|
Forums118
Topics9,223
Posts196,066
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
4 registered members (Karen Y, Dina, dedication, 1 invisible),
1,808
guests, and 13
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47801
01/10/06 05:30 PM
01/10/06 05:30 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Regarding the pioneer's view, I'd have to study into this more to give an intelligent answer. quote:
While Kellogg is now infamous for advocating pantheism in 1903 or so, his mistake was principlly teaching that the Holy Spirit was a being. The leading brethern rejected the notion of the Holy Spirit as a being, and Ellen White's Special Testimonies Series B - much of it written for the Kellogg crisis - clearly refutes a belief in the Spirit being a being, as excerpted above.
This doesn't make sense to me. First of all, how would believing the Holy Spirit is a being lead to pantheism? That's backwards. Secondly, how is it that EGW's quote "clearly" refutes that the Holy Spirit is a being?
Secondly regarding whether the Holy Spirit has an independent will, it seems to me personally to be clear that this has been revealed. John H.'s first post in this thread brings out many things the Spirit does. These are things that one associates with a being that has an independent will.
Finally, basing this on the answer to my previous questions as to whether we are dealing with 2 or 3 independent wills, I think you would either says just 1, or that this hasn't been revealed. Am I correct on this?
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47802
01/11/06 03:44 AM
01/11/06 03:44 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Regarding the pioneer's view, I'd have to study into this more to give an intelligent answer.
quote:
While Kellogg is now infamous for advocating pantheism in 1903 or so, his mistake was principlly teaching that the Holy Spirit was a being. The leading brethern rejected the notion of the Holy Spirit as a being, and Ellen White's Special Testimonies Series B - much of it written for the Kellogg crisis - clearly refutes a belief in the Spirit being a being, as excerpted above.
This doesn't make sense to me. First of all, how would believing the Holy Spirit is a being lead to pantheism? That's backwards. Secondly, how is it that EGW's quote "clearly" refutes that the Holy Spirit is a being?
Kellogg landed in pantheism by making the Spirit a person just like God is - which was rejected by the leading Brethern, as well as the Spirit bringing God's presence and not just his power into all of nature to sustain it.
Looking back now to my earlier comments which you've excerpted here none of our pioneers used the noun "being" for the Holy Spirit, and I was countering with 'no being' the point they countered, of the Spirit having a personal physique like God (Father or Son) has, as we say 'human being'. They allowed divine person, but limited that to the Spirit of God proceeding from God. The word "being" implicitly includes a body, hence the dictionary distorts Scripture on that point. I'll deal with individuality below.
Sister White wrote those 'immortal words' "the Comforter...is the Spirit in the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest" divine power and grace to us believers (or very similar words), precluding the Spirit from having a body like Father and Son are said to have in this Testimony. I was dealing with your "being" as referring to a body.... Beyond the Spirit's permanent omnipresence here described, its personal set up is not for our study, is it? That golden silence of ours...
quote:
Secondly regarding whether the Holy Spirit has an independent will, it seems to me personally to be clear that this has been revealed. John H.'s first post in this thread brings out many things the Spirit does. These are things that one associates with a being that has an independent will.
The Spirit should be subservient to Father and Son, naturally, since it is sent by the Father on the Son's return to his Father. Since his personal acivity is implementing the will of God, the Spirit certainly acts independently of God. The Holy Spirit isn't just God's representative for Jesus on earth: it's been the Godhead's omnipresent representative for the Word's intelligent creation for all time, expressing the Godhead's will and leading with all truth - more slowing for us, though ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) . Establishing its independent will by its representative activity for but independent of the other two may appear logical, but that's the Spirit's mystery - and boggles my mind to find it in the Bible, since it isn't revealed as a pertinent point or plainly, at all Our customary submission to God would in principle be impeded out of concern for the Spirit's independence...Trinitarianism is infamous here, again, for stating as revealed what isn't clearly revealed; you are quoting a trinitarian viewpoint, aren't you.
