Point 4: Who or What is the Holy Spirit?
It seems that my opponent is not at all familiar with Wisdom Christology, which I have actually made reference to in previous posts (see closing of Point 1; closing rebuttal to Point 2 and summary statement). The Wisdom of Proverbs is God’s supernal Wisdom—this is none other than the pre-incarnate Son, thus we don’t have a 4th person of the Trinity, (which is obviously impossible)—this point doesn’t hinder my position at all. Remember, Jesus is said to be the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24)
Next, an appeal was made to the Greek and Hebrew nouns for “Spirit” not meaning “person”—this was NOT my claim. I clearly set forth the criteria for personality and that is: 1. Intelligence, 2. Rationality, 3. Consciousness. I have been consistent throughout with holding to this standard thus to argue based on the semantic domain of the noun is nothing more than straw man in that my original argument was not based on the meaning of the nouns for Spirit. And of course, lexical definitions do not always bring out the full meaning of a word—context and usage do.
I’d point out that angels and demons have personality. They are intelligent, rational, and conscious. Searchingone1033 still hasn’t stated his criteria for determining the personality of the Father. To do so would render his argument invalid because whatever criteria he uses can be used to show the personality of the Spirit—the argument is self-refuting.
Next we’re told that “it doesn’t matter how much the Spirit is personified in the Bible” and in the very next paragraph it is admitted via an analogy of an orange that Spirit is “consistently personified.” Well that’s just it… The Spirit is ALWAYS PERSONIFIED in scripture. We have no examples in scripture where the Holy Spirit is not presented as a Person; therefore it would be foolish to conclude that He was anything other than a Person! This isn’t the case with other personifications.
It was asserted that my methodology is backwards because I compiled evidence showing the personality of the Spirit and not evidence showing the His non-personality. I’m not really sure how my methodology is backwards here. All persons have certain attributes, scripture presents the Holy Spirit as a Person; therefore we see the Holy Spirit with these attributes. My conclusions follow from the premises. And obviously I can’t compile evidence of a negative—I have to first establish what the Holy Spirit IS to know what He ISN’T.
It was said that an attribute is not a person and the Wisdom of God is not God. This is merely question begging in that it assumes what has yet to be proven, namely that God is only one person. It also ignores Wisdom Christology and any relevant Ancient Near Eastern literature on the subject. This also fails to acknowledge that God’s Word is an essential attribute, yet the Word is God (John 1:1). Searchingone1033’s argument doesn’t account for the parallels between God’s Word and Wisdom. I’d love to go off on a tangent and delve more into this topic, but the point of debate is the Holy Spirit, not Wisdom.
Also, some irrelevant conclusions were drawn. It was said that the Grace of God and the Wrath of God are not God and are not persons. True as that may be, it has no bearing on either Wisdom of the Holy Spirit being God or Persons. Grace and Wrath are not seen doing the things that God alone does, nor are they consistently personified as the Spirit is.
It was said that the Holy Spirit is a separate entity and the Bible describes God and the Holy Spirit as separate entities. This is incorrect as has been shown repeatedly. The Bible describes the Father and the Holy Spirit as sharing one name. The Bible describes the Father and the Holy Spirit as sharing the essential attributes of deity. The Bible shows the procession of the Spirit from the Father. They are described as distinct Persons without doubt, but not as separate entities.
An argument was then made that the scriptures are personified in the same way as the Holy Spirit. This is nothing more than a false analogy in that the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS spoken of as a person while the scriptures are not.
Once again, the Spirit’s being poured out in no way detracts from His personality. Whether or not David was figuratively poured out is beside the point—Paul was as well (Philippians 2:17)—and so was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:12. Point being, persons can be poured out.
Acts 5:3-4 has been addressed in previous posts. Searchingone1033’s denial of the passage is obvious.
It appears that the point was completely missed in my reference to “ekeinos” being used in for the Holy Spirit. It had nothing to do with the gender of the Holy Spirit, but rather the fact that this PERSONAL PRONOUN was used to refer to the Holy Spirit. This seems to be the criteria that my opponent used to decide upon the personality of the Father, although we can’t be sure since he has not told us what his standard is.
More charges of illogical syllogistic reasoning surface. I was accused of committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle but up until this point I haven’t presented my position syllogistically although I can do so easily, with the same result:
God alone is Eternal
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Eternal
God alone is Omnipotent
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omnipotent
God alone is Omniscient
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omniscient
God alone is Omnipresent
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent
All Persons are Intelligent
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Intelligent
All Persons are Rational
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Rational
All Persons are Conscious
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Conscious
Each conclusion is justified from the premises. Placing this in syllogistic form hasn’t altered the conclusion in any way.
