|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,198
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Kevin H, 2 invisible),
2,759
guests, and 7
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47731
12/27/05 11:39 PM
12/27/05 11:39 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I'm not seeing the connection between what you are saying and what I'm asking. I'm not concerned with the physicality of the Spirit, but with His individuality. That is, if He is a person, then, given the ordinary definition of "person", He must be an individual with the capability of acting independently. That's what "person" means. Is there some other definition of "person" that I should be thinking of?
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47732
12/28/05 04:09 AM
12/28/05 04:09 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
I'm not seeing the connection between what you are saying and what I'm asking. I'm not concerned with the physicality of the Spirit, but with His individuality. That is, if He is a person, then, given the ordinary definition of "person", He must be an individual with the capability of acting independently. That's what "person" means. Is there some other definition of "person" that I should be thinking of?
That's it: that's the nub of the issue...."Some other definition of 'person'." Else the Spirit's very identity as God's personal Spirit has no reliable link to God for that identity...
Unless we understand and agree that the divine Spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son's divine nature, to manifest his power and presence (appropriately) away from God's personal presence, the Spirit's individuality loses out on his divinity....the same issue arises out of the question of the Son's begottenness being discussed on the other thread.
Our Adventist version of the trinity detaches itself from classical trinitarianism on the basis of avoiding the latter's supposed philosophical flaws as they affected classical theology - tho' that classical theology believed God to be linked to his Son and for their Spirit to be part of their divine persons - somewhat similar to what we ourselves used to believe collectively. Also, two of the earliest post-Apostolic writers, Justin Martyr and Ireneus, the latter the disciple of the former, were linked to the Apostle John, whose disciple Justin was. Both these writers believed similarly to the Nicene Creed's understanding of the Godhead. Greek philosophy unhelpful for Christian theology - is there actually a link, since the Apostle's disciples in this case point disagree that they were taught inaccurate theology, and they were taught by John & spoke Greek!
Now we teach the Father and Son are not literal titles at all, but terms of endearment between them which we can understand from our viewpoint by their human analogy - but no analogious family relationship for them. Both metaphorical at least and role playing in practice. The Spirit doesn't literally proceed from God (either of them) but just heads out to start representing Jesus after his victorious death, resurrection and ascension. Our scholars have dismissed classic theology as misunderstanding the Biblical teaching of God....Strange, as the church fathers settled on a joint statement which even our pioneers found scriptural in large part - literally begotten Son, Spirit literally proceeding from God, at least.
We reckon we can teach one God with one nature without all three divine persons being personally linked by nature....
As a result, we teach today that Father, Son and Holy Spirit have kept each other company from everlasting to everlasting, helping each other out in various tasks and all pitching in on the same tasks all the time, but they have had no natural, divine relationship (e.g. like a Son begotten of the Father) binding themselves together. They are not linked at all in any way, except by their joint operation, and this perfect community and fellowship among them makes them divine(??!). They are credited with the attributes of divinity, but the basis of their divinity is at most speculative. Which is sad for us.
This is not a trinitarian formula in the mind of any trinitarian worth his salt whom you might find outside our church. It positively endangers the divinity of the Godhead: there is no theological or theoretical proof of one God out of the 3 persons, since intellectual agreement among them is no strict, perfect and reliable basis for one nature among them!
The Adventist trinitarian teaching appears fatally flawed, leaving the Spirit in need of a basis for its/his own divinity - having no personal link to God by nature, after all; while the Son has his own 'thread' to sort himself out on.
Ensuring the Spirit's non-physical, personal procession from God is the only Biblical basis possible for his divine personality which we are so anxious for. His lack of physique and his personal individuality are mutually inclusive.
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47733
12/28/05 10:35 AM
12/28/05 10:35 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Individuality, I am thinking like this. Jesus while being God is a different person/individual from the Father becourse although He didnt, He could have chosen not to go trough calvary. He had a choise to either do His Fathers will or to do His own will, thankfully choosing His Fathers will. Now to the Spirit, empoying the same image to the Spirit we end up with the question: is it possible for the Spirit to do anything outside of the Fathers will? We know from the scripture that He testifies about Jesus and teaches and reminds us about what Jesus teached. Does the Spirit do this becourse He chooses to or becourse It is programed to do so like a robot? It is said that one of the differences between humans and animals is that animals act by instinct while humans act by reason, well, humans have the possibility to act by reason. Colin wrote quote:
Else the Spirit's very identity as God's personal Spirit has no reliable link to God for that identity...
What about these other examples of how the phrase XYs personal .. is used..
Sb's personal laptop.
Sb's personal pen.
Sb's personal car.
But how about these?
Sb's personal wife
Sb's personal son
Sb's personal servant?
To have a personal something implies ownership or hiearchy, at least it does to me. The kind of thing you might say to a person you wish to mark dominance over when used about a human.
Whatever happened to equality among the Godhead? Or did we have that wrong aswell, having now to adjust to a hiearchy within it?
