The nature of the Holy Spirit

[LifeHiscost]

17 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

BAPTIZING THEM  - IN THE NAME  

    Acts 4:12  “by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.  This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.  Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

I find your reasoning altogether plausible as the Holy Spirit is the One member of the Trinity always fully willing to take a back seat to give recognition to the sovereignty of the Father's

will. An attribute more of Jesus' disciples would do well to emulate.

10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. 2 Corinthian 12

8 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.....Romans 28

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

 

[LifeHiscost]

23 hours ago, APL said:

 

John 5:19 KJV Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done....Matthew 26

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

1)  A statement that no Greek MSS, older than the time of Constantine, exist, that contain Matthews 28:19, is a simplified statement the contains both truth and error.  While we may not have such MSS, we do have other writers,  that wrote prior to Constantine, that quote Matthew 28;19.  So, we do have evidence of such, even if we lack that actual MSS.  However, these writers contain a shortened form of Matthew 28:19.  IOW, they do not generally contain "baptize in the name of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.  Rather in some manner they simply say to baptize in the name of God/Christ.

2) To say: "The page containing Matthew 28:19 was torn from every pre-Constantine Greek manuscript."  is an emotionally loaded statement that is speculative and cannot be documented. MSS are often fragments and not complete copies.  That is a reality.  But, the language used to describe it in that  manner, is simply pure speculation.

3)  There is some truth is what Rachel wanted to say, that must be acknowledged.  But, in my opinion, she has simplified it in a manner that can lead to misunderstanding of the actual facts.

 

 

I will work on my simplification Gregory. 

White I see the disciples DOING after this command, is baptizing IN THE NAME OF JESUS the CHRIST.    Why would they do that?  Did they not hear the command?  Did they get it wrong? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Good.  I respect you, Rachel.

 

I will work on my simplification Gregory. 

[8thdaypriest]

7 hours ago, jackson said:

In an earlier post you said, Mrs White used "it" - in reference to the Holy Spirit for 50 years.  The publishers went through and changed all the "it"s to "He"s after her death.  So when you are quoting her, we really cannot know whether this was one of those altered quotations

 Rachel, this is gross exaggeration on your part  and quite deceptive.

 The only book you referenced was “Ye Shall Receive Power (YRP). I went back and looked at the examples you gave and found that the book was faithful in the main to the use of “it” rather than “him”, but in a few places “him” was substituted  for “it’. And in one place  the word “ spirit” was substituted for it. 

 Here are a few examples, so that all can see the falseness of your claim.

 The Holy Spirit is the breath of spiritual life in the soul. The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ. [The Spirit] imbues the receiver with the attributes of Christ.-- {YRP 298.5  1956}

  The Holy Spirit is the breath of spiritual life in the soul. The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ. It imbues the receiver with the attributes of Christ. …..  {RH, November 19, 1908 par. 10}

As can be seen the YRP quote changes ‘it’ to ‘spirit’, but both quotes also use ’spirit’ in other part of same sentence. This is hardly a change in meaning. Also, this one word change is only found in YRP and not found in any other compilation written after Mrs White’s death

Only in YRP        {ChS 254.4} 1925 No change           {FLB 57.2} 1958 no change          {ML 46.4} 1952 no change

The following example shows a one time change from ‘it’ to ‘him’, but in other places in the same quote .'it' is not changed.

 And because the Spirit is to come, not to praise men or to build up their erroneous theories, but to reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, many turn away from Him. . . . The Holy Spirit flatters no man, neither does it work according to the devising of any man.          Finite, sinful men are not to work the Holy Spirit. When it shall come as a reprover, through any human agent whom God shall choose, it is man's place to hear and obey its voice.--The . {YRP 321.4-5}

 And because the Spirit is to come, not to praise men or to build up their erroneous theories, but to reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, many turn away from it. ….. The Holy Spirit flatters no man, neither does it work according to the devising of any man. Finite, sinful men are not to work the Holy Spirit. When it shall come as a reprover, through any human agent whom God shall choose, it is man's place to hear and obey its voice.  {1888 1540.1}

 The charge that “The publishers went through and changed all the "it"s to "He"s after her death.” is completely false.