The Spirit certainly communicates to us God's will in Christ for our salvation: whether or not it has its own will isn't revealed by that very activity, since the Spirit's personality, as the Godhead's omnipresence, is mysterious on that point. Just as unfathomable as the Father begetting his own Son.
quote:
Finally, basing this on the answer to my previous questions as to whether we are dealing with 2 or 3 independent wills, I think you would either says just 1, or that this hasn't been revealed. Am I correct on this?
Primarily, it appears agreement on this point is not required to understand God properly by faith, since the 'will of God' is clearly harmonious, and is expressed unanimously in our salvation, and there 'God' is the divine family of God. Otherwise, there are at least 2 wills, in light of that heavenly counsel about the incarnation you quoted from Sister White's vision. The subservience of the Spirit while being of the Godhead is like the Son's subservience to the Father from the beginning - yet both are equally divine with the Father, bearing the authority of God the Father with them away from the Father's personal presence.
Again, seeking to ensure the Son and Spirit's independent freedom of will alongside God, in our understanding, actually calls into question the Godhead's glorious selflessness based in the Father's divine attitude and actions. The independent wills question for the persons of the Godhead is trinitarianism seeking to satisfy by human definitions the freedom of conscience we need to preserve among ourselves - but for the Godhead's glorious nature?! It's an absolutely irrelevant question, given the Bible history of divine nature and divine action. "Absolutely", because the Father as 'absolute' deity diplays his character as not raising this question, without exceptions.
That the Father and his Son exhibit individuality, does not mean that the Spirit of God, whom we submit to as having the authority of God, is clearly revealed to have it or not to have it, or required to have it as being equal and like the others: you're trying to logically deduce it...that is not our concern as children of God, recreated by the Spirit of God in the image of Jesus, God's own Son.
We are perfectly allowed & able to trust the Father in this, aren't we?
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47803
01/11/06 03:55 PM
01/11/06 03:55 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Kellogg landed in pantheism by making the Spirit a person just like God is - which was rejected by the leading Brethern, as well as the Spirit bringing God's presence and not just his power into all of nature to sustain it.
You're just reiterating what you postulated before. It still doesn't make any sense to me. If Kellogg viewed the Holy Spirit as a person, that would make it LESS likely that he would be pantheistic, not more. The teaching of pantheism is that God is in everything. As an extereme example, you could look at a shoe and say, "that is God". If one views the Holy Spirit as impersonal, that could lead to a view where God is "in the shoe," but if the Holy Spirit if viewed as a person, that would counteract that way of thinking.
So I'm not seeing any logical connection in your assertion. It seems to me you are taking to logically unrelated facts and stringing them together in an illogical way. That is, you are postulated a causual relationship where one does not logically apply.
Here's an example. Rainfall is up in the Amazon this year. Pollution is L.A. is down. Therefore when rainfall is up in the Amazon, pollution in L.A. goes down.
Just because things 1 and 2 exist doesn't mean there is a causual relationship between the two things, or any relationship at all. Because Kellogg believed the Holy Spirit was a person and had pantheistic idea does not mean that His views of the Holy Spirit necessarily had anything more to do with his pantheistic ideas than the fact that he invented peanut butter. I would need to see some logical reason why his belief regarding the Holy Spirit would lead to pantheism. After all, most Christians would agree with Kellog's statement regarding the Holy Spirit, and very few are pantheists.
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47804
01/12/06 04:19 AM
01/12/06 04:19 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
The word "being" implicitly includes a body, hence the dictionary distorts Scripture on that point. I'll deal with individuality below.
This is incorrect. The word "being" has to do with existence and being alive. It has nothing to do with bodies. Look at any definition to confirm this.
quote:
Sister White wrote those 'immortal words' "the Comforter...is the Spirit in the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest" divine power and grace to us believers (or very similar words), precluding the Spirit from having a body like Father and Son are said to have in this Testimony. I was dealing with your "being" as referring to a body.... Beyond the Spirit's permanent omnipresence here described, its personal set up is not for our study, is it? That golden silence of ours...
