER that systemmatical 5th century trinitarian statements suggest" (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 A NEARLY TRANSPARENT AGENT FOR GOD AND CHRIST. One properly concludes that the NT is overall CLEARLY BINITARIAN IN ITS DATA, and probably trinitarian". 916.
We see a lot of conjecture, speculation and hesitation for something that is supposed to be exact and orthodox!
Another article in the ISBE (The Holy Spirit, vol.2. Pages 730-746) says this:
" The OT doctrine of the Spirit is the primitive imagery of ru(a)h, the spirit in relation to God is conceived more as an AGENCY THAN AN AGENT ", 730 , which is very strong in the parallelism between the HS and the power of the Most High (733)".
" Paul's terminology for the spirit indicates a continuity with the OT prophetic tradition in perceiving the HS primarily as the dynamic presence and power of God . . .being the spirit OF the living God (more as an agency than as agent). 732
So is the Holy Spirit a 3rd person of a Triune Godhead or is He an extension and power of the binitarian Godhead (the agency rather than an agent) the biblical data actually shows?
Make no mistake, both articles are clearly trinitarian in nature and Trinity motivated, but they do show that there is more to both the historic and biblical narrative than most would like to admit. What we call "Christian orthodoxy" is not now, nor has it ever been exact science, but like the Armstrong version, it also is forever open to interpretation and debate.
So what do I believe? I believe what the ISBE declares to be the overall NT revealed data that is summerizied in 1 Corinthians 8:4-7. Look it up. It is both Biblical and Historical.
Lonnie 1211 writes (paraphrase)
3 manifestations of one God is consistent and plausible with Scripture. It's a mistake to dismiss or explain away any one of the 3. Anyone doing so should justly be characterized as heretical.
Of all views on this site, I'm probably in the minority. Most seem to be trinitarian while I perceive multi-part man and John /time will tell to both be unitarian. But I don't believe anyone here denies the 3 manifestations of God, or dismiss any one of the 3. We may differ on whether God the Father is the only biblical God, whether Jesus pre-existed as God, or whether the HS is a "person" or an extension of the Godhead, but 3 manifestations of God is surly a truism for all.
I think it is wrong to call anyone a heretic because of their belief on the Godhead. Walter Martin has condemned people to hell over it, even though as I previously demonstrated, this conflict of ideas has been waged for centuries, and judging by this site and YouTube podcasts, it's still going strong.
The Filioque controversy is STILL a point of contention between the Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christian tradition since the Great Schism of 1054. It has trinitarian implications. Silent Pilgram believes, like most here, that salvation is by faith ALONE. Yet, the largest branch of Christianity (Catholic) does NOT! What does that say about what is and is not heretical? 41,000 denominations? Hmmm.
If you are looking for BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL purity, good luck finding it. It's probably better said, it will find you if you continue trusting God and follow His spirit where it leads.
The Bible is right. Genesis says that God said Let US make man in OUR image. Jews go with that although at least some seem to think God was talking to angels or something. John says the Messiah helped make everything that was made.
THe spirit is the powetr of God. Keep reading in the gospel of John to learn more.
The spirit is like what goes with you as a kid when you are out. Dad's and Mom's instructions are guiding you. And if you're thinkin about mischief, it's there to remind you who is in charge.
Much more simple and understandable than uncle holy spirit. But hey, be a catholic, they have been and still are (Yes. They are. Just because you aren't hearing about it doesn't mean they aren't doing it) molesting more than herbster did. He was total scum. They are that times many more and they hid their pervs like he tried to hide his pervness. Research it and find how they will remove the pervs and do not turn them in.
BP8,
I'm afraid that too many folks get hung up on semantics. There are a good many trinitarians who would characterize themselves as being unitarians. Likewise, there are a lot of folks who would characterize the Armstrongist and Mormon theology as polytheistic in nature, rejecting the moniker of binitarian. You articulated your position well, but my hunch is that we are all probably much closer in our thinking than any of us is willing to admit. As humans, we all tend to split hairs. For me, the question boils down to this: Do you accept the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God? Hopefully we can all answer yes and be content not to wander too far into the weeds! My two cents.
exactly Scout! And, thanks for the "perichoretic" usage. New word for me...though not the concept.
7:22 = sarcastic troll.
And yet you still come here to read it?
Miller Jones 8:34
I do agree with you on the hair splitting. There is some wiggle-room in scripture. But what I have found pragmatically is that denominations that have an unusual Doctrine of God also carry a plethora of other heresies. I don’t know of a situation where belief that Jesus was a created being, for instance, is an isolated departure in an otherwise normative, orthodox Christian belief system. Maybe I am overlooking something.
