The Holy Spirit

[Mark Clarke]

Mark,

Not trying to change the subject here or to put mock your belief. And maybe this ought to be in it's own thread. But are suggesting you do NOT believe the opposite of what you thought might have been suggested? "That God CAN be known just from the heart without reading his Word?"...

The Word.. God's Word.. His Word... Just sounds so unrelational.. Rather than a living breathing relationship with a living and breathing God who wants us to know him personally, intimately, and sit in his lap and call him daddy, it almost sounds like a dull boring relationship with a non-living organism "His Word" aka "The Book" aka "The Bible". And everything you get is from this black and white written and printed by men book, rather than words that the creator of all things speaks to you personally.

Actually, when the Bible refers to "the Word" it is not speaking of the black and white printed book (or scroll). What was written is called "the Scriptures" in the Bible. When it speaks of "the Word" it is most often speaking of the overall message of God, the mind and heart of God as He has revealed it. Jesus identified it as the Word or Gospel of the Kingdom of God. And Jesus himself is called the Word made flesh. God's plan, His mind, His message, are all embodied in the person of Jesus. So it's much bigger than just the written Scriptures. But the written Scriptures are how we know about it.

When it is written in Romans, "... that which may be known of God is manifest in them[saints]; for God hath shewed it unto them. ", do you think that God only showed them through this black and white text??? I sure hope not.

Is it not written after that verse in that black and white text that, "The invisible things of Him(God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godliness; so that they are without excuse" ?

So if they are without excuse, according to "His Word", then there must be enough in "the things that are made" that all would be capable of clearly seeing His eternal power and godliness and knowing God.

God's greater than a book. And knowing him personally, which can come about in a myriad of ways, and giving him his rightful place as the creator, is what God's interested in. And while I agree, we have a standard that others who knew the this Creator wrote words that God shared with them, there's more to knowing God, in fact, there are other ways to finding God, than that one book you have written which wasn't even around for millenniums.

You're right. He is much more than a book. But He did give us that book for a reason, and expected us to learn from it. Not to the exclusion of His many works, but along with it. I believe that His Spirit and His Word work together as a system of checks and balances. Many people focus on the Bible and forget God's personal presence and power. But many people also focus on what they think is God's power, and are deceived because they don't test the spirits as we are told. The Bible helps us to know the right spirit, and vice versa.

God is not limited, but our knowledge of Him must be according to what He has revealed. Jesus said that his words are spirit and life. They are wholesome words, words of power and light, because they are God's words. I think what he did and said are the perfect blend of doctrine and practice, and a foretaste of what the new world will be like when he returns to set up his kingdom.

[Mark Clarke]

Mark, it appears you have the idea that speculating one's way into an ancient Jewish worldview (some of which involved rank Christ-less unbelief) is some magic decoder ring for understanding Scripture.

I'm not talking about "speculating" nor am I talking about "an ancient Jewish worldview." The Bible is a Hebrew book, written by (mostly) Hebrews, and must be understood as such. The Old Testament is the foundation upon which the New Testament is built. Old Testament believers looked forward to the coming of Messiah, and the Prophets foretold a great deal of detail about it. The "rank Christ-less unbelief" was on the part of those who rejected him, but not all Jews were in that category. That also doesn't negate the importance of the Hebrew foundation of the whole Gospel message.

I don't like being blunt, but I don't think you are hearing me.

Ditto. I know you're not hearing me, because you have misquoted me, and still have not addressed most of my points.

You are right, I don't really care to look into these paticular beliefs.

That's your choice. But how can you argue against something you don't even understand? If you think you understand my perspective because you were in TWI, then you missed my point.

But, how blithely and conveniently you discount the verses and theology I have posted for you thus far. . . . as if your weak exegisis has somehow disposed of it.

But I notice that you have offered no Scriptural rebuttals to my "weak exegesis" to counter the points I made. You just keep repeating how much it bothers you that I think the Church has been wrong.

But, you are absolutely right. I don't really care about what you see in the bible.

Then why bother posting in the Doctrinal Forum?

Your theology doesn't move me.

It is yours and reveals your relationship with God. . . not mine. . . and I wouldn't care what you said EXCEPT. . . .

You pass such sweeping judgement on the entire church. It amazes me.

For the last time, I am not judging anybody. We are discussing differences in doctrinal views.

I guess you fancy yourself some kind of modern day reformer. I didn't catch that before.

I don't fancy myself anything but a student of the Bible. My reference to reformers was to try to show you that there have been great men in the past who have concluded that the "entire Church" was wrong about some things, in response to your shock and objection to my similar conclusion.

I have compassion for you. I think it is dangerous waters.

I would say the same to you.

