Posted on 07/02/2014 5:05:48 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
The religious right remains one of the most potent forces in American politics, but Northeasterners could be forgiven for forgetting. Evangelical Christians and Mormons, the two religious groups who most consistently espouse conservative political and cultural views, are basically absent in the Northeastern corridor.
The map shows the number of regular Evangelical Christian or Mormon congregation members, as reported by religious bodies. The data, therefore, does not include every Mormon or Evangelical Christian in the country. Black Protestant denominations are a separate category from other Evangelical Protestant denominations in this data set, and are not represented on this map.
The map does not neatly represent the religious right, either. There are many religious and cultural conservatives who do not regularly attend church, perhaps especially in West Virginia, where reported attendance is unusually low.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm not sure where you got that from my post. I wrote:
I can understand how they would come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divinity, coequal and coeternal with God and Christ but I can also understand from scripture how a person might decide the Holy Spirit is more likely to be a force, or God's presence.
You are arguing that the Holy Spirit is a "force." Do you actually believe that or are you just putting it out then as a hypothetical? "I believe the Holy Spirit is God, but I can see why it is ambiguous"? Can you be more clear then?
Divine titles or names.
Good. What other evidence/proof supports and or demonstrates the Spirit is God and not an impersonal force. Dig deep.
What in my posts causes you to arrive at such conclusion?
Do you actually believe that or are you just putting it out then as a hypothetical? "I believe the Holy Spirit is God, but I can see why it is ambiguous"? Can you be more clear then?
Show me in scripture where the apostles had a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit and it's relationship to Christ and God. There are none. Had it been important to God that we clearly understand his precise nature, the New Testament writers would have been crystal clear. Therefore, I conclude that whether a person believes in the Trinity, or not is not important to God so long as what a person believes concerning God, Christ and the Holy Spirit does not contradict other scripture.
As for what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit, very little is recorded about his teachings concerning the Holy Spirit. From the few verses generally regarded as genuine, Jesus describes the Spirit more as a distinct being than impersonal force. The question then becomes is the Holy Spirit a class of spirit beings like angels and cerubim, or is it divine? Scripture is not clear. The strongest indications of divinity are: 2 Cor 3:17-18, Phil 3:3 and John 16:8-11, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2 Cor 13:14.
The triune formula used in Matt 28:19 may not have been spoken by Jesus but it's insertion by the writer shows that it was in use in the 1st century. Of the apostles, Paul and the author of Hebrews appear to have some concept of the three-fold Trinity but Paul only writes of it in two-fold terms. John seems to have the clearest grasp of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit; John 1:33-34, John 14:16, John 14:26, John 20:21-22, John 16:15, 1 John 4:2 and 1 John 4:13-14.
I'm tiring of you posting to me without offering any scriptural evidence to support what you believe. What scriptures make the Trinity doctrine so crystal clear to you?
I will just say we Christ being called the "arm" of the Lord just as the Spirit is called the "breath," yet having personhood also manifest.
We see not the Spirit recording Him being prayed or worshipped, as He inspires it.
As regards personhood, i will just paste a portion from another site:
Summary: Scripture describes the Holy Spirit as having personal characteristics: The Spirit has mind and will, speaks and can be spoken to, and acts and intercedes for us. All these indicate personality in the theological sense: The Holy Spirit is a Person or Hypostasis in the same sense that the Father and Son are. Our relationship with God, which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, is a personal relationship.
A. Life and intelligence
1. Life: The Holy Spirit “lives” (Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 3:16).
2. Intelligence: The Spirit “knows” (1 Corinthians 2:11). Romans 8:27 refers to “the mind of the Spirit.” This mind is able to make judgments — a decision “seemed good” to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). These verses imply a distinct intelligence.
3. Will: 1 Corinthians 12:11 says that the Spirit “determines” decisions, showing that the Spirit has a will. The Greek word means “he or it determines.” Although the Greek word does not specify the subject of the verb, the most likely subject in the context is the Spirit. To find a different subject, one would have to backtrack through five verses and six mentions of the Spirit. But this grammatical leapfrogging is not necessary. Since we know from other verses that the Spirit has mind and knowledge and judgment, there is no reason to reject the conclusion in 1 Corinthians 12:11 that the Spirit also has will.
B. Communication
1. Speaking: Numerous verses say that the Holy Spirit spoke (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 21:11; 1 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 3:7; etc.). Oden observes that “the Spirit speaks in the first person as ‘I’; ‘It was I who sent them’ (Acts 10:20)…. ‘I have called them’ (Acts 13:2). None but a person can say ‘I’” (The Living God, p. 200).