Another straw man argument came in the form of charging me with rejecting the idea that essential doctrine is to be identified as what the apostles taught explicitly—this is obviously not the case. The apostles explicitly taught the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The conclusion drawn from this is the Trinity. My opponent seems bent on having an exact passage or verse to say something the way he would like it said—this ain’t gonna happen. We have to take scripture as it is and systematically derive doctrine.
Searchingone1033’s statements concerning the creeds this late in the game are laughable. As anyone keeping up with these posts can plainly see, the creeds have been his focus. He has made consistent appeals to the creeds and the language used in the creeds in nearly every post. To say that I’m somehow confused over their relevancy is ridiculous. The point I have been making is that although I do agree with them, they are completely irrelevant because we have the Bible to make the case for the Trinity! Later creeds are not at all necessary no matter how true they are! And for the record, I have backed off of nothing; I took one proposition from the Athanasian Creed in my opening to Point 1 and cited the scriptural support for it. This of course was in response to its being brought up originally by Searchingone1033.
The Bible asserts a functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Not an ontological inequality or Subordinationism. I have demonstrated this in Point 3. The language of the Athanasian Creed clearly is in reference to the equality of substance (i.e. nature/essence) and allows for the doctrine of functional subordination. The lack of understanding on the part of my opponent has no bearing on the language of the creed. And I would note yet another straw man argument. My position is NOT that the Son is subordinate to the Father as a man—my position IS that the Son is subordinate as a Son, which He has been from all eternity, even before the incarnation and the addition of a human nature. The substantial inferiority of the human nature to the divine nature is a given.
And finally, anyone reading the posts can see for themselves the creedal red herrings. This has been Searchingone1033’s theme throughout. From my opponent’s response to my arguments on the Holy Spirit, I am confident that they were too strong to merit any kind of refutation. All the evidence was relegated to saying that the Holy Spirit is merely personified. Not exactly what we would consider compelling stuff. Perhaps if it could be shown that the Holy Spirit was ever spoken of as anything other than a Person, then maybe there could be some consideration of this argument. But since this isn’t the case, we won’t consider it. I wonder how it would be received if I said, since the Father is always spoken of in personal terms, possesses all of the attributes of personality, and acts like a Person, then that must be a personification. Chances are I would be laughed at… Now you know how I feel.
*Note: This is my final post--May the Triune God Yahweh bless each and every reader!*
It seems that my opponent is not at all familiar with Wisdom Christology, which I have actually made reference to in previous posts (see closing of Point 1; closing rebuttal to Point 2 and summary statement). The Wisdom of Proverbs is God’s supernal Wisdom—this is none other than the pre-incarnate Son, thus we don’t have a 4th person of the Trinity, (which is obviously impossible)—this point doesn’t hinder my position at all. Remember, Jesus is said to be the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24)
Next, an appeal was made to the Greek and Hebrew nouns for “Spirit” not meaning “person”—this was NOT my claim. I clearly set forth the criteria for personality and that is: 1. Intelligence, 2. Rationality, 3. Consciousness. I have been consistent throughout with holding to this standard thus to argue based on the semantic domain of the noun is nothing more than straw man in that my original argument was not based on the meaning of the nouns for Spirit. And of course, lexical definitions do not always bring out the full meaning of a word—context and usage do.
I’d point out that angels and demons have personality. They are intelligent, rational, and conscious. Searchingone1033 still hasn’t stated his criteria for determining the personality of the Father. To do so would render his argument invalid because whatever criteria he uses can be used to show the personality of the Spirit—the argument is self-refuting.
Next we’re told that “it doesn’t matter how much the Spirit is personified in the Bible” and in the very next paragraph it is admitted via an analogy of an orange that Spirit is “consistently personified.” Well that’s just it… The Spirit is ALWAYS PERSONIFIED in scripture. We have no examples in scripture where the Holy Spirit is not presented as a Person; therefore it would be foolish to conclude that He was anything other than a Person! This isn’t the case with other personifications.
It was asserted that my methodology is backwards because I compiled evidence showing the personality of the Spirit and not evidence showing the His non-personality. I’m not really sure how my methodology is backwards here. All persons have certain attributes, scripture presents the Holy Spirit as a Person; therefore we see the Holy Spirit with these attributes. My conclusions follow from the premises. And obviously I can’t compile evidence of a negative—I have to first establish what the Holy Spirit IS to know what He ISN’T.
It was said that an attribute is not a person and the Wisdom of God is not God. This is merely question begging in that it assumes what has yet to be proven, namely that God is only one person. It also ignores Wisdom Christology and any relevant Ancient Near Eastern literature on the subject. This also fails to acknowledge that God’s Word is an essential attribute, yet the Word is God (John 1:1). Searchingone1033’s argument doesn’t account for the parallels between God’s Word and Wisdom. I’d love to go off on a tangent and delve more into this topic, but the point of debate is the Holy Spirit, not Wisdom.