Scout
Lonnie
Your two cents makes a lot of sense. You have restored order to the Force!
This issue has been debated for centuries by people a lot smarter than me. I've moved on from trying to resolve the issue.
If that is true then why did you even bother to announce your departure? This isn't an airport, is it?
Can we get an explanation why 10:58 PM says 7::22 is trolling? Not understanding what part is trolling when using what scripture says and well known history. Is it trolling because it makes 10:58 PM mad?
Lonnie,
If the Holy Spirit is God, any suggestions why he doesn’t appear in Scripture where one would expect him to be included, for example:
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 12:10a And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ:
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he [singular] shall reign for ever and ever.
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 [singular] servants shall serve him [singular]:
“Although the Son will ultimately be subjected to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), he will nevertheless share the eternal rule of God. The singular (“he will reign”) emphasizes the unity of this joint sovereignty” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of revelation, Rev., p. 226).
God and the Lamb are so united that singular pronouns are used of them. So it is a mystery why the Holy Spirit is not united with them, where one could expect him to be, such as sharing joint sovereignty and the eternal rule of God.
We have noticed in previous threads on the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit is not included in any of the greetings (cp. “grace” and “peace”) at the beginning of Paul’s epistles:
Ro 1:7 Grace [charis] to you and peace [eirene] from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:3 Grace [charis] be unto you, and peace [eirene], from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Co 1:2 Grace [charis] be to you and peace [eirene] from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:3 Grace [charis] be to you and peace [eirene] from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 1:2 Grace [charis] be to you, and peace [eirene], from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Phil 1:2 Grace []charis] be unto you, and peace [eirene], from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Col 1:2 Grace [charis] be unto you, and peace [eirene], from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Th 1:1 Grace [charis] be unto you, and peace [eirene], from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 1:2 Grace [charis] unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
1Ti 1:2 Grace [charis], mercy, and peace [eirene], from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
2Ti 1:2 Grace [charis], mercy, and peace [eirene], from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Tit 1:4 Grace [charis], mercy, and peace [eirene], from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Phm 1:3 Grace [charis] to you, and peace [eirene], from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also there is no room for the HS in the NT shema:
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
5:09 I concur! I have a gf in a COG who finds it uncomfortable not to know everything she wants to know about God, Christ, PO, etc whereas I feel the older I get the less I know so I know that I won’t know everything I want to or need to know in this life and I’m ok with that coz God is in control and I don’t need to know everything to be saved—thankfully!—coz it’s not knowledge that saves but God. And in this life there’ll always be like Rumsfeld said “unknown unknowns.”
Anonymous 11:32 wrote, "If the Holy Spirit is God, any suggestions why he doesn’t appear in Scripture where one would expect him to be included..."
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". -- Albert Einstein
I will be brief. I do not intend to speak in Miller Jones' name.
You are neglecting the fact that the scripture contains Triads in a number of places that contravene what you have written. The three co-equal Persons in the Trinity have the same ontology but different economies (think of roles). This difference in economy will result in different Persons being mentioned in different contexts.
You are not the determiner of what context is appropriate for which Persons. That is done by scripture - scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit himself.
Scout
BP8,Your last two sentences are the basic guiding thought I'm developing regarding much of what I read and which issues I now find interest/value in.
Anonymous Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 11:32:00 PM PDT,
The Holy Spirit informs our expectations - It is NOT subject to them! You open with a number of verses from the book of Revelation. Now, it appears to me that the Holy Spirit is intimately connected to this book's message. Notice first that John was "in the Spirit" when he received this revelation from Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:10). Notice also, in each of the messages to the seven congregations listed in this book, that the reader is instructed to "hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches" (Revelation 2 and 3). Moreover, at the book's conclusion, we read that both the Spirit and the "bride" invite Christ to return and set in motion the fulfillment of the good things that had just been prophesied (Revelation 22:16-17).
Did you expect to find the Holy Spirit at the beginning? In the first chapter of Genesis, we read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2) We find the Holy Spirit at work within Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon and others within the Kingdom of Israel. Likewise, we find the Holy Spirit present at the foundation of the Church (Acts 2). Moreover, the Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus during his earthly ministry and is referred to as Comforter/Helper, Advocate, and Teacher in the writings of the New Testament. We are also informed in those writings that the Holy Spirit dwells within us and impregnates us with eternal life (Romans 8:9, 11, Ephesians 1:13, I Corinthians 3:16-17, II Corinthians 5:5).