/Thomas
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47734
12/28/05 01:50 PM
12/28/05 01:50 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Colin, sorry for my obtuseness, but I'm still not seeing the connection between what you are saying and what I'm asking. Let me try putting it this way. If the Father and Jesus Christ were to ask the Holy Spirit something, and the Holy Spirit were to respond, would they be talking to themselves? You wrote: quote:
His lack of physique and his personal individuality are mutually inclusive.
I take this to mean that the only reason the Holy Spirit can have a personal individuality is because He is not physical by nature, and similarly, the only reason the Holy Spirit can be a spirit is because He has a personal individuality. This is what you mean by "mutually inclusive"?
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47735
12/28/05 02:33 PM
12/28/05 02:33 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Yes, my 'mutual inclusivity'... My mistake was: What I was looking for was the A=B=C formula. Of your question, below... quote:
the only reason the Holy Spirit can have a personal individuality is because He is not physical by nature, and similarly, the only reason the Holy Spirit can be a spirit is because He has a personal individuality.
...what should be the case is that the Holy Spirit has personal divine individuality because of not being physical by nature because of being the divine Spirit proceding from God's physical, divine person.
The Nicene Fathers found this to be Biblical, as did our pioneers, and now we teach that they are both mistaken because of Greek philosophy.
I challenge that finding today, due to the earliest Christian writers, Justin Martyr, etc (see previous post), learning from the Apostle John, who wrote the Gospel of John without Greek philosophy, and yet with the Church Fathers later saying much the same thing at Nicaea. They all spoke Greek, so did they misread the Bible in their own language? The meaning of the terms of Nicaea at the time is another study, but our pioneers avoided any pitfalls known to them while implicitly following the Nicene structure (see earlier post), while today we totally reject the whole Nicene structure of the divine relationships. Is that safe, or even Biblical?
If there is a classical problem with Greek philosophy, historically, it shouldn't detract from the Nicene creed's basic structure, since the SOP didn't challenge our pioneers' writings on the Godhead - shaped as it was by the Nicene structure, while she came down on Kellogg like she did on no-one else ever.
Thanks for your help: has this helped you?
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47736
12/28/05 05:00 PM
12/28/05 05:00 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
I am bringing this post forward to show how Colin and the SOP are in disagreement: quote:
Colin wrote:
The Spirit proceeding from God excludes it from being a person just like God and his Son, so there's not enough evidence from inspiration for the Spirit being a person just like God.
quote:
Sister White wrote:
"We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds." -- Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.) {2SAT 137.6} {Ev 616.5}
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47737
12/28/05 05:14 PM
12/28/05 05:14 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
What is the anti-trinitatrian position: that the Holy Spirit is sometimes the personal presence of just the Father, sometimes the personal presence of just the Son, and sometimes the personal presence of both?
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47738
12/28/05 06:53 PM
12/28/05 06:53 PM
|
Global Moderator
Supporting Member 2022
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,701
Canada
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Glenn:
Dear Tom:
Zechariah 6:13 says: "and the counsel of peace shall be bewteen them both". It does not say that the counsel of peace shall be between them three. In Patriarchs and Prophets, page 36 it says: "...none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will." In Great Controversy, page 493 it says: "Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father, - one in nature, in character, and in purpose, - the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God".
Glenn
However, there are more quotes in which she INCLUDES THE HOLY SPIRIT!
The Holy Spirit is part of the "ONE GOD" just as Christ is. Inspired writings do not have to enumerate each individual in the Godhead everytime they speak of God, in order for them to exist.
It is only as the work of each is revealed that they are individually spoken of.
****QUOTES*****
quote:
"It is the glory of the gospel that it is founded on the principles of restoring in the fallen race the divine image. The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out his plan, it was decided that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, should give himself an offering for sin. And in giving Christ, God gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting for the work of man's uplifting." {RH, May 2, 1912 par. 3 also in Counsels on Health 222}
There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. {BT.1906-03-01.001}
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47739
12/28/05 11:20 PM
12/28/05 11:20 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Colin, I still don't know if the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are in conference if there are two beings present or three. I'm pretty sure you'd say two; is that right?
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47740
12/28/05 11:27 PM
12/28/05 11:27 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM, Colin has been careful in his presentation. You appear to be attempting to force a meaning to his words he does not attempt. I don't agree with his position either, but at least we should disagree with what he is actually saying. quote:
The Spirit proceeding from God excludes it from being a person just like God and his Son, so there's not enough evidence from inspiration for the Spirit being a person just like God.
Colin had the very passage in mind that you quoted from the SOP when he wrote the above. The key phrase is "just like God". He means by that "exactly like God." Now we would agree that Jesus is not "exactly like God"; the difference in our views (I'm talking about Colin here, not you and I who are in agreement on this point, AFAICT) is to what extent we see the difference.
Colin is not denying that the Holy Spirit is a person, but the meaning of "person" is different for him than for the rest of us.
I agree with you that the passage you cited is a difficult one for his perspective, but he has attempted to meet the objection. To just recite the passage and state it disagrees with his, without giving any consideration whatsoever to his remards to answer the objections raised that very passage is not fair, I don't think.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
