Point 4: Who or What is the Holy Spirit?
Readers, the previously unsuspected fourth member of the Trinity is the woman called ‘God the Wisdom’.
Wisdom speaks, cries, utters her voice, and does so in public, where she can be seen (Proverbs 1:20; 2:2; 8:1-3), has daughters, a house, and maidens (Proverbs 9:1-3, Matthew 11:19), proving that wisdom is a person.
Wisdom is omnipresent because she indwells all believers (Exodus 28:3; 31:3; 36:2, Deuteronomy 34:9, 1 Kings 3:28, Job 38:36, Proverbs 2:10, Luke 2:40, Acts 6:3, Ephesians 1:17, Colossians 3:16, James 1:5), wisdom can be sinned against (Proverbs 8:36), and wisdom is omnipotent because she created the heavens and the earth (Psalm 136:5, Proverbs 3:19), all of which proves that wisdom is God.
We all know this isn’t true. Wisdom isn’t a person, and wisdom isn’t God. It doesn’t matter how many passages we find which attribute these qualities to wisdom, the fact remains that wisdom is an attribute, not a person, and certainly not God.
How do we know this? How can we tell, given the huge amount of personification of wisdom which we find in the Bible? It’s easy readers, the simple fact of the matter is that the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘wisdom’ are nouns which mean exactly that – ‘wisdom’. You can look in any lexicon you like, and you will not find that the Greek or Hebrew nouns for ‘wisdom’ mean ‘a person’ (for the meanings of the Greek adjective and noun, go here). It doesn’t mean ‘a person’. It is a noun which means ‘wisdom’.
It’s exactly the same with the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’. It doesn’t matter how much the spirit is personified in the Bible, the fact is that the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the spirit do not mean ‘person’. You can check this for yourself with a reputable lexicon which quotes historical sources (see here for the Greek). You can see for yourself that ‘person’ is not within the semantic domain of the word. It means a lot of things, but ‘person’ is not one of them. It can refer to a spirit being such as an angel, pagan spirit being, or demon (and only these), but does not mean ‘person’ of itself. In the phrases ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘spirit of God’, clearly none of these are being described.
My opponent can present all the passages in which the spirit of God is personified, he can make all the claims he wants about the spirit being called ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ (it isn’t), he cannot assert that the word has a meaning which is not contained within its lexically attested semantic domain. It would be like claiming that the word ‘orange’ really means ‘person’, just because you found a book in which an orange was consistently personified.
My opponent’s methodology is entirely backwards. He has tried to compile evidence that the Holy Spirit is really a person, whilst failing completely to even check for any evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a person, when a simple reading of the lexical meaning of the relevant word would have told him this.
My opponent wants to know how I can tell that the Holy Spirit is not a person, even though it is described in personal terms. My answer is simple:
* The Greek and Hebrew words used for the Holy Spirit never mean ‘person’
* The Holy Spirit is described consistently as an attribute of God (‘the spirit OF God’), and an attribute is of course not a person
* Following on from this, an attribute of a person is not the person themselves – the wisdom OF God is not God, the grace OF God is not God, the wrath OF God is not God, all of these are attributes OF God (not persons and not God), and the same applies to the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit OF God
Since the Holy Spirit itself is an attribute of God (referred to consistently 'the Spirit of God'), and explicitly the agent by which He works (Job 26:13 'by His spirit', Zechariah 4:6 'by My spirit', 1 Corinthians 2:10 'by His spirit', Ephesians 3:16 'by His spirit'), we should expect to see it personified, and we should expect acts which God carries out attributed to the Holy Spirit.
The very fact that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by God proves that the Holy Spirit and God are two separate entities. Note that, the Bible identifies the Holy Spirit as one entity, and God as an entirely separate entity.
The Scriptures are personified in the same way as the Holy Spirit (they are said to speak, indwell, comfort, foresee things, prophesy, teach, instruct, reprove, admonish, build up, exhort, bless, sanctify, and save, etc), and yet we know that they are neither a person, nor are they God, because the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the word ‘Scripture’ simply do not mean ‘person’ or ‘God’.
My opponent made very few other claims to substantiate his position, so I can deal with the remainder briefly:
* Of the counter arguments he anticipated, I would in fact use almost none of them, but I do want to correct something he said. In the example he gave, David speaks of himself as being figuratively poured out, a Hebrew phrase which actually means ‘exhausted’. Nor does he say he is poured out on anyone. But the Holy Spirit is literally poured out, and is literally poured out on people, and visibly so (the dove on Christ, the tongues of fire on the apostles).
* My opponent could find only one verse could be found from which he could claim that the Holy Spirit is called ‘God’, but on inspection we find that the verse in which the phrase ‘Holy Spirit’ occurs does not even contain the word ‘God’.