You also quoted a number of greetings from the epistles of Paul which only mention "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," but you failed to mention Christ's admonition to his apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). You referenced I Corinthians 8:6 but failed to mention the context that Paul was answering specific questions from the congregation in this instance. Moreover, you fail to note the salutation from his second letter to the saints at Corinth, where we read: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (II Corinthians 13:14).
A few questions for you: How do you lie to an inanimate force or power? How can you grieve an inanimate force or power? How can such a force teach or guide you? How do you keep in step with such a force? How can an inanimate force give you eternal life?
Lonnie writes:
“Moreover, you fail to note the salutation from his second letter to the saints at Corinth, where we read: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (II Corinthians 13:14).”
No I didn’t. Why do you misrepresent me? This is what I wrote:
“We have noticed in previous threads on the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit is not included in any of the greetings (cp. "grace" and "peace") AT THE BEGINNING OF PAUL'S EPISTLES”.
I have put in upper case to emphasis what I wrote.
2Co 1:2 Grace [charis] be to you and peace [eirene] from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
You don’t think it is strange that the Holy Spirit is not included in the salutations at the beginning of Paul’s letters?
You also wrote:
“Now, it appears to me that the Holy Spirit is intimately connected to this book's message”.
But it still does not answer why the HS is missing from the Scriptures where one would expect him to be.
In regards to the NT shema I am stating what I consider to be a fact, with nothing to do with context, that the HS cannot be squeezed into it.
Any suggestion how the HS could be included?
Scout writes:
“You are neglecting the fact that the scripture contains Triads in a number of places that contravene what you have written.”
“No I am not neglecting Scriptures that contain Triads; and they don’t contravene what I have written.”
I asked this question:
“If the Holy Spirit is God, any suggestions why he doesn't appear in Scripture where one would expect him to be included, for example”
I would suggest that suggestions could be given by those who believe in the Triads to answer the question.
Scout also writes:
“You are not the determiner of what context is appropriate for which Persons.”
Of course I am not. But I can ask the question why the HS is missing where in such important contexts one would expect him to be. By leaving him out it could create doubts about him.
You couldn’t provide just one suggestion why the HS would be missing in these verses?
Lonnie writes:
“A few questions for you: How do you lie to an inanimate force or power? How can you grieve an inanimate force or power? How can such a force teach or guide you? How do you keep in step with such a force? How can an inanimate force give you eternal life?”
Just a few points as we will never agree on this subject.
The angel answered,
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35, NIV).
The Holy Spirit is both the power and presence of God.
From the dynamic perspective, except in a few special cases, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ often personified and used interchangeably.
Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Ro 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Ro 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
"There is a close relationship between the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit... In Romans 8:9-10 the Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and Christ all seem to be used interchangeably" (NIVSB).
Part 2
Ac 16:6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, HAVING BEEN KEPT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM preaching the word in the province of Asia.
Ac 16:7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but THE SPIRIT OF JESUS WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO. (NIV). (“of Jesus” is not in the Received text).
Eph 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Eph 3:17 THAT CHRIST MAY DWELL IN YOUR HEARTS by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, GOD HATH SENT FORTH THE SPIRIT OF HIS SON INTO YOUR HEARTS, crying, Abba, Father.
“Thus Paul prays to the Father that Christ by his Spirit will be allowed to settle down in their hearts, and from his throne there both control and strengthen them..." (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Ephesians, BST, pp.135-36).
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
2 Cor 6:16 ... for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
“What, then, has replaced the shekinah glory in the temple, as the symbol of God’s presence and the means of manifestation? Paul answers the question here. The church is a holy temple in the Lord (meaning, as always in the New Testament when not otherwise stated, ‘the Lord Jesus’) and a dwelling place of God in the Spirit... God dwells in his people as his temple ‘in the Lord’ and ‘in the Spirit’, or through his Son and by his spirit” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of Ephesians, BST, p.109).
Ge 1:1 Ge 1:1 In the beginning [bere’sit] God created the heaven and the earth.
Pr 8:22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;
Pr 8:23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning [bere’sit], before the world began. (NIV).
"The New Testament shows by its allusions to this passage (Col. 1:15-17; 2:3; Rev 3:14) that the personifying of wisdom, far from overshooting the literal truth, was a preparation for its full statement, since the agent of creation was no mere activity of God, but the Son, His eternal Word, Wisdom and Power (see also Jn 1:1-14; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Heb. 1:1-4)" (Derek Kidner, Proverbs, TOTC, pp.74-75).