Also, some irrelevant conclusions were drawn. It was said that the Grace of God and the Wrath of God are not God and are not persons. True as that may be, it has no bearing on either Wisdom of the Holy Spirit being God or Persons. Grace and Wrath are not seen doing the things that God alone does, nor are they consistently personified as the Spirit is.
It was said that the Holy Spirit is a separate entity and the Bible describes God and the Holy Spirit as separate entities. This is incorrect as has been shown repeatedly. The Bible describes the Father and the Holy Spirit as sharing one name. The Bible describes the Father and the Holy Spirit as sharing the essential attributes of deity. The Bible shows the procession of the Spirit from the Father. They are described as distinct Persons without doubt, but not as separate entities.
An argument was then made that the scriptures are personified in the same way as the Holy Spirit. This is nothing more than a false analogy in that the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS spoken of as a person while the scriptures are not.
Once again, the Spirit’s being poured out in no way detracts from His personality. Whether or not David was figuratively poured out is beside the point—Paul was as well (Philippians 2:17)—and so was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:12. Point being, persons can be poured out.
Acts 5:3-4 has been addressed in previous posts. Searchingone1033’s denial of the passage is obvious.
It appears that the point was completely missed in my reference to “ekeinos” being used in for the Holy Spirit. It had nothing to do with the gender of the Holy Spirit, but rather the fact that this PERSONAL PRONOUN was used to refer to the Holy Spirit. This seems to be the criteria that my opponent used to decide upon the personality of the Father, although we can’t be sure since he has not told us what his standard is.
More charges of illogical syllogistic reasoning surface. I was accused of committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle but up until this point I haven’t presented my position syllogistically although I can do so easily, with the same result:
God alone is Eternal
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Eternal
God alone is Omnipotent
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omnipotent
God alone is Omniscient
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omniscient
God alone is Omnipresent
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent
All Persons are Intelligent
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Intelligent
All Persons are Rational
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Rational
All Persons are Conscious
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Conscious
Each conclusion is justified from the premises. Placing this in syllogistic form hasn’t altered the conclusion in any way.
Another straw man argument came in the form of charging me with rejecting the idea that essential doctrine is to be identified as what the apostles taught explicitly—this is obviously not the case. The apostles explicitly taught the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The conclusion drawn from this is the Trinity. My opponent seems bent on having an exact passage or verse to say something the way he would like it said—this ain’t gonna happen. We have to take scripture as it is and systematically derive doctrine.
Searchingone1033’s statements concerning the creeds this late in the game are laughable. As anyone keeping up with these posts can plainly see, the creeds have been his focus. He has made consistent appeals to the creeds and the language used in the creeds in nearly every post. To say that I’m somehow confused over their relevancy is ridiculous. The point I have been making is that although I do agree with them, they are completely irrelevant because we have the Bible to make the case for the Trinity! Later creeds are not at all necessary no matter how true they are! And for the record, I have backed off of nothing; I took one proposition from the Athanasian Creed in my opening to Point 1 and cited the scriptural support for it. This of course was in response to its being brought up originally by Searchingone1033.
The Bible asserts a functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Not an ontological inequality or Subordinationism. I have demonstrated this in Point 3. The language of the Athanasian Creed clearly is in reference to the equality of substance (i.e. nature/essence) and allows for the doctrine of functional subordination. The lack of understanding on the part of my opponent has no bearing on the language of the creed. And I would note yet another straw man argument. My position is NOT that the Son is subordinate to the Father as a man—my position IS that the Son is subordinate as a Son, which He has been from all eternity, even before the incarnation and the addition of a human nature. The substantial inferiority of the human nature to the divine nature is a given.
And finally, anyone reading the posts can see for themselves the creedal red herrings. This has been Searchingone1033’s theme throughout. From my opponent’s response to my arguments on the Holy Spirit, I am confident that they were too strong to merit any kind of refutation. All the evidence was relegated to saying that the Holy Spirit is merely personified. Not exactly what we would consider compelling stuff. Perhaps if it could be shown that the Holy Spirit was ever spoken of as anything other than a Person, then maybe there could be some consideration of this argument. But since this isn’t the case, we won’t consider it. I wonder how it would be received if I said, since the Father is always spoken of in personal terms, possesses all of the attributes of personality, and acts like a Person, then that must be a personification. Chances are I would be laughed at… Now you know how I feel.
*Note: This is my final post--May the Triune God Yahweh bless each and every reader!*