Again, "being" doesn't refer to "body."
Regarding the rest of your post, I had trouble following it. It appears you agree with me that from the SOP EW quote two wills were expressed, even before Christ was incarnate. So that Christ and the Father have seperate wills is not dependent upon Christ's being human. Hence it is possible that the Holy Spirit has an independent will as well, given that He is divine.
As to my question as to whether there are two or three wills involved in the Godhead is it your position that this has not been revealed? That's the answer it appeared to me you were giving to my question.
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47805
01/12/06 10:34 AM
01/12/06 10:34 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
On Kellogg's pantheism you completely missed the 2nd half of my sentence.... ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif) quote:
the Spirit bringing God's presence and not just his power into all of nature to sustain it.
although you appear to agree with it while failing to spot it being stated by others ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) quote:
The teaching of pantheism is that God is in everything
As for the Spirit's personhood, Kellogg understood it as involving a physique since the written response he received to his written and verbal discussions with our leading brethern on his understanding, was that the Spirit did not have a body like we do or the Father and Son do....
Whatever you yourself consider significant or not about the Spirit having or not having a body, Kellogg insisted that it did, "since", as he himself put it, our church understood the Spirit to be "a person", and he pointed to EGW's own use of the word. No, that dispute didn't touch on the Spirit's individuality or otherwise; some trinitarian definitions do have the Spirit with a body.
Indeed Kellogg's pantheistic ideas involved the oxygen we breath as being divine with God's presence through his Spirit, or water that we drink...he appeared only to use such Biblical 'items' as might illustrate God's nature to us, like water or air.
While our church published the Spirit-without-a-body belief evident in the quotes I included in this thread, and held to the Spirit's literal procession from Father and/or Son, unlike today, there were no postulations about his nature beyond firmly distinguishing his personality from theirs while asserting the Spirit to be a person. This seems a safe limit to place on interpreting the Biblical data....The only other systematic writings were aimed at stopping Kellogg bringing in error about "God's nature".
It is human reasoning to try to develop an individuality for every person of the Godhead, since it is argued the three persons must all equally alike be persons else there is no linguistic sense to be had. You hone in on "being" as the basis for a person. That word can confuse, as we've discovered here, when dealing with the mystery of the Spirit's nature. The possibility of a free will for the Spirit is a suggestion based on too many logical steps beyond Scripture's revelation, for faith here to be "the evidence of things unseen" and not read in the Word. One might say it is probable, but there's not even a direct hint in the Bible of it being a reality, from God's recorded dealings with us.
The reasoning for the Bible's divine persons having to have a will is trinitarian science trying to equate them in every respect: getting down to the finest detail, which, sadly, hasn't actually been set out in Scripture. That's where one should stay with Scripture. We submit to the Spirit's leading on the will of God, in the name of Jesus: more about the Spirit we cannot know for certain from the written Word. You still disagree, don't you? ![[Cool]](images/icons/cool.gif)
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47806
01/12/06 03:15 PM
01/12/06 03:15 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Regarding my questions, it's a bit frustrating to have to keep repeating the same question over and over again. If you feel you cannot answer my question, then please preface your remarks in some way, something like "I can't give you a yes or no answer, but ..." or whatever. Instead of this, I get a long answer, but I still don't know what you think in regards to my question. For example: quote:
As to my question as to whether there are two or three wills involved in the Godhead is it your position that this has not been revealed? That's the answer it appeared to me you were giving to my question.
Either this is accurate, or it's not. Please answer "Yes, this is what I think" or "No, this isn't what I think" and then go ahead and elaborate. Please pardon me if you think I'm being obtuse and you are answering my question and I'm not getting it, but I'm not getting it. I'm interested in knowing if I am understanding your position well enough to accurately represent it. If I can't accurately represent it, then I'd like further clarification, until I can. Thanks!