Jn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Jn 14:20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.
Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
The Counselor, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God’s Son — the Spirit of Jesus — Jesus is speaking in the third person. “I” (Jn 14:20) is the “Counselor” (14:26).
One thing is certain! The Arian Brotherhood in the Armstrong Gulag is quite different from the Aryan Brotherhood in a secular prison.
Multi-part reply,
I addressed your contention head-on that the Holy Spirit isn't found where you'd expect him to be found. As for your insistence on Paul's greetings in his epistles, I would think that his mention of the Father and Son would be self-evident. After all, ALL of the saints he was writing to were already intimate with the Holy Spirit - he was with them continuously.
I like what you said about the Spirit belonging to Christ and acting on his behalf - that is absolutely TRUE! BUT what about the Spirit belonging to God the Father and acting on his behalf? That is just as true!
Jesus said that he and the Father were ONE. He also said that the Father was in him, and that he was in the Father. The Epistle to the Hebrews informs us that God created through Christ, and that Jesus is "the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person." Likewise, we are informed that the God's Spirit was present at creation, Christ's birth, baptism and the laying on of hands, the founding of the Church, and within the believer. The Holy Spirit is God in us, teaches us God's will, engenders eternal life within us, and is always there with the Father and Son.
You're fond of prooftexts, but many of the scriptures which you cite support a trinitarian thesis. You seek to prove a negative (that the Holy Spirit is not God), but you ignore all of the very positive evidence which affirms it! You remind me of that passage about ever learning but never being able to arrive at an acknowledgement of the truth. I would remind you too that Jesus of Nazareth identified blasphemy against God's Spirit as being unforgivable. You may want to review the big Ten and the Great Two in this connection.
There still are no responses that directly address the point that the Holy Spirit is not another being. The shema does not include it. The Messiah's statement in the gospels that He and the Father are one clearly shows no Holy Spirit as a separate being. If that Spirit was a being, it must be included because it is one like the Messiah and the Father.
It is not because it is the power of the Father and the Messiah which means it comes from Them. However, it is not another person. It is a figment of the catholic imagination which many have chosen to believe.
When will those who refuse to believe the points provided multiple times from scripture that the Creator is composed of the Father and the Messiah address this? They have to know that they are obviously wrong believing in a trinity and that people who look at the issue without prejudice to see what scripture actually says can see what they are doing. Yet, all they do is start arguing about "nobody can fully understand what god is" and other junk. They have no proof to disprove what scripture says clearly in multiple places.
Armstrong has nothing to do with this. He was an evil person and many were deceived by him and others continue the evil. That has nothing to do with the composition of the Creator.
The issue here is why people keep coming up with reason they believe there is this other being. They never disprove the points given in this forum which are from scripture that show the the Creator of the universe is like a father and mother of a family as They created man in Their image.
Why is 7:09 asking for an explanation of why 10:28 says 7:22 is trolling? Who, other than a troll, would refer to a member of the deity as "uncle"? What kind of person would rise up to defend such an indefensible act? Troll might actually have been too kind a description.
Anonymous 6:00
A case in point.
In the opening passage of the Book of Romans, you point out that the single verse Romans 1:7 mentions only God and Jesus. But if one examines the whole passage it mentions, first, the Spirit and then God and Jesus. The Spirit is mentioned in his role as the provider of spiritual power in verse 4. Then later God and Jesus are mentioned as the joint dispensers of grace and peace. This shows that there is a role-related economy among the three Persons of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is mentioned in his role, and God and Jesus are mentioned in their roles. And the Holy Spirit inspired it to be written that way through Paul. Romans 1:4-7 is really a Triad with references to the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit textually packaged a little differently from the more explicit Triads.
The Trinity has an economy and ontology. It consists of three co-equal persons acting in certain differentiated roles. Armstrongism conflates the economy and ontology. Armstrongists impose the economy on the ontology when the two are separate. This results in the Armstrongist heresy of the subordination of Jesus.
And the Triads do effectively contravene your argument. Your argument does not logically accommodate the Triads.
You can consult any Christian systematic theology and come to understand the basic scriptural characterization of the Holy Spirit. Only in the little backwaters of cult denominations do you find exceptions to the orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit, along with a plethora of other heresies. Since the Trinity is so well-established and the literature so accessible, I will not discuss it further here.