2. Interaction: The Spirit may be lied to (Acts 5:3), which indicates that the Spirit may be spoken to. The Spirit may be tested (Acts 5:9), insulted (Hebrews 10:29) or blasphemed (Matthew 12:31), which implies personal status. Oden gathers additional evidence: “The apostolic testimony applied intensely personal analogies: guiding (Romans 8:14), convicting (John 16:8), interceding (Romans 8:26), calling (Acts 13:2), commissioning (Acts 20:28)…. Only a person can be vexed (Isaiah 63:10) or grieved (Ephesians 4:30)” (Life in the Spirit, p. 19).
3. Paraclete: Jesus called the Holy Spirit the parakletos — the Comforter, Advocate or Counselor. The Paraclete is active, teaching (John 14:26), testifying (15:26), convicting (16:8), guiding (16:13) and making truth known (16:14).
Jesus used the masculine form of parakletos; he did not consider it necessary to make the word neuter or to use neuter pronouns. In John 16:14, masculine pronouns are used even after the neuter pneuma is mentioned. It would have been easy to switch to neuter pronouns, but John did not. In other places, neuter pronouns are used for the Spirit, in accordance with grammatical convention. Scripture is not finicky about the grammatical gender of the Spirit, and we need not be either. We use personal pronouns for the Spirit to acknowledge that he is personal, not to imply that he is male.
all for now
“I’m tiring of you posting to me without offering any scriptural evidence to support what you believe. What scriptures make the Trinity doctrine so crystal clear to you?”
You misunderstand my intent. I am not going to give you the answers.
I’m doing you a much larger service of helping guide you into thinking through the right questions, so you can search for the correct answers.
Now what other proofs can support and demonstrate the Holy Spirit is God? Dig deeper.
The strongest indications of divinity are: 2 Cor 3:17-18, Phil 3:3 and John 16:8-11, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2 Cor 13:14.
“The strongest indications of divinity are: 2 Cor 3:17-18, Phil 3:3 and John 16:8-11, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2 Cor 13:14.”
Agreed. They are powerful verses that support the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
What things have to be true of the Holy Spirit for Him to be God?
Are you referring to the verses I quoted? What verses have been provided which you claim are not regarded as genuine?
The question then becomes is the Holy Spirit a class of spirit beings like angels and cerubim, or is it divine?
It appears you are indeed an anti-Trinitarian, but a weird one. I am not sure which cult this "angel" language belongs to. I will have to think on it. In the meantime, is there a problem with the verse that identifies the Holy Spirit as God?
Show me in scripture where the apostles had a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit and it's relationship to Christ and God.
Is there a reason why you ignored my first response to you and are now asking me to start a post from scratch? Why not respond to my original post and then go from there?
Please don't waste my time. You went from defending Mormonism to the Trinity, and now you are even ignoring what I write on that. I will not repeat myself over and over again.
No. I was referring to the few verses attributed by gospel writers to Christ that are generally regarded by scholars as being quotes of Christ.
What verses have been provided which you claim are not regarded as genuine?
As I just mentioned, I was referring to the few verses where Christ discusses the Holy Spirit.
I wrote:
The question then becomes is the Holy Spirit a class of spirit beings like angels and cerubim, or is it divine?
You replied:
It appears you are indeed an anti-Trinitarian, but a weird one. I am not sure which cult this "angel" language belongs to. I will have to think on it.
????
In the meantime, is there a problem with the verse that identifies the Holy Spirit as God?
I have to apologize because in the flood of posts and meeting family demands, I missed responding to that one. I will respond to it directly but probably tomorrow morning since I'm about to call it a day.
I wrote:
Show me in scripture where the apostles had a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit and it's relationship to Christ and God.
You wrote:
Is there a reason why you ignored my first response to you and are now asking me to start a post from scratch?
Sorry but as I just mentioned, that post and several others got lost in the flood of posts today.
Why not respond to my original post and then go from there?
I will do that but probably Saturday morning.
Please don't waste my time. You went from defending Mormonism to the Trinity, and now you are even ignoring what I write on that. I will not repeat myself over and over again.
Sorry about not responding fully to that post. I may have responded in part but not fully. I will fully respond tomorrow.
