Doubt and Confusion Concerning the Holy Spirit as a Person

Doubt and Confusion Concerning the Holy Spirit as a Person
08/28/2013 


by Cris Putnam
Ever since George Lucas’ Star Wars,there has been an increasing tendency in evangelicalism to think of the Holy Spirit akin to “the Force.”  In the culture at large, it is even worse.
 
According to recent Pew Forum statistics 25% of Americans who believe in God, think of God as an impersonal force.[1] Amongst Christians, doctrine of the trinity leads to similar confusion. The classical understanding is one God in three persons. However, many evangelicals tend to view the Holy Spirit as a force employed by God the Father. In his seminalChristian Theology, Millard Erickson noted, “We are not dealing here with an impersonal force. This point is especially important at a time in which pantheistic tendencies are entering Western culture through the influence of Eastern religions.”[2]  I documented the influx of pantheistic thought through the work of Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in Exo-Vaticana. In a recent Facebook discussion, doubt was expressed concerning the personhood of the Holy Spirit based on the following argument:

Quote :

Many will point to Scriptures like [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 14.26]John 14:26[/url] as proof that the Holy Spirit is a person:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ([url=http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/John 14.26]John 14:26 KJV[/url])

The problem is, the Greek word used here for “he” is ekeinos (Strong’s 1565), which is a demonstrative pronoun that means “that, that one there, yonder” as opposed to the standard pronoun autos (Strong’s # 846), which is a personal pronoun meaning, “he, she, it, they, them, same” as seen repeatedly for instance in [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 John 3.24]1 John 3:24[/url]:

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. ([url=http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1 John 3.24]1 John 3:24 KJV[/url])

 
This is a poor argument. What is defined as “the problem” above is John’s use of ἐκεῖνος which means “that” or “that one.” The force of the argument is that if John wanted us to understand a male person he would have simply used αὐτός which translates “he, she, it” depending on grammatical gender. It implies his choice of the demonstrative imparts ambiguity upon the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but this is simply not so and reflects a lack of understanding basic Greek grammar.

Greek employs a lot more pronoun forms than English: personal, reflexive, demonstrative, indefinite, interrogative, relative and reciprocal. 

 Demonstratives are used when the author wants to communicate where something is in relation to the speaker/writer and there are two forms near and far. In this case, it was a distance in time.
 

Quote :

 demonstrative pronoun. n. A pronoun that serves as a pointer or indicates where something is in relation to the speaker/writer (Lat. demonstrare, “to point out”). Near demonstratives (this and these) speak of things that are relatively close; far demonstratives (that and those), of things that are relatively distant. The latter are sometimes distinguished as demonstrative adjectives.[3]

 
John chose to use a demonstrative pronoun in [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 14.26]John 14:26[/url] because the Holy Spirit was not yet present, but in Greek there is no ambiguity concerning gender because he chose the masculine form. What is important is that John could have chosen the neuter form (and technically should have) but he didn’t for a reason.  As far as [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 John 3.24]1 John 3:24[/url], that letter was written after the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, so it makes perfect sense that he used a personal pronoun rather than a demonstrative. When Jesus spoke the Holy Spirit had not yet come, when John wrote 1 John he had. This demonstrates that simply using a concordance to translate Greek words to English is not sufficient for biblical exegesis.

What makes this particularly dangerous is that these types of misunderstandings have a long checkered history of spawning cults. In apologetic theology a cult is defined:
 

Quote :

A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.[4]

 
The personhood of the Holy Spirit is a central doctrine of classical Christianity. Denying it qualifies as a cultic belief akin to other groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Theology is important. Matt Slick has a nice outline detailing the biblical basis for the classic doctrine of the Spirit here.

I've always found it a little telling that Lucas used the term jedi & 'the force', i.e.'jedi mind trick' of deceiving.....