Scout
You say there are no responses because you don't like the responses I have provided. In John 14:1-14, Christ talked about the Father's relationship with himself and believers. This is immediately followed by a long discourse on the Holy Spirit:
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[g] 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.
25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 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 have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here. - English Standard Version
This is literally in the same breath!
For those who have followed this debate and are objective, I have provided enough scriptural "proof" for the trinitarian position to justify further exploration of the subject. For those who are convinced of the binitarian view, all such proof will be deemed irrelevant and/or insufficient.
I've occasionally described HWA as having partially understood only 2/3 of God. As you say, Scout, that understanding also resulted in the subordination of Jesus Christ. Even a casual observer of the history of the Armstrong movement will conclude that its prophecies must certainly have failed for a reason. One is forced to consider failure to fully understand God. There are other factors, such as the sins and arrogance of the founders, but the core factor is failure to understand God, and the role of each of the three persons.
BB
And yet, no one can simply explain why the scripture which directly quotes the Messiah does not say I and my father and the spirit are one.
They cannot explain why I John 5:7-8 adds trinity scripture as a result of the catholic church which is well known and accepted by those who study and teach the scriptures at the highest levels, even those who support belief in the trinity. Those on that side here just say that because a bunch of people do it then that is how it works.
They also do not address the fact that one is not supposed to call a religious leader, so-called, father. And there is nothing that addresses why that large organization forbids marriage and has and still continues to engage in sexual abuse, which is just as bad as armstrong and others did and do along with many other, so-called religious organizations.
If you read back through just this forum post and the responses, you will see paragraph after paragraph of people coming up with esoteric ways to show “proof” while that which is plainly in scripture is ignored. They pick out verses and interpolate however they choose and all we get is bs, but they will not address that the Messiah would’ve clearly said, I and the father and the spirit are one if it were true.
His statement that He and the Father are one is absolutely the clearest, simplest, foundational statement of what the Creator is. That being said, Scout’s comments that he will not respond anymore are good because there’s a lot of clutter that’s useless in here and if he holds to it, some of that problem will go away.
They can jump up and down and scream and holler but the truth is they are pushing lies.
I John 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. (ESV)
I John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (ESV)
Now, finally, you have brough up the Shema many times in your comments. Do you know what it is? This is the Shema:
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love Adonai your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These words, which I am commanding you today, are to be on your heart. 7 You are to teach them diligently to your children, and speak of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 Bind them as a sign on your hand, they are to be as frontlets between your eyes, 9 and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (TOL)
The principal reference to the Shema in the NT is found in reference to the anti-Shema found in Revelation 13:16-18.
Interesting that the John 14 comments above fail to cover the Father in the Messiah and vice versa with no spirit involved except the is the indwelling of the Father and Messiah in believers which is understandable to believers and not to those who do not believe even if they think they do.
Additionally, why is the spirit in Greek neuter while the Fatther and Son are masculine in the scriptures and why will th eMessiah not say about the spirit what he says about Himself and the Father?
Is this like the political guy who says that Paul says that the Creator is binary because there is neither male nor female in the kingdom?
Scout writes:
“And the Triads do effectively contravene your argument. Your argument does not logically accommodate the Triads.”
1Ti 5:21 I charge thee before GOD, and the LORD JESUS Christ, and THE ELECT ANGELS, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
(Paul could have included the HS in 5:21).
No they don’t.
Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
I acknowledge that the triads, such as Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; and 1 Peter 1:2, seem to argue for a Trinity.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
But there are too many Scriptures that suggest otherwise.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Revelation 21 & 22 picture the realization of the goal of God; so I find it strange that the throne is only the throne of God and the Lamb — in the crowing achievement of God, God with his people, the HS is not mentioned in sharing the throne.
Scout also writes:
“A case in point.
“In the opening passage of the Book of Romans:
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
My original question was to do with the Scriptures in Revelation; the note about the epistles was an aside.
Lonnie writes:
“The principal reference to the Shema in the NT is found in reference to the anti-Shema found in Revelation 13:16-18.”
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
I would say it is perhaps the principal application of the anti-Shema for a group of people.
Dt 6:4 Hear [shema‘], O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God ['Elohim] is one LORD [YHWH] :
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord [Kyrios] our God (Theos) is one Lord (Kyrios). (Brenton, LXX)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God [Theos], the Father... and one Lord [Kyrios] Jesus Christ...