Keep in mind that you started off this debate by saying that Mormons are rightfully Christians, just not "mainstream" ones, on top of attacking the Trinity. Now it seems you also share the Mormon view of scripture, maybe even worse, in suggesting that not all of the scripture is genuine, and this while suggesting that a majority of "scholars" support you. Hate to break it to you, but we have about 2,000 years of theologians, Christian leaders, scholars, and biblical texts backing us.
Why is it that non-Christians are always so keen on telling us what the Bible really means, and who is and isn't a Christian?
Please cite the verse that you believe makes it clear that one verse is what makes a doctrine to be a clear and present reality in the scripture.
Do you deny John 3:16?
No, yet this example refutes your premise, as this one verse by itself does not teach who and what this Son is, and what "believing" in Him means, and by itself would support demons being saved because they believe Christ is the Son of God.
But contrary your single text hermenutic, i see Jn. 1:1 teaches the Word (Christ: v. 14) is God, and Divine attributes and worship being ascribed to Him, (Heb. 1 etc.) and "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," (Matthew 28:19) and "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all," (2 Corinthians 13:14) as teaching a Divine unity of persons, and defining the one God who said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness," (Gn. 1:26).
So just as more than one verse is necessary to understand what Jn. 3:16 teaches, so more than one is what makes a doctrine to be a clear and present reality in the scripture.
For even an explicit text by itself does not necessarily establish a doctrine, as the totality of Scripture needs to be examined, and covenantal distinctions examined. This is why theology is necessary. Is lying always wrong? Was/is polygamy wrong? Would you support cannibalism as a normal consensual practice (you die first, we have you for dinner...).
I believe doctrine should be based on a body of scripture but where is the body of scripture establishing the Holy Spirit as a distinct divinity like God the Father and Christ?
That is easy, for as with the Deity of Christ, it is impossible that He be not Divine ) leaving one alternative, that He does not have personhood.
But first, what we do not find of course is texts showing worshiping the Holy Spirit and praying to Him, since the Spirit is the one who inspires both, but He points to the Head and the One whom He inspired in expressing the Head.
Yet He reveals His unity with the Father and the Son in such texts as Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14, and by worshiping the Father and the Son then one is worshiping the Spirit.
Moreover, perhaps no where is His deity and personhood more revealed than in the teaching that,
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)
Here reverence of the Spirit is supremely required, and even in distinction from the Father and the Son.
Further as regards Deity, the aforementioned texts as Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 uniquely teach a unity of 3 persons, as constituting the "Lord," ("Now the Lord is that Spirit" (2Cor. 3:16).
In addition, in no place is any creative activity ascribed to any created being, yet,
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. (Job 33:4)
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalms 33:6)
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. (Psalms 104:30)
Note that the word for "Spirit" is also that for "breath," and thus it can be argued that such terms as this ("oil" etc.) only refer to an instrument of God, yet the Son of God is also called by such, being the "arm" (Is. 53:1) by whom God made the worlds, (Heb. 1:2) and "lamb" (Jn. 1:29) etc. of God. But we understand the Son to be a Divine person as personhood is also clearly ascribed to Him.
And concerning both "arm" and "breath," we see in the OT in the context of "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" (Isaiah 40:18):
Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. (Isaiah 40:10-11)
Thus the "arm" of the Lord is the part of God, and one who shall feed his flock like a shepherd, (Jn. 10), and next,
Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? (Isaiah 40:13-14)
Here the "breath" is understood as the Spirit as part of God, and we read in the NT:
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things 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. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10-12)
It is hardly tenable to hold that the "breath" of God does this.
More can be shown as regards Divine attributes, but in addition are texts which speak of the Holy Spirit as being a person.
As seen above, rather than just being an instrumental appendage of God who cannot make decisions, the Spirit "searches" all things.
Also,
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. (1 Corinthians 12:11)
While like the Son, the Spirit always does the will of the Father, yet both have a will they exercise in doing so.
And as i am very exhausted, let me post from a web site for more:
Numerous verses say that the Holy Spirit spoke (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 21:11; 1 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 3:7; etc.). Oden observes that “the Spirit speaks in the first person as ‘I’; ‘It was I who sent them’ (Acts 10:20)…. ‘I have called them’ (Acts 13:2). None but a person can say ‘I’” (The Living God, p. 200).
2. Interaction: The Spirit may be lied to (Acts 5:3), which indicates that the Spirit may be spoken to. The Spirit may be tested (Acts 5:9), insulted (Hebrews 10:29) or blasphemed (Matthew 12:31), which implies personal status. Oden gathers additional evidence: “The apostolic testimony applied intensely personal analogies: guiding (Romans 8:14), convicting (John 16:8), interceding (Romans 8:26), calling (Acts 13:2), commissioning (Acts 20:28)…. Only a person can be vexed (Isaiah 63:10) or grieved (Ephesians 4:30)” (Life in the Spirit, p. 19).