Below is the djed-I



(djed)
Appearance: The djed is an Egyptian symbol that is depicted as a column with a broad base and capital. At the top of the column the capital is divided by four parallel bars. The image has been interpreted in several ways. It is said to be:

• four pillars, seen one behind the other
  
  
  
  
  
• a man's, or Osiris' backbone
  
  
  
  
  
• a Syrian cedar with its branches removed
  
  
  
  
  
• the pole around which sheaves of grain were tied
  
  
  
  
  

History: Osiris was originally an agricultural deity from Syria. When his followers immigrated to Egypt, they brought with them their fetish (cult object). Their fetish was the djed and they named their city after it, "Djedu". As the popularity of Osiris grew, so did the djed's appearance in art, especially in tombs. The djed was often painted on the bottom of coffins where the deceased's backbone would rest. The djed was also often created as an amulet of stability and regenerative power.
In Old Kingdom times, the djed was associated with the chief god of Memphis, Ptah, who was called the "Noble Djed."
The Djed Pillar Festival was a cultic celebration of the symbol and its powers. It was held annually in Egypt and was a time of great spiritual refreshment for the people. The priests raised the djed pillar on the first day of shemu (the season of harvest on the Nile). The people then paid homage to the symbol and conducted a mock battle between good and evil. Oxen were driven around the walls of the capital, honoring the founding of the original capital, Memphis.
Meaning: The djed column was the Egyptian symbol of "stability". It was the symbol of the tree that grew around Osiris's casket and was used as a pillar in a Byblos palace. The djed was considered necessary to aid in the transformation of human flesh into the spiritual form assumed by the deceased in eternity.

http://www.egyptianmyths.net/djed.htm

Is the Holy Spirit a person? Yes. But the confusion is actually over how many "persons" of the godhead there are. I believe that Jesus is the holy spirit just as he claimed in john 14. I also believe that Jesus is the Father also as claimed in john 14. How many ways does God reveal himself to us? At least 3. How many persons are God? Just 1.

Reply to Rob Skiba on the Denial of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit
09/02/2013 LEAVE A COMMENT




[url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 28.19]Matthew 28:19[/url]: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” reveals two essential facts about the nature of God: 1) The singular form of “name” indicates that God is one, and that His nature is singular (one divine essence); and 2) Within this one God are three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, something given especially strong emphasis in the original Greek: “τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος” with the three recurring definite articles “τοῦ” before Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This orthodox biblical understanding of God’s triune nature has recently come under attack from someone within my sphere of influence.

Rob Skiba is the co-founder of King’s Gate Media and the author the non-fiction book, Babylon Rising: And The First Shall Be Last. I had a friendly relationship with him until some of his theological positions raised serious concerns. When I confronted Mr. Skiba about his theological assertions he first denied being a teacher. He asserts he is merely “asking questions.” He has no theological education or proficiency in biblical languages that I am aware of. But he not only represents himself as an authority, he has published Bible studies like Wisdom From The Torah Book 1: Genesis. and he is listed as a teacher at a Hebrew Roots Movement event here.  He has a large following and his arguments are fair game for critique. My purpose is to dissect his strongest argument and show why it leads to a false conclusion.

The previous post on this website concerning the Holy Spirit was prompted by my ongoing debate with Skiba in a Facebook thread here.  If you bother to read through it, it will be clear that he is doing a lot more than asking questions. At this stage, his cards are on the table and he is very clearly denying the Trinity and even characterizing the classical formula (one God in three persons) as a heresy. The following is Rob Skiba’s recent response to my defense of majority view of the Trinity (one God in three persons).

