The Trinity doctrine

[Gustave]

Essentially my point is this:

The individuals generally classified as "The SDA Pioneers" were the ones who 'crafted the fundamental doctrines' of the denomination - & Ellen ( in her capacity as Prophet ) would bolster or support those doctrines with prophetic utterances.

James White early on identified the specific issue he ( and the others ) had with the Trinity - i.e. that this Papal Doctrine destroyed "The Personality Of God & Christ".

'The Personality Of God Doctrine' was codified to mean: God had a body of flesh with all the members, organs and parts of a perfect man. The same is said of Lucifer & Michael the archangels, the other archangels, angels, etc.

The numerous articles in the publications ( some of which I referenced ) claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity was synonymous with Pantheism or Spiritualism because belief in the Trinity required the adherent to affirm that 'God' The Holy Spirit was just as much God as God the Father was yet lacked a hominid body of flesh, bone, organs and blood. Basically an individual who claimed 'God was everywhere' was a Pantheist or Spiritualist.

I've tracked the Personality Of God teaching in the Seventh-day Adventist Church from 1854 through to well past the death of Ellen White.

On August 31, 1905 Ellen White wrote:

"I entreat everyone to be clear and firm regarding CERTAIN TRUTHS WE HAVE HEARD AND RECIEVED AND ADVOCATED. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phrase of error even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, WHICH DENIES THE PERSONALITY OF GOD AND OF CHRIST". Ellen White / Review & Sabbath Herald, August 31, 1905.

Gregory, I agree with your assessment.

Gustave

 

 

[APL]

25 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

First of all there is the letter that James White wrote in the twilight of his life. It was discovered as Elder Wheeler was going through James' letters when preparing for the James White biography where James White wrote the letter that said "I'm starting to see the arguments for the trinity to be more convincing than those against the trinity." He told us about this at the New York Campmeeting right after his book was published and he gave a workshop on James White.

We have Daniels and Prescott while in Australia.  Independently one was studying about Jesus and came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed the infinite God. The other was studying about the Holy Spirit and became convinced that He was indeed a personality and the infinite God and not just a power. As they compared notes they realized that as they combined their studies that they had the trinity. This has been documented in the new biography on Elder Daniels.

There were people accusing Prescott for trying to sneak in the doctrine of the trinity by inserting his views into Mrs. White's works. Also that some other men placed bogus Mrs. White quotes into her vault to make her sound like she had become a Trinitarian. M. L. Andresen had heard this and wrote to Mrs. White asking if people like Prescott and others have been adding the Trinitarian looking quotes to her writings or if she really has become a Trinitarian. She invited him to come. Meet him and had a short discussion that he did not reveal just what was said but that she also had the quotes available for him to see in her handwriting, and he left that visit a convinced Trinitarian. This has been published in a few places.

So here we have at least 4 documentations during her life time that indicate the switch to Trinitarian. 1. The James White letter, 2. the work of Prescott and Daniels in Australia, 3. the writings going around accusing the Trinitarian quotes being added to Mrs. Whites writings and the claim that they are forgeries (I've even held in my hands and read some of these documents at the White Estate vault an Andrews, They were from the first decade of the 20th century, some of these even accused Mrs. White of Apostasy for having become a Trinitarian. Why would there be such an uproar during that decade if nothing of the sort was happening.) and 4.) Andresen visiting Mrs. White to ask about those accusations and to ask if she became a Trinitarian, and left that visit a committed Trinitarian.

 

My comment was on James White and I've yet to see the documentation.  And for MLA - he comments were on the writing of Desire of Ages, and you are inserting the word trinitarian into a conversation with EGW and I doubt that word was in the conversation, and there is no documentation on the conversation. 

[JoeMo]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 4:28 PM, Gary K said:

God, Lucifer & Michael the archangels were "flesh, bone and blood" hominids - complete with all the parts and organs of a perfect "man".

Could you please provide some scriptural (Not EGW); which is NOT scripture) evidence for this.  I thought the Bible said God (the Father) was a spirit.

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son" (John 1:18 and 6:46).  If no one has ever seen the Father, how do they know He is a flesh and blood hominid?

[Gustave]

40 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Could you please provide some scriptural (Not EGW); which is NOT scripture) evidence for this.  I thought the Bible said God (the Father) was a spirit.

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son" (John 1:18 and 6:46).  If no one has ever seen the Father, how do they know He is a flesh and blood hominid?

There is no Scriptural citations I can offer in support of God the Father, archangels, angels etc. being flesh & bone hominids.

The exception of course is that Christ has a glorified body of Flesh ( the Resurrection body ).