3. Paraclete: Jesus called the Holy Spirit the parakletos — the Comforter, Advocate or Counselor. The Paraclete is active, teaching (John 14:26), testifying (15:26), convicting (16:8), guiding (16:13) and making truth known (16:14).
Jesus used the masculine form of parakletos; he did not consider it necessary to make the word neuter or to use neuter pronouns. In John 16:14, masculine pronouns are used even after the neuter pneuma is mentioned. It would have been easy to switch to neuter pronouns, but John did not. In other places, neuter pronouns are used for the Spirit, in accordance with grammatical convention. Scripture is not finicky about the grammatical gender of the Spirit, and we need not be either. We use personal pronouns for the Spirit to acknowledge that he is personal, not to imply that he is male. -http://www.gci.org/God/deityHS
That's all for now.
??
I'm getting tired of your assertions without any verse being posted!
There you go again!
Ignore my last 3 posts; as I see that LOT’s of Scripture has now appeared in this thread.
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. (Psalms 91:4)
Thus the issue is whether the Holy Spirit is referred to as having personhood, which i see as shown.
Actually, the "focus of the topic at hand" was indeed your defense of Mormonism as a Christian religion. You are just changing the goal posts. Your statements on the Trinity was only part of your reasoning to support your primary claim.
Rather than divining things from my posts that I either did not write, or were misunderstood, why not take me at my word when I say the Trinity and the Trinity as a condition of salvation has been the focus of my posts?
However, I predicted that you would avoid the topic of Mormonism since, if you defended it, you would be forced to either deny or don't mention what they teach and focus on bland moralism, explain how polytheism is scriptural or at least not a big deal for us monotheists, or at least launch an argument in favor of "doctrines not being a big deal," and thus coming out as a relativist. All these approaches are unattractive, so the only other alternative is to go on the offensive. But this also is in vain.
You are coming across as a false prophet because the most I ever read about Mormonism, or at least the most I have read in a very long time was a single page scan posted in this thread by Elsie. I can’t defend something I know nothing about.
Since we know the scripture "cannot be broken," as Christ puts it, meaning that it cannot be contradicted, we know that each verse must be believed.
1) Christianity is monotheistic, using the verse I already showed.
I agree.
2) Christ is God:
John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
This chapter also identifies the Word as Christ. Note that Christ is both with God and is God. He is thus distinct with God, being with Him, yet, at the same time, He is the same God.
I agree but, John 1:1-2 only establishes a Binitarian relationship between Christ (the Word) and God..
3) The Holy Spirit is God: Act 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
You are making an unsupported leap. Acts 5:3-4 describes the Holy Spirit in terms more like that of a personal being rather than impersonal force/presence used in other New Testament scriptures such as Act 2:17-18, Act 10:45, Rm 5:5. However, Acts 5:3-4 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Between your point #2 and point #3, all that you have established is that Christ and God are separate yet the same diety (Binitarian).
Acts 5:3-4 does not establish the Holy Spirit as a divinity rather than a created being serving as God’s agent.
4) The Father is God, and is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mar 1:10-11 )
Here the Father speaks in heaven, while the Holy Spirit hovers above the Son.
This is further support for the Holy Spirit as a distinct being rather than impersonal force/presence. It does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Here they are addressed separately.
The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Here we are baptized in their name, showing their equality with one another in the divine institution of baptism.
That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD? Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel. Mark 16:15-18 bears closest resemblance but does not mention the threefold name. Secondly, If Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why isn’t there a record of any Apostolic Fathers, or New Testament writer baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.
So let's add it together 1 + 2 + 3 + 4: Since there is only one God, yet the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, then these three must be of one substance in the Godhead, or, in other words, the Trinity. Not conflating the persons as different "modes", like an actor going from role to role, nor dividing them, as the Mormons do, into three seperate gods.
On #1 and #2, I fully agree. However, I already explained my disagreement with #3. In #4, your strongest verse for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is Matt 28:19 but as I just pointed out, controversy exists as to whether those were the exact words of Jesus or a paraphrase that reflected baptismal practices of the late 1st century church? If you can explain why Matt 28:19 is an exact quote of Jesus and why no other New Testament record exists of baptism in the threefold name, I’d really appreciate it.