What I believe is. . . .our perception of issues related to the Trinity and the hypostatic union greatly influence how we read the Bible. Don't you agree? Our very understanding of scripture. It affects our interpretation of many passages and it affects the application we draw from those passages.

Absolutely! That's why I think it's important to get the foundation right. You don't get "hypostatic union" from the Bible, you get it from Greek philosophy.

Which brings me to my point. . . it is so often expressed on these forums...The disparity between those of the church and those in the cults.

Once again, you need to be aware that disbelief in the Trinity is not limited to "cults." Here is another article for you to ignore. :) Anybody else reading this might want to check it out: Does Everybody Believe in the Trinity? by Anthony Buzzard.

You see it articulated often here. "I went to church, and the people seem to really have something. . . ." "Too bad they don't know correct doctrine."

I always find it ironic we don't make the connection, but still sit from a distance that is created by our aberrant understanding of scripture.

By their fruit they are known. . . . . . connected to the vine. . . . by the love they have for one another. You even called it their character. . .God alive in the hearts of men and women in the church. . . again, they KNOW Him. They have an intimate and personal LOVE relationship with Him. Some DIE for Him.

And again, the doctrine has nothing to do with the fruit in people's lives or their sincerity. There are both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians who love God and love people, and there are also members of both groups who are just as hypocritical and judgmental and ungodly as anybody "in the world."

These are the people you judge as not knowing God. The very ones who belong to Him.

Not good for you. . . . .

How many times do I have to say it? I AM JUDGING NO ONE.

You asked about my study and journey. Doesn't really matter. I have had some pretty lucky breaks, gone to some pretty good schools. . met some pretty smart people, but in the end. . . it is God who makes Himself known to us. . . He enlightens.

I thought the Doctrinal Forum was for the purpose of discussing doctrine. You are the one that claimed I forgot that you once believed as I do but have changed. I think it is entirely relevant to ask what convinced you. But if you don't choose to discuss it, that's your prerogative.

He and He alone is due the glory. . . not my study. . . not my ability. . . not my knowledge of Hebrew culture.

This is not about glory. God gets the glory regardless. We were discussing doctrinal issues. And you can discount Hebrew culture all you want, but God chose them to communicate His message of salvation through.

If you are depending on your own ability. . . hang it up now. It will fail you.

So reading and understanding the Bible is depending on my own ability? Are we not expected to seek the truth that is in it? This is not about how necessary Bible study is. This is about the fact that we both have different opinions about what the Bible says.

Come, let us reason together. . . you and God together. . . reason these things out.

Love is in relationship. . . when you love Him with all your mind. . . it is in relationship. . . He is part of that.

As I have said, I did in fact reason them out with Him. Relationship with God is the goal, but that does not mean you don't give careful consideration to the words that He has spoken, especially through His Son, as revealed in the Scriptures.

Thanks for your time.

Thanks for yours as well.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[Mark Clarke]

A final thought, for anybody that's still interested. One thing I was trying to get across is that the belief in the holy spirit as God's presence and power, besides being the Hebrew view, is also recognized by many Christian theologians. Many scholars see evidence in the Bible against some traditional views, but because it goes against tradition, it isn't taught at the local church level. That's not to say that it proves the theologians are right, of course. But it should be understood that such views are not limited to "cults" and fringe elements in the Church. The following quotes are from the previously referenced article, Does Everyone Believe in the Trinity?. (Note that several of the sources are standard Catholic reference books.)

"Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person" (Edmund Fortman,

The Triune God

, p. 9).

"Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person" (

The Catholic Encyclopedia

, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 49).

"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view…The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptic gospels (Matt., Mark, Luke) and in Acts as a divine force or power" (Edmund Fortman,

The Triune God

, pp. 6, 15).

"The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person…God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly…The majority of New Testament texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God" (

New Catholic Encyclopedia

, 1967, Vol. 14, pp. 574, 575).

"On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power" (W.E. Addis and Thomas Arnold,

A Catholic Dictionary

, 1960, p. 810).

"The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362...and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381" (

A Catholic Dictionary

, p. 812).

"[Matt. 28:19] proves only that there are the three subjects named,...but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor…This text, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity" (McClintock and Strong,

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

, 1987, Vol. X, p. 552).

Note that it is impossible to establish that the Holy Spirit was believed to be a third Divine Person from New Testament times onwards. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, wrote in 380 AD:

"Of our thoughtful men, some regard the Holy Spirit as an operation, some as a creature and some as God; while others are at a loss to decide, seeing that the Scripture determines nothing on the subject" (

Oratio 38: De Spiritu Sancto

).

Edited February 21, 2009 by Mark Clarke