I hold what would be considered the Orthodox position pertaining to the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Which is in affirmation that God = Father, Son & Holy Spirit - & that 'God' is a singular Substance which each Person of the Trinity possesses.

 

 

[Gustave]

41 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Could you please provide some scriptural (Not EGW); which is NOT scripture) evidence for this.  I thought the Bible said God (the Father) was a spirit.

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son" (John 1:18 and 6:46).  If no one has ever seen the Father, how do they know He is a flesh and blood hominid?

According to Ellen White she had a conversation, in Heaven, with Christ and queried. Christ, according to Ellen affirmed God had a body exactly like His.

[Gustave]

JoeMo,

I rushed through my answer to you about texts supporting the hominid flesh God of Ellen White & the Pioneers.

What I should have said is I ( as in myself ) can offer no textual support of the SDA teaching. Of course the Pioneers could.

 

The Pioneers who feverishly taught the Personality Of God Doctrine had many "proof texts" they used. Here are some examples.

 

In Scripture when it says 'God smelled' a sacrifice they claimed THAT proved that God had a nose.

In Scripture when it said God his back parts from Mosses they claimed THAT proved God had buttocks.

The same goes for eyes, hands, digestive & sexual organs.

I understand these descriptions used in Scripture to simply be "anthropomorphic" and a manner of transmitting a "spiritual truth" - NOT proof that God the Father, because he eats an actual meal requires He have a rectum in which to expel the waste.

I attribute the theological affirmations of the Pioneers whereas their Personality of God Doctrine to be resultant from a fundamentalist or ultra literal interpretation of Scripture.

 

In speaking of the P.O.G. doctrine as handed down from the Pioneers Ellen offers a most serious warning:

"He who denies the personality of God and of his Son Jesus 'Christ, is denying God and 'Christ. " If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." If you continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be joined together with him in love. There will be seen that union for which Christ prayed just before his trial and crucifixion". Ellen White / Review & Sabbath Herald March 8, 1906

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

According to Ellen White she had a conversation, in Heaven, with Christ and queried. Christ, according to Ellen affirmed God had a body exactly like His.

Here's the exact quote from "Experience and Views":

Quote

I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person . I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, "I am in the express image of My Father's person." 

That mirrors Genesis 1:26:   Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...

[Gustave]

7 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

Here's the exact quote from "Experience and Views":

That mirrors Genesis 1:26:   Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...

So you understand "Image & Likeness" in Genesis 1, 26 to be physical - to mean mankind "physically looked like God"?

You are in agreement with the Pioneers ( and Ellen White ) of the SDA Church then.

Thank you for responding Pam.

Gustave

[CoAspen]

image |ˈimij| noun1 a representation of the external form       • a mental representation or idea• a visible impression• an optical appearance or counterpart

likeness |ˈlīknəs| nounthe fact or quality of being alike; resemblance

• the semblance, guise, or outward appearance of

Am not arguing, just presenting the definitions, which to me leave open the possibility of not having the physical body as we know.  But, what ever one chooses to believe is okay with me

[Gustave]

7 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

image |ˈimij| noun1 a representation of the external form       • a mental representation or idea• a visible impression• an optical appearance or counterpart

likeness |ˈlīknəs| nounthe fact or quality of being alike; resemblance

• the semblance, guise, or outward appearance of

Am not arguing, just presenting the definitions, which to me leave open the possibility of not having the physical body as we know.  But, what ever one chooses to believe is okay with me

 

Romans 1,21: Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.

The Jews were corrected many times by Jesus - Jesus never corrected them in their belief that Genesis 1:26 WASN'T speaking as to the physical image of the Almighty.

Historic Christianity has never understood it that way.

The Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians & Seventh-day Adventists appear to see it that way.

I like what you said about "the possibility" CoAspen. I suppose there 'could be a possibility' albeit not much of a chance given what Jesus said about God being Spirit.

 

[CoAspen]

A spirit does or does not have a physical body? Can be what ever it chooses? So much we don't know!! Humans do try hard to make God like themselves instead of the opposite. Much to learn, much to learn!

 

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, APL said:

My comment was on James White and I've yet to see the documentation.  And for MLA - he comments were on the writing of Desire of Ages, and you are inserting the word trinitarian into a conversation with EGW and I doubt that word was in the conversation, and there is no documentation on the conversation. 

All I know is that in his lectures about his biography on James White at the New York Conference campmeeting, Elder Wheeler told about discovering the letter in his research.