"[Paul] has kept the "one" intact, but has divided the Shema into two parts, with theos (God) now referring to the Father, and kurios (Lord) referring to Jesus Christ... [Paul] is reasserting for the Corinthians that ... there is indeed only one God... but at the same time, he insists that the identity of the one God also includes the one Lord..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.90-91).
My point is that the HS cannot be squeezed into the Shema — theos refer to the Father and kyrios refers to Jesus. There is no other ‘term’ in 6:4 that can be applied to the HS.
For a ‘Jew’ like Paul to take this the most central, foundational, and momentous declaration of monotheistic faith and include Jesus in it is indeed momentous; but not momentous enough to include the HS.
Lonnie writes:
I like what you said about the Spirit belonging to Christ and acting on his behalf - that is absolutely TRUE! BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SPIRIT BELONGING TO GOD THE FATHER AND ACTING ON HIS BEHALF? That is just as true!
I did preface my comment with this:
“From the dynamic perspective, except in a few special cases, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ”.
So it is implied that there is the spirit belonging to God.
Part 2
2 Cor 5:19a To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,
Using the principle of agency in relation to God: what God man does through agents He may be said to do Himself:
Jn 14:23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
God comes to those who love Jesus through Jesus.
I would like to suggest that in Scriptures such as these:
Mt 12:28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Ro 8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
That the Spirit of God is really the Spirit of Jesus. That is in the ‘principal’ perspective it is God’s spirit but in the “agent’ perspective it is Jesus’ spirit. But also Jesus’ spirit is God’s spirit because God is the true God, and all things originate from Him.
It was mentioned above that:
“most seem to be trinitarian while I perceive multi-part man and John /time will tell to both be unitarian.”
As MPM I would like to state that I am not unitarian, if defined as not believing that Jesus is God.
To be a mediator between God and man One has to be both God and man.
Ge 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Ge 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
But typology suggests to me that Jesus came from God and all other ‘people’ come from Jesus - he is the firstfruits (1 Cor 15:23)..
Ro 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
“Christians are adopted sons by grace; Christ, however, is God's Son by nature” (NIVSB); and the Word is God’s “help meet” also by ‘nature’.
God is too holy to deal with human beings directly and the way out of his dilemma was ‘generating’ the Word.
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes IN ABRAHAM.
I won’t say “eternally generated” but eternal because he was IN GOD.
Creation was Christ’s baby - assigned to him by God.
He did the hard yards and became human and died for humanity.
After doing the hard yards he is going to see it through by the use of his own spirit; not some other entity’s spirit.
"However disappointing the fact may be to a devoted father, there is something unique in the relationship between a mother and a baby... It is the most intimate of relationships... it is the mother rather than the father who is more alert to the nuance and the non-verbal hint, more naturally responsive to the baby's needs... FATHERS COME INTO THEIR OWN WHEN THE CHILD BEGINS TO GROW UP. Or, perhaps more accurately, children come into their own when they are old enough to ‘do' things with..." (Anne Moir and David Jessel, BrainSex, pp.141-145).
The antitype of the type in upper case above is the time of the new heavens and earth.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
But before this the mother-child relationship is also seen in the saints being with Jesus sitting on his throne and priests in His priesthood.
Typology being fulfilled?
In the OT God’s sabbath-keeping people wanted to be like the nations of the world and have other Gods.
In the NT God’s sabbath-keeping and former sabbath-keeping people want to be like the churches of the world and have another God.
1Ki 12:28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
In my typology the northern kingdom pictures the Sunday-keeping people of God - choosing their own way to worship Him - but still God’s people.
"co-equal" Persons? The Father is greater than the Son - John 14:28. How much greater? 1.0005 times? 1.4 times? 2 times? 5 times? We don't know.
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2026/04/alexander-of-alexandria-on-arian-heresy.html
April 19, 2026 at 6:44 PM should be Eusebius, not Erasmus
Erasmus was involved in this, but later by about 1200 years and did change his translation. Evidently, the Catholic church communicated with him about I John 5:7-8.
Eusebius evidently had seen Matthew 28:19 with the Messiah as the name in which baptisms are to be made and the others not included.
Given that Eusebius lived during the first council of Nicea, he may have been aware of that church's change to scripture which was reflected in various uncials of the time like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
The fact that I John 5:7-8 is known to have additions in the received text which is basically accepted as an addition to the original throughout the scholar community and Acts and other books like Romans, I Corinthians, and Galatians only refer to the Messiah, evidence seems to point to the early period as baptizing only in the name of the Messiah.
Post a Comment