Quote :

Your “majority view” is the very definition of absolute heresy (I don’t care how many have had it, nor for how long) because it of necessity requires a literal view of the Holy Spirit as a third PERSON in the Godhead. For that to be true, [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 1.18-20]Matthew 1:18-20[/url] requires a belief that Jesus was NOT the only begotten of the Father, but rather of the “person” Holy Spirit. You people will never own up to it (convenient to just ignore it), but the fact remains, your doctrine removes the Father from being just that – because according to the standard model, He was not the “person” who impregnated Mary, the Holy Spirit was. source

The display of hubris is astounding. His strongest argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit is as follows:

1)                  Jesus is described as “the only begotten of the Father” ([url=http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jn 1.14]Jn 1:14, KJV[/url])
2)                   [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 1.18]Matthew 1:18[/url] gives the Holy Spirit the role of impregnating Mary. “…she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”([url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mt 1.18]Mt 1:18[/url])
3)                   If the Holy Spirit is person then Jesus cannot be begotten of the Father.

Therefore, “one God in three persons” must be false.

The alleged problem between [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 1.18]Matthew 1:18[/url] and the doctrine of the Trinity reveals a basic misunderstanding concerning, “only begotten.” This archaic translation found in the King James Version contributes to his confusion and is a favorite of those like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who assert Jesus is a created being.  The Greek word monogenēs, properly means “one of a kind, unique.”

Here is a scholarly Greek lexicon entry:

Quote :

58.52 μονογενής, ές: pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class—‘unique, only.’ τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ‘he gave his only Son’ [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jn 3.16]Jn 3:16[/url]; τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός ‘God sent his only Son’ [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Jn 4.9]1 Jn 4:9[/url]; τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος ‘he who had received the promises presented his only son’ or ‘… was ready to offer his only son’ [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/He 11.17]He 11:17[/url]. Abraham, of course, did have another son, Ishmael, and later sons by Keturah, but Isaac was a unique son in that he was a son born as the result of certain promises made by God. Accordingly, he could be called a μονογενής son, since he was the only one of his kind.[1]

It more properly rendered “the one and only from the Father.” Modern translations have clarified and corrected the English for greater accuracy.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.([url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jn 1.14]Jn 1:14, ESV[/url])
“And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth.([url=http://biblia.com/bible/leb/Jn 1.14]Jn 1:14, LEB[/url])

Jesus is the “Son of God,” not in the sense of being born (see [url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 1.3]John 1:3[/url]), but in the sense of being a Son who is exactly like his Father in all attributes, and in the sense of having a Father-Son relationship with God the Father.

But Jesus was the unique son of the Father eternally before the incarnation. Jesus refers to his preexistence in his famous High Priestly Prayer: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” ([url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jn 17.5]Jn 17:5[/url]). Like with Abraham’s son Isaac the term μονογενής is not about his physical birth but rather his status.

Interestingly, this discussion brings to mind Psalm 2 which states: “I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” ([url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ps 2.7]Ps 2:7[/url])  In Hebrew the term used in yalad which generally does imply birth. However, employing a hermeneutic of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, the Apostle Paul clarified the meaning of begotten in Psalm 2:

Quote :

“this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “ ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “ ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’”([url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ac 13.33%E2%80%9334]Ac 13:33–34[/url])

According to Paul, Jesus was begotten of the Father at the resurrection.  I wonder if Rob will now admit his error?

https://www.facebook.com/robskiba/posts/10151913326767754?comment_id=30700142¬if_t=like


"Sadly, Cris D Putnam has proven himself to be a self-appointed academic hitman. In typical fashion, he only gives part of the story (of my defense). To his credit however, he does provide links to the larger story. I ENCOURAGE all to read the entire discourse between he and I (as well as others). It will put his latest article in true context: http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=5144




In this diatribe he writes:




"Jesus is the “Son of God,” not in the sense of being born (see John 1:3), but in the sense of being a Son who is exactly like his Father in all attributes, and in the sense of having a Father-Son relationship with God the Father. But Jesus was the unique son of the Father eternally before the incarnation."




Really? Wow! Like I didn't know that. What a manipulative thing to do. I have never questioned the preexisting deity of Christ. He COMPLETELY misrepresents my view, skewing the reader to believe that I am essentially saying Jesus did not become the Son of God until He was born of the virgin Mary. What a crock. And what a shame such a public figure would choose to use his forum for such attacks. "