* The claim was made that use of the masculine Greek word EKEINOS to refer to the Holy Spirit proves that the Holy Spirit is a person, and is male. My opponent appears ignorant of the fact that Greek noun declensions are not necessarily indicative of the things to which they refer. The Greek word for ‘spirit’ used of the Holy Spirit is neuter, and the Hebrew word for ‘spirit’ used of the Holy Spirit is feminine, but my opponent would reject the idea that this proves the Holy Spirit is an ‘it’ or a woman.
My opponent continues to employ the same logical fallacy to which he has appealed throughout this debate, the fallacy of the undistributed middle (definition here).
In this case, he has presented the following arguments:
1: God has qualities X, Y, Z
2: The Holy Spirit has qualities X, Y, Z
3: Therefore the Holy Spirit is God
1: Persons have qualities X, Y, Z
2: The Holy Spirit has qualities X, Y, Z
3: Therefore the Holy Spirit is a person
Not only has my opponent committed this logical fallacy, his entire process of argumentation is flawed. He rejects the idea that essential doctrine is to be identified as what the apostles taught explicitly, claiming that essential doctrine is to be derived by uninspired inferences from a range of verses scattered throughout the Bible (I have never said ‘randomly’, as he falsely claims).
I have asked repeatedly for Biblical evidence which says we should interpret the Scriptures in this way, and have received no answer. I am asking again.
My opponent demonstrates confusion over the relevancy of the creeds to this debate. I shall explain:
* The fact that the earliest creeds not only have no reference to the Trinity but include faith statements which contradict it, is historical evidence that the Trinity was a doctrine absent from the Christian community until a later date
* I have never asked or expected my opponent to make his case from the creeds, but I have asked him repeatedly to defend the creedal definition of the Trinity from Scripture
My opponent initially attempted to relate the Trinitarian creeds to Scripture, but has in the last few posts moved away from this, acknowledging they make statements which the Bible does not make, and presenting a view of God and Christ which contradicts the creeds.
The Bible asserts the total subordination of the son to the Father, the Athanasian creed asserts the total equality of the son with the Father, but my opponent holds a different view to both of these, believing that the son was subordinate to the Father as a man, but equal to the Father as God. Neither the Bible nor the Athanasian creed makes any such distinction.
My opponent has claimed I have 'consistently moved away from what the scriptures say about the Trinity and moved toward what the later Christian creeds stated'. This false charge, for which he provides no evidence whatever, is easily refuted by a reading of my posts. My references to the creeds occupy a mere fraction of my total word count, and all of the arguments I have made for my understanding of God and Christ have been made from Scripture.
Readers, the previously unsuspected fourth member of the Trinity is the woman called ‘God the Wisdom’.
Wisdom speaks, cries, utters her voice, and does so in public, where she can be seen (Proverbs 1:20; 2:2; 8:1-3), has daughters, a house, and maidens (Proverbs 9:1-3, Matthew 11:19), proving that wisdom is a person.
Wisdom is omnipresent because she indwells all believers (Exodus 28:3; 31:3; 36:2, Deuteronomy 34:9, 1 Kings 3:28, Job 38:36, Proverbs 2:10, Luke 2:40, Acts 6:3, Ephesians 1:17, Colossians 3:16, James 1:5), wisdom can be sinned against (Proverbs 8:36), and wisdom is omnipotent because she created the heavens and the earth (Psalm 136:5, Proverbs 3:19), all of which proves that wisdom is God.
We all know this isn’t true. Wisdom isn’t a person, and wisdom isn’t God. It doesn’t matter how many passages we find which attribute these qualities to wisdom, the fact remains that wisdom is an attribute, not a person, and certainly not God.
How do we know this? How can we tell, given the huge amount of personification of wisdom which we find in the Bible? It’s easy readers, the simple fact of the matter is that the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘wisdom’ are nouns which mean exactly that – ‘wisdom’. You can look in any lexicon you like, and you will not find that the Greek or Hebrew nouns for ‘wisdom’ mean ‘a person’ (for the meanings of the Greek adjective and noun, go here). It doesn’t mean ‘a person’. It is a noun which means ‘wisdom’.
It’s exactly the same with the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’. It doesn’t matter how much the spirit is personified in the Bible, the fact is that the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the spirit do not mean ‘person’. You can check this for yourself with a reputable lexicon which quotes historical sources (see here for the Greek). You can see for yourself that ‘person’ is not within the semantic domain of the word. It means a lot of things, but ‘person’ is not one of them. It can refer to a spirit being such as an angel, pagan spirit being, or demon (and only these), but does not mean ‘person’ of itself. In the phrases ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘spirit of God’, clearly none of these are being described.
My opponent can present all the passages in which the spirit of God is personified, he can make all the claims he wants about the spirit being called ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ (it isn’t), he cannot assert that the word has a meaning which is not contained within its lexically attested semantic domain. It would be like claiming that the word ‘orange’ really means ‘person’, just because you found a book in which an orange was consistently personified.