I have come across the MLA comments in different books as well as documentation in the vault at the White Estate (along with documentation of others from the time complaining about Prescott having brought the Trinity heresy into the church, saying that the Mrs. White quotes that sounded Trinitarian were from him or others who clandestinely placed them among her writings and edited them into the Desire of Ages. As well as people complaining that Mrs. White has apostatized by becoming a Trinitarian.) When ever I read Andresen's comments even when I first casually came across them in the White Estate vault without other comments I understood them about the trinity. Then they have appeared in other books and articles about the trinity, if I recall correctly there was also a section dealing with this in Dr. Widrdow's (spelling?) book on the trinity .

Also why is it that if the trinity was not the issue of the conversation and visit, then why did Andresen point out that he came to visit Mrs. White not believing in the trinity and left a firm Trinitarian for the rest of his life. What caused the trinity to take a major foothold in our church was the fact that Elder Andresen had been so loved by conservatives and that he was a Trinitarian.

Shouldn't have Mrs. White corrected him on his mistaken results of his visit? If he was not interested in the trinity then why did he not correct all his followers instead of this being a major reason for them becoming Trinitarians?

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, CoAspen said:

8 hours ago, Kevin H said:

All I know is that in his lectures about his biography on James White at the New York Conference campmeeting, Elder Wheeler told about discovering the letter in his research.

I have come across the MLA comments in different books as well as documentation in the vault at the White Estate (along with documentation of others from the time complaining about Prescott having brought the Trinity heresy into the church, saying that the Mrs. White quotes that sounded Trinitarian were from him or others who clandestinely placed them among her writings and edited them into the Desire of Ages. As well as people complaining that Mrs. White has apostatized by becoming a Trinitarian.) When ever I read Andresen's comments even when I first casually came across them in the White Estate vault without other comments I understood them about the trinity. Then they have appeared in other books and articles about the trinity, if I recall correctly there was also a section dealing with this in Dr. Widrdow's (spelling?) book on the trinity .

Also why is it that if the trinity was not the issue of the conversation and visit, then why did Andresen point out that he came to visit Mrs. White not believing in the trinity and left a firm Trinitarian for the rest of his life. What caused the trinity to take a major foothold in our church was the fact that Elder Andresen had been so loved by conservatives and that he was a Trinitarian.

Shouldn't have Mrs. White corrected him on his mistaken results of his visit? If he was not interested in the trinity then why did he not correct all his followers instead of this being a major reason for them becoming Trinitarians?

 

 

 

It all seems so coy, doesn't it - when one compares the forceful &  in your face way the Personality of God was promulgated by the Pioneers and Supported by Ellen.

Yet the best supporters of the theory 'that eventually Ellen became a Trinitarian' -  are a small collection of anecdotal evidence and hearsay. It's a tough one for sure.

 

 

 

 

[APL]

1 hour ago, kevin h said:

Shouldn't have Mrs. White corrected him on his mistaken results of his visit?

The same argument could be made for all the MANY non-Trinitarian statements made by the Pioneers over the years.  Most of what you say is indeed, hearsay.  Note what EGW published in 1911.  1911!!!

It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, "the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13. {AA 51.3}

 

The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. {AA 52.1}

[Kevin H]

4 hours ago, APL said:

The same argument could be made for all the MANY non-Trinitarian statements made by the Pioneers over the years.  Most of what you say is indeed, hearsay.  Note what EGW published in 1911.  1911!!!

It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, "the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13. {AA 51.3}

 

The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. {AA 52.1}

God likes to slowly lead his people without using external control philosophy. If anything Mrs. White comes out strong in sudden giving up of truth, she would let our pioneers grow. But since she was living at a time where the trinity was moving from an unpopular option in the church to the center of her thought. Why did she not attack this freight train of us leaving the view of the pioneers on this topic?

When our Pioneers believed and taught the Shut Door, it did insulate us from how so many other churches were becoming either liberal or conservative and it kept us moderate and has slowed down and raised voices of opposition when the views of the churches that fell on the conservative side. Our pioneers originally questioning the trinity lead us to when we finally accepted the trinity to not accept the traditional view but an older view with some reflections within Eastern Orthodoxy, and now appears to have been developed by the second temple Rabbis to explain concepts given in Hebrew imagery from the Hebrew Bible. If we did not question the trinity we would not have come to this view.  