OK Jackson,

The publishers of YSRP changed the word "it" to "He" in many of the quotations. 

How's that? 

Jackson,  I'm just not going to spend my time going through the disc of Ellen White's writings looking for these changes.  I know it was done.  Exactly how many times it was done - I don't know.  I suspect it was done with those quotations which were used in more recent publications, or in publications published during times of controversy in the church over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 

What I suggest for those interested, is that they look up the earliest use of the quotation in a published collection.  That is how I came across the ones I found. 

The point - for me - is Ellen White sometimes used He and sometimes used "it" in reference to the Holy Spirit.  That says - to me - that she was not completely settled on the nature of the Holy Spirit, herself. 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

1)  A statement that no Greek MSS, older than the time of Constantine, exist, that contain Matthews 28:19, is a simplified statement the contains both truth and error.  While we may not have such MSS, we do have other writers,  that wrote prior to Constantine, that quote Matthew 28;19.  So, we do have evidence of such, even if we lack that actual MSS.  However, these writers contain a shortened form of Matthew 28:19.  IOW, they do not generally contain "baptize in the name of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.  Rather in some manner they simply say to baptize in the name of God/Christ.

2) To say: "The page containing Matthew 28:19 was torn from every pre-Constantine Greek manuscript."  is an emotionally loaded statement that is speculative and cannot be documented. MSS are often fragments and not complete copies.  That is a reality.  But, the language used to describe it in that  manner, is simply pure speculation.

3)  There is some truth is what Rachel wanted to say, that must be acknowledged.  But, in my opinion, she has simplified it in a manner that can lead to misunderstanding of the actual facts.

 

 

It was the custom, in the time of the 2nd Temple, to baptize "in the name of" one's teacher - the one who brought the one to be baptized, the one who had taught the one to be baptized.  This was the custom for proselytes, who were becoming Jews.  Proselytes were taught for 2 years, then submitted to physical circumcision, then baptism. 

This is the cultural custom behind the command of Christ concerning baptism.  To baptize in Jesus name, was proclaiming that Jesus brought the person to Yahweh.

Jesus was telling the disciples to baptize in His name, rather than in one of their own (even if they had been the teachers).  This is why Paul told them not to say things like, "I am of Apolos or I am of Paul".   

If we understand the cultural context, the command makes more sense.   

[8thdaypriest]

I'm in agreement with Joe.  I don't see anyone in this thread changing his/her mind on this topic.  We all seem settled in our current interpretations. 

[Gregory Matthews]

In regard to the writings of EGW:  The SDA Church has never taken the position that the words of EGW were word for word inspired.  Yes,  changes have been made:

*  During the lifetime of EGW, changes were often made and supervised by EGW.

*  In recent times, major changes have been made  that have been intended to put select writings into a modern writing style of writing.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

 

42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done....Matthew 26

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

I went through the New Testament, noting every verse which gave insight into the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son.  That review is on my website.  When one begins reading all those verses - one after the other, the picture emerges.  The relationship between Jesus and "His God and Father" is obvious.  But I saw no relationship with another divine being. 

Here's the link: http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/44f-Part 6 TR-NT.pdf

[8thdaypriest]

Why did the disciples go out and baptize "in the name of Jesus" AFTER hearing the command of Christ? 

Is this not suspicious? 

Does this not give weight to the argument that the text was altered?

And the pre-Constantine Aramaic manuscript, where the command is to baptize "in My name" - is that not suspicious?

And the quotations of the text by early church fathers, quoting the command as "in My name" - do those not give weight to the argument that the text was altered? 

Catholics always cross themselves, ending each prayer in the name of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost".  This is not Biblical.  We are to pray TO God the Father, "in the name of Jesus".   How did this come about?  That would be interesting research.  Maybe it began as a sign that one believed in Christ crucified, and was praying in Jesus name. 