The scripture condemns polytheism:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
I agree that Ex 20:3 condemns polytheism but up until this point, you have only established the diety and co-equality of God and Jesus. (Binitarianism)
You state based on #3 that the Holy Spirit is a personal being as opposed to an impersonal presence/force. However, you have not established the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Where is your scripture clearly stating the Holy Spirit is God, that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to?
Even if Matt 28:19 contains the exact words spoken by Jesus, a person could understand their relationship as being analogous to officers of a corporation. John 1:1-2 would establish that the Father and Son are one in the same while to satisfy Ex 20:3, the Holy Spirit might be the most powerful of the created beings but not divine and we still haven’t been able to move from Binitarianism to Trinitarianism.
Actually, the "focus of the topic at hand" was indeed your defense of Mormonism as a Christian religion. You are just changing the goal posts. Your statements on the Trinity was only part of your reasoning to support your primary claim.
Rather than divining things from my posts that I either did not write, or were misunderstood, why not take me at my word when I say the Trinity and the Trinity as a condition of salvation has been the focus of my posts?
However, I predicted that you would avoid the topic of Mormonism since, if you defended it, you would be forced to either deny or don't mention what they teach and focus on bland moralism, explain how polytheism is scriptural or at least not a big deal for us monotheists, or at least launch an argument in favor of "doctrines not being a big deal," and thus coming out as a relativist. All these approaches are unattractive, so the only other alternative is to go on the offensive. But this also is in vain.
You are coming across as a false prophet because the most I ever read about Mormonism, or at least the most I have read in a very long time was a single page scan posted in this thread by Elsie. I can’t defend something I know nothing about.
Since we know the scripture "cannot be broken," as Christ puts it, meaning that it cannot be contradicted, we know that each verse must be believed.
1) Christianity is monotheistic, using the verse I already showed.
I agree.
2) Christ is God:
John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
This chapter also identifies the Word as Christ. Note that Christ is both with God and is God. He is thus distinct with God, being with Him, yet, at the same time, He is the same God.
I agree but, John 1:1-2 only establishes a Binitarian relationship between Christ (the Word) and God..
3) The Holy Spirit is God: Act 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
You are making an unsupported leap. Acts 5:3-4 describes the Holy Spirit in terms more like that of a personal being rather than impersonal force/presence used in other New Testament scriptures such as Act 2:17-18, Act 10:45, Rm 5:5. However, Acts 5:3-4 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Between your point #2 and point #3, all that you have established is that Christ and God are separate yet the same diety (Binitarian).
Acts 5:3-4 does not establish the Holy Spirit as a divinity rather than a created being serving as God’s agent.
4) The Father is God, and is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mar 1:10-11 )
Here the Father speaks in heaven, while the Holy Spirit hovers above the Son.
This is further support for the Holy Spirit as a distinct being rather than impersonal force/presence. It does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Here they are addressed separately.
The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Here we are baptized in their name, showing their equality with one another in the divine institution of baptism.
That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD? Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel. Mark 16:15-18 bears closest resemblance but does not mention the threefold name. Secondly, If Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why isn’t there a record of any Apostolic Fathers, or New Testament writer baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.
So let's add it together 1 + 2 + 3 + 4: Since there is only one God, yet the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, then these three must be of one substance in the Godhead, or, in other words, the Trinity. Not conflating the persons as different "modes", like an actor going from role to role, nor dividing them, as the Mormons do, into three seperate gods.
On #1 and #2, I fully agree. However, I already explained my disagreement with #3. In #4, your strongest verse for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is Matt 28:19 but as I just pointed out, controversy exists as to whether those were the exact words of Jesus or a paraphrase that reflected baptismal practices of the late 1st century church? If you can explain why Matt 28:19 is an exact quote of Jesus and why no other New Testament record exists of baptism in the threefold name, I’d really appreciate it.
The scripture condemns polytheism:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
I agree that Ex 20:3 condemns polytheism but up until this point, you have only established the diety and co-equality of God and Jesus. (Binitarianism)
You state based on #3 that the Holy Spirit is a personal being as opposed to an impersonal presence/force. However, you have not established the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Where is your scripture clearly stating the Holy Spirit is God, that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to?
Even if Matt 28:19 contains the exact words spoken by Jesus, a person could understand their relationship as being analogous to officers of a corporation. John 1:1-2 would establish that the Father and Son are one in the same while to satisfy Ex 20:3, the Holy Spirit might be the most powerful of the created beings but not divine and we still haven’t been able to move from Binitarianism to Trinitarianism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.