In questioning the trinity, we first need to note that unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses where that view of Christ became official doctrine. For us members were welcome to believe the trinity if they insisted.  Then in the 1890s our leaders, starting with Daniels and Prescott, began promoting the Trinity. Mrs. White has had a habit of correcting these two men when they were wrong. But here no correction but a going along with them. Then in the early 1900s the members going through concern over how the popularity of the doctrine of the trinity and gossip over how involved Mrs. White was in this, and Elder Andresen coming to visit her to understand more about the issue and to try to come to the truth of the gossip. He left that meeting a firm Trinitarian and helped other members in the transfer. Yet you say that if the doctrine of the trinity was correct she should have corrected the pioneers and not the members in the 1890s and early 1900s who were running like a freight train from the one belief to the other and here Mrs. White makes comments that sound like she's agreeing with them, although I understand that you antitrinitarian friends have excuses to explain away her comments.

[APL]

2 hours ago, Kevin H said:

God likes to slowly lead his people without using external control philosophy. If anything Mrs. White comes out strong in sudden giving up of truth, she would let our pioneers grow. But since she was living at a time where the trinity was moving from an unpopular option in the church to the center of her thought. Why did she not attack this freight train of us leaving the view of the pioneers on this topic?

When our Pioneers believed and taught the Shut Door, it did insulate us from how so many other churches were becoming either liberal or conservative and it kept us moderate and has slowed down and raised voices of opposition when the views of the churches that fell on the conservative side. Our pioneers originally questioning the trinity lead us to when we finally accepted the trinity to not accept the traditional view but an older view with some reflections within Eastern Orthodoxy, and now appears to have been developed by the second temple Rabbis to explain concepts given in Hebrew imagery from the Hebrew Bible. If we did not question the trinity we would not have come to this view.  

In questioning the trinity, we first need to note that unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses where that view of Christ became official doctrine. For us members were welcome to believe the trinity if they insisted.  Then in the 1890s our leaders, starting with Daniels and Prescott, began promoting the Trinity. Mrs. White has had a habit of correcting these two men when they were wrong. But here no correction but a going along with them. Then in the early 1900s the members going through concern over how the popularity of the doctrine of the trinity and gossip over how involved Mrs. White was in this, and Elder Andresen coming to visit her to understand more about the issue and to try to come to the truth of the gossip. He left that meeting a firm Trinitarian and helped other members in the transfer. Yet you say that if the doctrine of the trinity was correct she should have corrected the pioneers and not the members in the 1890s and early 1900s who were running like a freight train from the one belief to the other and here Mrs. White makes comments that sound like she's agreeing with them, although I understand that you antitrinitarian friends have excuses to explain away her comments.

I see you did not address what was published in Acts of the Apostles, 1911.  There are non-Trinitarian statements in Desire of Ages, Great Controversy, all over EGW's writings.  U. Smith in his book, Daniel and Revelation are numerous non-Trinitarian statements, a book highly recommended by EGW in its non-Trin form. In her writings, when see uses word God, she is referring to the Father.  See also RH, April 5, 1906, and Vol. 8 section 5 of the Testimonies... (for starters...)   MLA left his meeting with EGW believing in the full divinity of the Son of God.  Something the JWs do not believe.

[Gustave]

In the end the P.O.G. Doctrine of Adventists from approximately 1854 through to approximately 1933 is interesting ( and odd ) but by itself IMHO does not prove Ellen was anti-Trinitarian.

What does prove she was anti-Trinitarian was her "mutation capable Christ" Doctrine - which she vigorously taught - this in itself is the sledge hammer which ends all arguments.

 

Council Of Nicea / Synodal Letter

"First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue".

 

Arius claimed that Christ was capable of mutation - that he could have sinned AND LOST HIS SALVATION.

Ellen was adamant and forceful about this teaching, she claimed Christ could have sinned and if He would have done so God Almighty would have annihilated Christ so that it would be as if he never was.

This view can't be reconciled with the Trinity & for those SDA's who maintain Ellen was against the Doctrine of the Trinity nothing would prove it better than this sole teaching.

My guess is that for those SDA's who believe the SDA Church fell into error with claiming to be Trinitarian - this has to be the primary issue.

Perhaps the O.P. ( or others ) will chime in and verify this is the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

"It is Written" ministry - which I believe is a Seventh-day Adventist media arm, describes "the Arius incident".

http://www.itiswritten.com/television/episodes/1080

 

 

[Gustave]

This group of Seventh-Day Adventists are openly frank about what they claim to be grave doctrinal errors pertaining to SDA Church adopting the Trinity. They speak a great deal about "Sister White" & her prophetic council.

 

[Gustave]

What does the O.P. think of the dialog thus far? Does she now have a clearer understanding as to why SDA's adopt a negative stance whereas the Trinity is concerned?

[8thdaypriest]

On 2/13/2017 at 8:37 PM, Gustave said:

 

Romans 1,21: Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.