My opponent’s methodology is entirely backwards. He has tried to compile evidence that the Holy Spirit is really a person, whilst failing completely to even check for any evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a person, when a simple reading of the lexical meaning of the relevant word would have told him this.
My opponent wants to know how I can tell that the Holy Spirit is not a person, even though it is described in personal terms. My answer is simple:
* The Greek and Hebrew words used for the Holy Spirit never mean ‘person’
* The Holy Spirit is described consistently as an attribute of God (‘the spirit OF God’), and an attribute is of course not a person
* Following on from this, an attribute of a person is not the person themselves – the wisdom OF God is not God, the grace OF God is not God, the wrath OF God is not God, all of these are attributes OF God (not persons and not God), and the same applies to the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit OF God
Since the Holy Spirit itself is an attribute of God (referred to consistently 'the Spirit of God'), and explicitly the agent by which He works (Job 26:13 'by His spirit', Zechariah 4:6 'by My spirit', 1 Corinthians 2:10 'by His spirit', Ephesians 3:16 'by His spirit'), we should expect to see it personified, and we should expect acts which God carries out attributed to the Holy Spirit.
The very fact that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by God proves that the Holy Spirit and God are two separate entities. Note that, the Bible identifies the Holy Spirit as one entity, and God as an entirely separate entity.
The Scriptures are personified in the same way as the Holy Spirit (they are said to speak, indwell, comfort, foresee things, prophesy, teach, instruct, reprove, admonish, build up, exhort, bless, sanctify, and save, etc), and yet we know that they are neither a person, nor are they God, because the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the word ‘Scripture’ simply do not mean ‘person’ or ‘God’.
My opponent made very few other claims to substantiate his position, so I can deal with the remainder briefly:
* Of the counter arguments he anticipated, I would in fact use almost none of them, but I do want to correct something he said. In the example he gave, David speaks of himself as being figuratively poured out, a Hebrew phrase which actually means ‘exhausted’. Nor does he say he is poured out on anyone. But the Holy Spirit is literally poured out, and is literally poured out on people, and visibly so (the dove on Christ, the tongues of fire on the apostles).
* My opponent could find only one verse could be found from which he could claim that the Holy Spirit is called ‘God’, but on inspection we find that the verse in which the phrase ‘Holy Spirit’ occurs does not even contain the word ‘God’.
* The claim was made that use of the masculine Greek word EKEINOS to refer to the Holy Spirit proves that the Holy Spirit is a person, and is male. My opponent appears ignorant of the fact that Greek noun declensions are not necessarily indicative of the things to which they refer. The Greek word for ‘spirit’ used of the Holy Spirit is neuter, and the Hebrew word for ‘spirit’ used of the Holy Spirit is feminine, but my opponent would reject the idea that this proves the Holy Spirit is an ‘it’ or a woman.
My opponent continues to employ the same logical fallacy to which he has appealed throughout this debate, the fallacy of the undistributed middle (definition here).
In this case, he has presented the following arguments:
1: God has qualities X, Y, Z
2: The Holy Spirit has qualities X, Y, Z
3: Therefore the Holy Spirit is God
1: Persons have qualities X, Y, Z
2: The Holy Spirit has qualities X, Y, Z
3: Therefore the Holy Spirit is a person
Not only has my opponent committed this logical fallacy, his entire process of argumentation is flawed. He rejects the idea that essential doctrine is to be identified as what the apostles taught explicitly, claiming that essential doctrine is to be derived by uninspired inferences from a range of verses scattered throughout the Bible (I have never said ‘randomly’, as he falsely claims).
I have asked repeatedly for Biblical evidence which says we should interpret the Scriptures in this way, and have received no answer. I am asking again.
My opponent demonstrates confusion over the relevancy of the creeds to this debate. I shall explain:
* The fact that the earliest creeds not only have no reference to the Trinity but include faith statements which contradict it, is historical evidence that the Trinity was a doctrine absent from the Christian community until a later date
* I have never asked or expected my opponent to make his case from the creeds, but I have asked him repeatedly to defend the creedal definition of the Trinity from Scripture
My opponent initially attempted to relate the Trinitarian creeds to Scripture, but has in the last few posts moved away from this, acknowledging they make statements which the Bible does not make, and presenting a view of God and Christ which contradicts the creeds.
The Bible asserts the total subordination of the son to the Father, the Athanasian creed asserts the total equality of the son with the Father, but my opponent holds a different view to both of these, believing that the son was subordinate to the Father as a man, but equal to the Father as God. Neither the Bible nor the Athanasian creed makes any such distinction.
My opponent has claimed I have 'consistently moved away from what the scriptures say about the Trinity and moved toward what the later Christian creeds stated'. This false charge, for which he provides no evidence whatever, is easily refuted by a reading of my posts. My references to the creeds occupy a mere fraction of my total word count, and all of the arguments I have made for my understanding of God and Christ have been made from Scripture.