Regarding Kellogg, if he was reasoning that a person has to have a body, then it appears he had a limited view of the word "person" which is akin to "human being." God is a divine being, so clearly care is needed is describing Him as a "person."
Regarding "being", there's nothing difficult about this word, as it simply means one who is alive, one who exists.
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47807
01/12/06 05:31 PM
01/12/06 05:31 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Sorry, I was behaving too much like a theologian, with just plenty of detail... On the Holy Spirit's free will I can't and I don't think we collectively can give a yes or no answer because whatever possibilities get logically deduced for its free will from what little is revealed, it takes too much deduction. We're not supposed to work so hard to deduce the Spirit's nature, since we're not supposed to understand the Spirit's nature: just submit to the Spirit which comes in Jesus' name. We are told to follow the Spirit's leading into all truth as it is in Jesus, not work out the Spirit's 'freedom of conscience' mind set for that task with us, or representing God's truth elsewhere in the universe. Kellogg wasn't in tune with his fellow Adventist leaders at all in understanding God's nature: he didn't have any theological ecumen for the topic, and wouldn't learn from those who did. quote:
Regarding Kellogg, if he was reasoning that a person has to have a body, then it appears he had a limited view of the word "person" which is akin to "human being." God is a divine being, so clearly care is needed is describing Him as a "person."
No, care is only necessary in describing the Spirit as a person - the Father and Son are clearly divine beings and persons, in the ordinary sense.
quote:
Regarding "being", there's nothing difficult about this word, as it simply means one who is alive, one who exists.
The Holy Spirit as a person would be a self-conscious being according to the Spirit's personal nature - I can't say more than that toward your question. I side with our church's pioneers on the Spirit's personality and procession from God, and that doesn't extend to ascertain the Spirit's free will while he is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead.
Sorry again for absentmindedly dragging this discussion round and round.
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47808
01/12/06 10:29 PM
01/12/06 10:29 PM
|
|
|
Has this been posted?
"The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God." "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."--Manuscript 20, 1906. {Ev 617.1}
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47809
01/13/06 02:27 AM
01/13/06 02:27 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I'll try again: quote:
As to my question as to whether there are two or three wills involved in the Godhead, is it your position that this has not been revealed?
If the answer to this is "yes", you don't have to explain, as you have already explained your thoughts well (I just want to make sure I've understood them correctly). If your answer is "no", then please do explain, as I've misunderstood you. The "you" here is just you, a singular "you".
quote:
No, care is only necessary in describing the Spirit as a person - the Father and Son are clearly divine beings and persons, in the ordinary sense.
Here's are definitions of "persons" in the order I came across them:
quote:
A human being
quote:
In colloquial English, person is often synonymous with human.
quote:
In philosophy, there have been debates over the precise meaning and correct usage of the word, and what the criteria for personhood are.
I'll stop here. I think this should be sufficient to establish the point that care *is* necessary when discussing God as a person, whether we are speaking of Father, Son or Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Re: God: The Holy Spirit
#47810
01/16/06 08:08 PM
01/16/06 08:08 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Here's a couple of quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy. I can't remember if these were posted already. The second is especially telling I think. quote:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three holy dignitaries of heaven, have declared that they will strengthen men to overcome the powers of darkness. (5 SDABC 1110)
"Dignitaries" is the interesting word here.
quote:
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. Counsels on Health, 222.
This quote seems to make a couple of points clear. First of all, the SOP is using "Godhead" as a collective noun here, as opposed to using the term to mean "nature." Secondly she uses the pronoun "Themselves." Thirdly, she speaks of how they, including the Holy Spirit, gave themselves to the working of the plan of redemption.
Thus the Holy Spirit has a self which can be given to doing a task. This language is indicative of a being capable of independent thought and action.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