[8thdaypriest]

2 Timothy 3:16  "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (NKJ)

The word "is" was added by the translators. 

There were many "scriptures" around, that were NOT inspired of God. 

ASV  2 Timothy 3:16 "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."  To my mind, this is Paul telling Timothy that the Old Testament writings, were good to learn from and teach from. 

The "Scriptures" we now read in our English, have come some distance from the originals.  It is truly a great miracle that we have them as close to the originals as they are.  But we should concede that some changes were made, and many such changes reflected the doctrinal bias of the translators.   Who was it who said, "Every translation IS an interpretation"  ?? 

Take the word "Hell" for instance.  What began as simply the abode of the dead - Sheol, was turned into a place of eternal conscious torment - because of Greek cultural beliefs. 

[JoeMo]

Evidence that Matt. 28:19 was changed from "Jesus" to "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" (probably by the Catholic Church).  Rather than copy and paste long textual material, I will simply refer you to some websites.

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/26/trinity-the-truth-about-matthew-2819-1-john-57/

https://www.torahresource.com/pdf-articles/matt-28-19-a-text-critical-investigation.pdf

There are many, many more references in Google.  If you look at these, scholars are split on the authenticity of Matt: 28:19.  I personally am hesitant to base my own beliefs on just a single verse of the Bible which only implies a triune God.  Matt. 28:19 is the only verse in the Bible that uses the phrase "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together that I know of.

[Gustave]

The primary beef early SDA's had with the Holy Spirit was.

A ) They rejected the Trinity as a false doctrine

&

B ) They [ early SDA's ] were anthropomorphite in their theology. They believed that God the Father & Pre-Incarnate Michael the archangel ( along with Lucifer the archangel ) were flesh, blood, bone & organ hominids ). They Holy Sprit lacked a "PERSONALITY" therefore was not / could not be a separate "Person" anyway.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

The primary beef early SDA's had with the Holy Spirit was.

A ) They rejected the Trinity as a false doctrine

&

B ) They [ early SDA's ] were anthropomorphite in their theology. They believed that God the Father & Pre-Incarnate Michael the archangel ( along with Lucifer the archangel ) were flesh, blood, bone & organ hominids ). They Holy Sprit lacked a "PERSONALITY" therefore was not / could not be a separate "Person" anyway.

 

 

Gustave,

Can you give a couple of quotations to show that "early SDAs" believed what you are saying they believed?  Cause I've never seen this belief in any SDA literature, nor early EGW quotations. 

 

The Father, Son and Lucifer were all spirit beings - which means they were not flesh.  They had not blood, bone nor organs.  Now - these spirit beings sometimes appeared in visions given to prophets.  And when they did - they appeared with human characteristics.  On a few occasions (in the fiery furnace, on Mount Sinai with the 70), they actually appeared - also with human like characteristics.  So what.  If we humans were "made in His image" - then we should look like them, and they should look like us. 

The "beef" with the Trinity was that this doctrine denied the personal identity of Christ - as a divine being with a separate identity and will from that of His Father.  The Trinity doctrine said that God is ONE divine BEING who simply manifests in different ways - as Father, as Son, and as Spirit. 

IF God is only ONE divine being who manifests in different ways - then God had no son.   Why then say that God "gave His only begotten Son" - if God had no son?  All through the NT, Christ is called "the Son of God".  Seems very misleading if God had no son at all.  Why would Christ say, "Not my will, but thine be done" if there really was only one will operating - not two? 

The Spirit - as a third divine being, with His own separate existence and will - was not even being discussed by the early SDA pioneers - at least not until 1894 or so, when Herbert C. Lacey began preaching on this subject.   

Mrs White wrote a lot about the pre-incarnate Son of God being BEGOTTEN, and being exactly like His Father.  Satan on the other hand, was viewed as a created being. 

Since the Son of God created everything (according to His Father's will)  - He would also have CREATED Lucifer.  And THAT was the problem.  A CREATED being could not be part of the Godhead.  He was not divine, and had no power to create. 

The JWs of today, still teach that Christ was created, not begotten, and therefore they do not worship Him.  I do not agree with that view. 

[debbym]

 

Elijah at the door of the cave after fleeing Jezebel's threats... God was not in the mighty wind, God was not in the fire, God was in the still small voice, and at the voice of God Elijah knew God and his pain was healed.  

This is what David referred to to when he said, take not thy Holy Spirit from me, cast me not away from thy presence.

At the season of Pentecost and the early church's empowered labors, there were many references to the people experiencing  the H.S..  the day of Pentecost was a day of the outpouring of the H.S. in a signal way.

I am back to this thought, whatever way you think of the Holy Spirit, what is pivotal is how you respond when the Spirit of God speaks to you.  What you do with the Spirit, you do with your destiny.  you will have eternity to polish up your comprehension of the Nature of the person(s) of God.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:12-13, NIV)

From Romans 8  the spirit makes intercession for us according to the will of God.

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

⁹ You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you.

the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

God is love, The Spirit is love, Jesus is love, The Father is love.  the Spirit brings attention to the Father and to the Son.  Jesus brought attention to the Father not to himself.  He gave His Father the glory or everything he did.  The Spirit also does not seek glory for himself, and the Father seeks to glorify the Son. Jesus said of myself i can do nothing.

We will better understand the attributes of God, the omniscience, the omnipotence, the eternal love and selflessness, of God.  The Spirit is selfless.

God wants us to be selfless, which does not mean not having a self, but for that self to be transparent and serving the beautiful will of God.  The Father stands accused, Jesus stands accused, the Spirit stands refused.

we can say all manner of things about Jesus, but if we scorn the Spirit completely there is nothing left God can do to save us.  not because of How the Spirit feels, but by doing so we change ourselves, and become unable to revive.

 

[Gustave]

17 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,

Can you give a couple of quotations to show that "early SDAs" believed what you are saying they believed?  Cause I've never seen this belief in any SDA literature, nor early EGW quotations. 

 

 

Hi 8thday,

 

I'll dig out the references soon as I can - but rest assured I'll be able to direct you to those affirmations in the General Conference Archives.

You had said:

"The "beef" with the Trinity was that this doctrine denied the personal identity of Christ - as a divine being with a separate identity and will from that of His Father.  The Trinity doctrine said that God is ONE divine BEING who simply manifests in different ways - as Father, as Son, and as Spirit. "

The Trinity Doctrine does NOT say that - at all.

 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

" I pray that you will enjoy the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 13:13, ERV)

Does NOT say "the fellowship WITH the Holy Spirit".  It says "fellowship OF the Holy Spirit".

It is the fellowship made possible when we are filled with the spirit of Christ. 

   "and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ." (1Jo 1:3 NKJ)

 

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

Hi 8thday,

 

I'll dig out the references soon as I can - but rest assured I'll be able to direct you to those affirmations in the General Conference Archives.

You had said:

"The "beef" with the Trinity was that this doctrine denied the personal identity of Christ - as a divine being with a separate identity and will from that of His Father.  The Trinity doctrine said that God is ONE divine BEING who simply manifests in different ways - as Father, as Son, and as Spirit. "

The Trinity Doctrine does NOT say that - at all.

 

 

 

 

Really?  What does "the Trinity doctrine" say exactly? 

[LifeHiscost]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

" I pray that you will enjoy the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 13:13, ERV)

None of these individuals would have survived had not the Holy Spirit been sent to enable God to be recognized as Love.

http://www.faithfortoday.tv/article/433/programs/archives/the-evidence/episodes/episode-107-on-god-and-war

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

None of these individuals would have survived had not the Holy Spirit been sent to enable God to be recognized as Love.

http://www.faithfortoday.tv/article/433/programs/archives/the-evidence/episodes/episode-107-on-god-and-war

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

No one here denies the importance of, the reality of, or the existence of "the Holy Spirit".  Everyone here agrees that to resist the Holy Spirit - is death, because "the Spirit is life". 

What is at issue is the nature of the Holy Spirit - Spirit of Christ OR a third divine being. 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustav said:  The Trinity Doctrine does NOT say that - at all.

 

The Nicene Creed stated simply:  "We believe in the Holy Spirit."

This was later modified by the Council of Constantinople (c.381) to read:  "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets." 

The "worshiped and glorified" I have a problem with.  Nothing in Scriptures states - either by command or by example - that we are to worship "the Holy Spirit". 

The Athanasian Creed says: 

"We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.  We distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance.  For the Father is a distinct person;  the Son is a distinct person; and the Holy Spirit is a distinct person .  . . . The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.  Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.  Thus there are not three uncreated beings, not three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being. . . . Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  But there are not three gods, but one God." 

This creed says there ARE three distinct persons - but there ARE NOT three eternal, uncreated beings. 

It seems that "persons" is somehow different (in this creed) from "beings". 

There is only ONE BEING who exists as "three distinct persons", and all the "persons" are of one "substance".  

The Trinity doctrine teaches that God is ONE BEING, who exists as three divine persons. 

How is that different from what I said?

On 6/20/2017 at 6:40 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

The Trinity doctrine said that God is ONE divine BEING who simply manifests in different ways - as Father, as Son, and as Spirit. 

 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The "worshiped and glorified" I have a problem with.  Nothing in Scriptures states - either by command or by example - that we are to worship "the Holy Spirit". 

I'm in 100% agreement!!

[Rahab]

God is Spirit.

[LifeHiscost]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 

 

This creed says there ARE three distinct persons - but there ARE NOT three eternal, uncreated beings. 

It seems that "persons" is somehow different (in this creed) from "beings". 

There is only ONE BEING who exists as "three distinct persons", and all the "persons" are of one "substance".  

The Trinity doctrine teaches that God is ONE BEING, who exists as three divine persons. 

How is that different from what I said?

 

 

 

 

To become divided over the nature of the Holy Spirit is counterproductive for the growth in love of the body of believers. Our Father in His own good time will reveal all there is we can know in our fallen condition, about the essence of the Spirit of God.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!        

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The Bible's description of The Third Person is very extensive, and cannot be mistaken.

The Bible does not describe "the holy Spirit" as a "Third Person". 

Yes - the Bible describes things that the Spirit would do/ or does.  It just does not tell us WHO or WHAT the Spirit is - at least not directly.  We have to infer it.  I personally believe the Spirit IS "the last Adam".  He did after all, "become a life giving spirit" (I Cor 15:45).  And "the last Adam" IS Christ Jesus.  So Jesus is the one who does all those things.    

Jesus is the one who takes "the things that the Father has" and declares them to us (John 16:15). 

Jesus is the one who does not speak on His own authority (John 12:49, Jn 14:10).  He speaks those things which His Father has given Him, to convey to us.

Jesus tells us about things to come.  The messages to the 7 churches ARE His words.   Read the messages.  This is Christ speaking!

Jesus intercedes for us - no one else.  "There is ONE mediator" (I Tim. 2:5).

Jesus helps us in our weakness.  He said, "I am with you always" (Matthew 28:20).

Jesus said "I know My sheep".   How could He "know" them, except He searches our hearts?

Jesus gives us rest.    Matthew 11:28 "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." 

OLD TESTAMENT

Exodus 33:14  And He said, "My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest."  

Why would these words be less true today? 

WHO spoke these words?     Answer:  The pre-incarnate Son of God.  

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

Christ IS that "spiritual drink". 

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you,`Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."

John 7:37  On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

"the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified".   Don't these words suggest that Christ's glorification, involved restoring to Him the power, and the omnipresence, that He had with the Father before the world was?  In other words - it involved making Christ the "life giving spirit".