The Jews were corrected many times by Jesus - Jesus never corrected them in their belief that Genesis 1:26 WASN'T speaking as to the physical image of the Almighty.

Historic Christianity has never understood it that way.

The Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians & Seventh-day Adventists appear to see it that way.

I like what you said about "the possibility" CoAspen. I suppose there 'could be a possibility' albeit not much of a chance given what Jesus said about God being Spirit.

 

I was discussing this question with a friend of mine who teaches physics.  How can God sit on a throne, and have the appearance of a body which can been seen by created beings, and at the same time be a spirit which is everywhere present?  She compared it to a photon.  A photon is the smallest particle of MATTER.  It has MASS.  But it is also pure ENERGY.   She believed God is both spirit and form.  So do I. 

And God beget a Son in that same spirit/form.  He was exactly like His Father.  When He incarnated and took human nature, He could no longer be spirit.  

When He was resurrected and received His resurrection body - a glorified "spiritual body" - He could be spirit once again.  

1 Corinthians 15:45  Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (NRS)

If we have the Father - who "IS SPIRIT" and the Son, who became SPIRIT, why do we need a third divine being to be spirit? 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

42 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I was discussing this question with a friend of mine who teaches physics.  How can God sit on a throne, and have the appearance of a body which can been seen by created beings, and at the same time be a spirit which is everywhere present?  She compared it to a photon.  A photon is the smallest particle of MATTER.  It has MASS.  But it is also pure ENERGY.   She believed God is both spirit and form.  So do I. 

And God beget a Son in that same spirit/form.  He was exactly like His Father.  When He incarnated and took human nature, He could no longer be spirit.  

When He was resurrected and received His resurrection body - a glorified "spiritual body" - He could be spirit once again.  

1 Corinthians 15:45  Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (NRS)

If we have the Father - who "IS SPIRIT" and the Son, who became SPIRIT, why do we need a third divine being to be spirit? 

 

 

 

Because the Bible teaches that the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity is "God The Holy Spirit".

Admittedly this does fly in the face of Arianism, Historic Seventh-day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses and WWCOG 7th day - but it is what it is.

I find myself agreeing with Shawn Boonstra's position as to "the Substance".

https://www.itiswritten.com/television/episodes/1080

 

[8thdaypriest]

The Scriptures command worship of God the Father AND of Jesus His Son.  They do NOT command worship of a third divine being. 

There is no example of anyone praying to the Spirit, or praising the Spirit, or glorifying the Spirit, or thanking the Spirit.   There certainly is no such action commanded with the understanding that "the Spirit" is a third divine being.

John heard every being in Heaven and on earth saying with loud voice, "Glory be to the ONE who sits on the throne, AND to the Lamb".   I count only TWO beings glorified here. 

We can pray FOR the holy spirit, and God will send forth "the spirit OF His Son into our hearts".  And when that spirit OF His Son fills our hearts, what does it cry out?  Abba Father!  Once again - I count only two beings.

So - for myself - I will continue to worship, and glorify God the Father AND His Son Jesus Christ. 

I see no command to do otherwise.

[LifeHiscost]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 

I see no command to do otherwise.

Nor does the Holy Spirit seek to make Himself the One to be worshiped. However just because He maintains a low profile, is that a reason to consider Him less of the Deity?

John 16:6-8 NKJV

⁶ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. ⁷ Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. ⁸ And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!          

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

Nor does the Holy Spirit seek to make Himself the One to be worshiped. However
just because He maintains a low profile, is that a reason to consider Him less
of the Deity?

Indeed. It seems that one of the most important things that God has been trying
since He started working with a fallen people is the idea of getting us to not
being self centered. In fact, you could even say He has been trying since before
Lucifer fell in heaven. It is probably the most difficult thing to learn
especially if being selfish is your inborn trait of character.

Jesus spent all His life on this earth living with pleasing the Father as His
goal in this life. The Father will give all glory to the Son in the kingdom to
come and the Holy Spirit has spent all of this earth's history, nearly, trying to
get us to see Jesus. I do not know and don't believe it has been revealed at
what point in time glory will be given to the Holy Spirit, but I suspect it is
not His goal to receive it. All good things come to those who patiently do their
duty and who are not focused on self. Jesus said the last shall be first and the
one who has received the least seems to be the Holy Spirit and I cannot see it
happening that He will always be the least among the Godhead. They are said to
be equal members. Really, can you see any of the Godhead who hasn't had the goal
of glorifying the others.

Likewise, we should each be glorifying someone other than ourselves, be it God
who receives our worship or even our fellow humans who should be loved as much
as we love ourselves.