General Trinis On the Holy Spirit

[benadam1974]

“In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment." (Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit," Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1, 2003, 97-125.)

“Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 49).

“The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362...and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381.” (A Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, 1916, p 829)

"The early Christians commonly thought of it not as an individual being or person, but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the Church.” (McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, 1954, p 271)

"Thus the Old Testament writings about God neither express nor imply any idea of or belief in a plurality or trinity of persons within the one Godhead. Even to see in them suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers." (Fortman, The Triune God, 1999, p 9)

Trinitarian worship “stops short of fully fledged tritheism by making the proviso that the deities are all of the same divine substance, and are thus ultimately one. One is reminded of the song people who need people are the luckiest people in the world... not even God can be a person without other persons.” (Brown, “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu, Vol. 7, 1991, p. 88)

"The conclusion that follows is that in the NT we do not have either texts commanding or texts describing worship of or prayer to the HS." (Erickson, God in Three Person, 1995. p 324)



Comment


Share

 

[William]

Theologically I think I fit neatly into neither the Trinitarian nor Unitarian camp. I don't object to the term Trinity in principle, though I find certain formulations of the doctrine problematic. I also find it hard to believe that God's oneness is a straightforward or narrowly defined mathematical unity precluding a diversity in how God is perceived or reveals Himself. Having said that, I believe that neither the OT nor NT conceive of the Holy Spirit as a divine person distinct from or alongside God. Anyone who would argue for the Trinity on biblical grounds (alone) either doesn't understand what the Trinity describes or what the biblical writers were trying to say about God's self-revelation in Christ.
Whether you think it's legitimate or not—and Unitarians would say it's not—the Trinity is a later doctrinal development that goes beyond the biblical data. Some formulations of the Trinity in fact go against the biblical data. While I'm no expert on the Trinity, I think that if one thinks of the 'persons' of the Trinity as persons, that is, as three psychological subjects, each said to be God/divine, one ends up with three gods. That's obviously tritheism, isn't it?
What I know is that the Trinity isn't a biblical doctrine in the sense that it's developed/fleshed out in the Bible. The full-blown doctrine developed gradually over centuries to become what is enshrined in the creeds. Trinitarian scholars and theologians admit as much, as far as I know.
The difference, I think, between those Trinitarians and most Unitarians is the issue of doctrinal authority. Unitarians are Bible-only people: they believe that if it's not taught in Scripture, or seems to contradict Scripture, it's suspect. Most Trinitarians in the mainline tradition (Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.) take tradition and reason (and experience) in addition to Scripture, not Scripture alone, whatever that entails, as their doctrinal authority. For such Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity, carefully nuanced so as not to contradict monotheism, is a legitimate expression of Christian faith.
In my view, though, the trouble is with evangelicals who subscribe to sola scriptura and who are also, curiously, convinced that the truth of the Trinity can be deduced from Scripture (alone). That is impossible. If you stick to the Bible alone and eschew tradition/metaphysics altogether (leave aside for now whether that's even an appropriate thing to do), I don't see how one can arrive at a doctrine of the Trinity (leave aside also the fact that the very word Trinity is extrabiblical).​

 

[benadam1974]

Theologically I think I fit neatly into neither the Trinitarian nor Unitarian camp. I don't object to the term Trinity in principle, though I find certain formulations of the doctrine problematic. I also find it hard to believe that God's oneness is a straightforward or narrowly defined mathematical unity precluding a diversity in how God is perceived or reveals Himself. Having said that, I believe that neither the OT nor NT conceive of the Holy Spirit as a divine person distinct from or alongside God. Anyone who would argue for the Trinity on biblical grounds (alone) either doesn't understand what the Trinity describes or what the biblical writers were trying to say about God's self-revelation in Christ.
Whether you think it's legitimate or not—and Unitarians would say it's not—the Trinity is a later doctrinal development that goes beyond the biblical data. Some formulations of the Trinity in fact go against the biblical data. While I'm no expert on the Trinity, I think that if one thinks of the 'persons' of the Trinity as persons, that is, as three psychological subjects, each said to be God/divine, one ends up with three gods. That's obviously tritheism, isn't it?
What I know is that the Trinity isn't a biblical doctrine in the sense that it's developed/fleshed out in the Bible. The full-blown doctrine developed gradually over centuries to become what is enshrined in the creeds. Trinitarian scholars and theologians admit as much, as far as I know.
The difference, I think, between those Trinitarians and most Unitarians is the issue of doctrinal authority. Unitarians are Bible-only people: they believe that if it's not taught in Scripture, or seems to contradict Scripture, it's suspect. Most Trinitarians in the mainline tradition (Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.) take tradition and reason (and experience) in addition to Scripture, not Scripture alone, whatever that entails, as their doctrinal authority. For such Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity, carefully nuanced so as not to contradict monotheism, is a legitimate expression of Christian faith.
In my view, though, the trouble is with evangelicals who subscribe to sola scriptura and who are also, curiously, convinced that the truth of the Trinity can be deduced from Scripture (alone). That is impossible. If you stick to the Bible alone and eschew tradition/metaphysics altogether (leave aside for now whether that's even an appropriate thing to do), I don't see how one can arrive at a doctrine of the Trinity (leave aside also the fact that the very word Trinity is extrabiblical).​

The Trinity also subverts the old Protestant call known as the sufficiency of scripture.

 

[LeeB]

If the truth about what death is was known then how would trinitarians explain the death of God ? Jesus is said to be God in the flesh, that demands that the distinct but not separate hypostatic union would be in the flesh; in other words Jesus would have to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be God in the flesh because the three can never be separated . The truth of death is the absolute and complete end of life. Trinitarians teach God is dead since there would be no one to resurrect God from the dead. Without a resurrection there is no salvation for anyone and if God did not really die there is no forgiveness of sin. This is a brilliant plan of Satan, a dual lie that gets you both ways.

 

[benadam1974]

If the truth about what death is was known then how would trinitarians explain the death of God ? Jesus is said to be God in the flesh, that demands that the distinct but not separate hypostatic union would be in the flesh; in other words Jesus would have to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be God in the flesh because the three can never be separated . The truth of death is the absolute and complete end of life. Trinitarians teach God is dead since there would be no one to resurrect God from the dead. Without a resurrection there is no salvation for anyone and if God did not really die there is no forgiveness of sin. This is a brilliant plan of Satan, a dual lie that gets you both ways.

This might help: