don’t be like God; He screws up, anyway
Mark Driscoll recently praised Rick Warren regarding his invocation at President Obama’s inauguration. As part of his writing about that, Driscoll stated that Warren was following the commands of 1 Timothy 2:1-3. Seeing as how Driscoll and Warren together (in any form) represented a 2-fer for the ADMs, this couldn’t go unnoted. After a paragraph of gross exaggeration and dead-horse-beating about Driscoll, Ingrid whipped out this gem:
To use Scriptural precedent for publicly praying God’s blessing on a leader who is an enemy of God is an abomination.
This is quite possibly one of the most brilliant things ever written. Because of the opening phrase, Ingrid has (allegedly) silenced any critics of this sentence. If you use “Scriptural precedent” to show how ludicrous this idea is, then it’s “an abomination”. And if you don’t use “Scriptural precedent”, then you open yourself to criticism for not abiding by sola scriptura.
At least she was consistent by not using any Scripture herself to back up this statement.
Well, I’m not ready to be silent. So get ready for more abomination, because I’m going to reference that nasty Bible thing.
In Luke 6:28, Jesus commanded us to
bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.
Now I have to wonder. Ya think any “enemy of God” has ever cursed a Christian? I’m thinking there’s a pretty good chance. (I’m also thinking that Tolstoy wrote a few words in his lifetime.) So, according to Jesus, we’re supposed to bless that person. But according to Ingrid, we’re not supposed to ask God to bless that person. So, in short, we’re supposed to act one way, and God another way. Even shorter, we’re not supposed to be like God.
“Enemy of God” is an interesting phrase. It’s even very Biblical (at least when applied correctly). Romans 5 and Colossians 1 both tell us that all people are enemies of God before salvation. Every Christian was blessed with the faith to accept Christ. Every Christian was blessed by the fact that Christ died before anyone reading this was born.
Let’s go broader: Ya think there were any non-Christians (and therefore, enemies of God) on board Flight 1549 (the flight that ditched in the Hudson River)? I’m thinking there’s a pretty good chance. (I’m also thinking that it may, occasionally, get a bit brisk in Antartica.) God certainly blessed those people by sparing their lives.
But according to Ingrid, God’s not supposed to bless His enemies. What an absolute screw-up this God character is. My only comfort is that, most likely in her mind, I don’t follow Him anyway.
157 Comments(+Add)
Brendt,
The inclusion of Romans 5 (spec 5:5-8) is very important. I think those verses along ought to silence the mouths of all human beings on the earth as to whether or not God is just and as to whether or not we are saved by ‘doing the right things’ or ‘do the right things because we are saved.’
These verses ought to teach us that we should pray for everyone, all the time, and on every occasion. If God can and does, so should we.
It seems to me that if God sent his son while we were yet his enemies, then it’s all about grace. No one has any right, whatsoever, to complain about the manner in which others do church. Those verses ought to silence the mouths of every single ADM on the planet.
Brilliant post. My vote for your inclusion on Chris L’s list of 2009’s best posts at .info. (So far
)
jerry
I’ve got a great idea. We could create another “Christian” product called “Abo-mint-nations”. Little edible candies shaped like America, Iran, Syria, etc.
That silly Jesus. What was he thinking?
God bless you, Ingrid.
I really love this line at the end:
See Jeremiah 23 for a full description of what we have in our plexiglass pulpits today.
Yeah, those damnable plexiglass pulpits. So weird that that is even an issue that merits mentioning.
Yep, PB, your buddies…they ain’t legalists…
Some people wouldn’t have a ministry if there were no enemies. Honor the king. That was written with many idol worshiping kings ruling that even had Christians killed. These are the same people who believe (or say they believe) that God places people in authority.
The didain that people like Ingrid show for a wide variety of saved and unsaved people profoundly mischaracterizes the very nature of Christ, especially when you consider they contend that they speak with the Spirit’s authority.
Many choices we as believers are faced with are different shades of gray which must be colored in with love, humility, and grace. If it turns out in eternity that God did not want Warren to pray at the inaugeration, then he will be no more guilty than am I when I go 45mph in a 40mph zone and know it. He thought he was doing right, I know I am doing wrong.
Jesus, though, said to the Pharisees that their sin remained because they claimed to know what was sin and what wasn’t when in reality they were blind.
Everyone knows that plexiglass is the devil’s favorite material. All see-though and all that…
I mean, what if a pastor wants to preach without pants?
For awhile now I’ve been observing that from the Reformed camp there’s this preoccupation with the glory of God. They define God by glory, and anything that isn’t glorious (for example, the election of anyone who they perceive as not God’s man) is an affront to that glory and therefore has to be attacked as viciously as possible.
The problem with that is two-fold. First, God isn’t defined by his glory. The scriptures state that God is love, not that God is glory. The second problem is the definition of glory. ADMs and other Reformed type folks define glory as the world does, ie through power, and esteem, which means that if God isn’t given that worldly type power, then they respond in the way that the world would, with vengeance, and rancor (and assume that God will as well).
Of course, the gospel of John consistently equates God’s glory with the cross. Which is very different from the worldly type of glory that ADMs expect for God. God’s glory is found in putting off the power of God, its found in the servanthood of Christ, in the giving up of life itself, and in washing the feet of his own disciples.
Bo – one of the most insightful comments I have read in a long time. You have hit the
motherfather load.Much better than your last comment on the other thread.
MY EYES! MY EYES!
Bo,
Your comment reminded me of this post on Ben Witherington’s blog from a while back. I think sometimes people present God as a very narcissistic being, and I think it ends putting off a lot of people.
I think it gets down to God turning our definitions of strong and weak on their heads. Jesus demonstrated that we don’t win by dominating others, but by serving them. I think that in a lot of ways, Western Christianity doesn’t understand that principle.
You would think that somewhere in the Bible God was confronted with his enemies so we could see what his response was. I think it went something like: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”, but clearly I could be wrong as that would be an abomination.
Anyone can construct a Christianity based upon the Old Testament revelations and be blind to the revelations that came down from heaven through the Incarnation and were carried out in Acts and amplified in the epistles.
And if you do that, you have strayed from orthodox Christianity, although you still claim to be protecting it.
Well in all fairness, I understand your point and there is something to be said for your definition. But, on the other hand, you are very narrowly defining the concept of God’s glory to be Christ’s setting aside and emptying Himself of His heavenly glory (Ref Phil 2:5-11). This is a legitimate concept, but a “round about one” which, if taken in isolation, ignores the more straightforward definition of God’s intrinsic, ontological glory as attested in numerous scriptures.
I am a staunch anti-Calvinist but God’s glory cannot be separated from His essence and their concern in “guarding” His intrinsic glory is Biblically based, even if their exegesis and application of their understanding is problematic and more often than not, self-righteously abused. It obviously does NOT bring glory to God for some of His children to abuse the rest of them.
This analysis of the ADMs view of the nature of God and God’s glory rings true when you look at how they react to the external, style issues of the church. If anyone is the least bit goofy, self deprecating, informal, or in any other way something other than deadly serious and formal in anyway it incurs their wrath. Which is exactly how I’d expect someone to react if they serve a god that is sternly concerned only about his glory at all times.
On the other hand, the living God described in scripture is far more concerned with being a father than a formal, worldly, glorious king. And a father is far more likely to enjoy a son or daughter who is being goofy, self deprecating, and informal.
Phil, I would argue that God **is** a very narcissistic being and the only being who can justifiably be so.
Defining God apart from Christ isn’t possible. It is only through Christ that the father is approachable either relationally or intellectually.
Bo. I understand your sentiment. And one of the things I have appreciated about this site is that it has opened my eyes to see the differences in personal preferences and principles. However, to the point, God is both a father and a king and there is a time and a place for everything.
I’m sure President Obama enjoys his daughters acting silly and being kids in informal, intimate settings, but how do you suppose he would react if he was being formally honored by his supporters at some event and his daughters started acting out or showed up in their jammies? Say his recent inauguration for example?
Informal behaviors/attire/attitudes are not appriorate in all circumstances. They’re not. There is a time and place for everything. To return to my analogy, in a formal worship service where God’s children are giving Him praise and worship I still maintain an “anything” goes attitude is not God-honoring. Who is it about me or God? There is room for personal preferences, but I still believe there is a line, no matter how ill-defined that line may be. Perhaps the first place to start is with one’s attitude when attending a formal worship service and answering the question is it about me or God? That’s all I’m saying.
That theology only works if you think that an hour a week is the only time that God is honored in your life.
Bo: #117. I agree. But God’s debasement in the incarnation of Christ was for a season. Christ once again assumed all His former Glory upon His ascension and now sits at the right hand of the Father. But it’s not an either/or proposition. It’s both. He’s the God/Man. He’s the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah. He’s the humble servant and the exaulted King Of Glory.
#7 nearly as brilliant as the OP.
Good job
Bill MadlockI mean, Bo Diaz.seriously.
jerry
Well, then, have fun sleeping in your tuxedo.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think that Christ defines God as the absence of narcissism. There’s some aspect of self-reference in God loving us and us loving Him in return, but I don’t know that using the word narcissistic the best. It’s not that God is all worried that He may not get what’s coming to Him. It’s just that He has created people to worship and whenever we worship something that isn’t God, it makes us less than what we were created to be. It doesn’t detract from him.
A complete non sequitor. Is there a time a local body of belivers sets aside to corporately worship God? Yes. Is this a special time? Yes. By definition – it is set aside, i.e, it is special. Is all behavior, all attire, all attitudes appropriate for all events? No. Can their be legitimate disagreement as to waht exactly is acceptable? Yes. But, as Purdy told her brother in ET: “Give me a break.”
Phil. I agree. Narcissism is a very loaded word.
I think that I have a hard time justifying a secular/sacred divide or a high/low church one when looking at the veil that was torn when Jesus died. Only a very special class of priest could enter the Holy of Holies. With the tearing of the veil, we all can. Actually it may be more accurate to say that God’s presence is no longer confined there.
So it’s not about informality or formality. Actually, some of the most powerful worship times I’ve been a part of have been rather informal. But when God really shows up, everyone knows He’s there, and the moment becomes holy. The style of the music or what people were wearing had nothing to do with anything then.
Not at all. Your assertion is that somehow the gathering of the family of God to worship him is such a formal occasion that it requires the trappings of worldly glory since Christ has ascended and put off the humility of his earthly wanderings.
Such an assertion only works if you believe that hour of the week is the only point in time at which God is worshiped. On the other hand if you take it for what it is: a family reunion, the ridiculousness of wearing a suit becomes quickly obvious.
Bo. So it’s OK for Obama’s kids to show up at the inaguration in their jammies and play barbie on the stage?
It’s OK for Bell’s five kids to run rampant on the stage when he’s giving a sermon in their underoos?
All behavior / appearance is appropriate for every circumstance just because it’s between kids and their parent?
Really?
Also, suits and ties are inherently anti-Christ. They are the trappings of wordly power. It is what kings of gentiles who lord their power over each other wear.
I never said anything about suit and if corporate worship is such an ** non-event ** and indistinguishable from anyother time, then why bother?
I think you are confusing the worship service with Rick’s favorite church activity – dinner on the ground
Why bother with gathering with family? Did you really just ask that?
As much as I hate abortion and the promotion of it, it’s hyperbole like this that just makes Christians look stupid.
That aside, I wonder what Ingrid thinks the Scriptural mandate to pray for our leaders realy means? Republicans only?
#32 – Yes I did. In your context as there is some apples and oranges comparision here
Still waiting on the Obama analogy.
Please do not miss this. God’s glory is radiated in the visual light of His person; His unrivaled power; His infinite wisdom; His eterality; an esoteric holiness; and just the sum of Who He is. But the showcase of God’s glory, unabridged and and the supreme singularity of all His glory,
is the cross. All the other “parts” of His glory become spirutally congealed at Golgatha.
No, you denigrated every moment as nothing special, and I elevate every moment as worship. Then you pretend as if there’s no reason to gather with family that you can see.
John, I have been in worship services where goats and dogs wondered in and out of the room, where mothers openly nursed their children, where kids cried and slept and… anything but formality.
It never entered my mind that God was displeased.
Your Obama analogy is inherently flawed as you are comparing the worldly glory of Obama with God’s glory which is inherently contradictory to such glory.
And what happens when the moment becomes holy? What is the first thing to go? I would say, flippant and silly attitudes when God **shows** up and there is an undeniable sense of His presence. And you are correct. It’s not just about the attire. And there are always mitigating circumstances with each individual person.
No, that is what you are saying. I believe such gatherings are special, not mundane.
Hardly, you delegate such times as the only time worship happens and so there has to be special prestige given and shown (as one would a worldly power).
I see them for what they are: a family gathering that may be different, but isn’t elevated, and are as much worship as doing anything else within a life that is defined by God.
No, it is a spot on analogy and if Obama has one type of “glory” and due respect then God’s glory, infinately more so. But you do not seem to believe that God’s glory deserves any special treatment or respect from what I can get out of your comments. There is a time to be playful with my prgenator as abba and a time to be utterfully respectful to him as father. And if there is no distinction in your world view we will just have to agree to disagree.
Rick: #36. Beautifully stated as usual.
The analogy is only spot on if you view God’s glory as being analogous to wordly, kingly glory. The affront to Obama’s glory is perceived by those who have defined glory in the wordly way, and so when you find people playing in a church building to be offensive you have bought into this power-dominating style of glory, rather than the cross-defined glory of my Father.
Bo, or perhaps we are just talking past each other. I too believe worship should not be limited to 1 hour per week and we should honor God in all we do, but to me a corporate worship time is special by definition. Again, we have both stated our positions so thanks for the dialogue.
I’m off to dinner with my family. Have a good evening.
Hopefully no one minds that we won’t be addressing each other as “sir” and “maam”, may occasionally reach across the table, call each other by nicknames, and won’t be changing into formal attire.
I think, though, that the equal analogy would be, then, God’s inauguration – i.e. Judgment Day.
From all of the biblical imagery I’m given, I imagine everyone will be either in robes or buck-naked.
I don’t see this is equivalent to a corporate worship setting.
Rather, from Paul’s instructions on corporate worship, it seems that we are not to a) distract; or b) draw the attention to ourselves (and, thus, away from God). Thus, it would be the culture/custom of each church (in relation to its surrounding community) to determine what was a) distracting; or b) drawing attention to ourselves.
Of course, then, this means that there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer, but allows each church to determine what best fits its culture, and that of its surrounding community.
FYI, if invited to Obama’s inauguration (which I’m pretty sure I would not be), I’d wear a “Choose Life” T-shirt, sweat pants and no shoes, and spend most of the time reading whatever book happened to be at the top of my list that day…
/just sayin’
Let us remind ourselves that most of the descriptiveness is about GOD, and a general description of the blood washed throng. So what does that tell you about the universal focus?
The cultural issues, while given limited consideration, should be overwhelmed by the sense of His presence.
I found it interesting that there is one part of the “Glory of God” overlooked.
Man is also the glory of God… and yet so many who talk of the Glory of God, miss this.
iggy
I wonder if Ingrid wears a head covering?
Since she’s so clear on what is commanded by God…
I believe the original word was “mouth”, which a careless scibe accidently changed to “head” in the Textus receptus.
53.
well, even as an egalitarian…
here’s to hoping.
Chris, I agree 100%. Proper “apparrel” is relative to cultures and even regions. My main agrument is that there is a time and place for families to be “being goofy, self deprecating, and informal” and a time and a place for a more formal gathering with behaviors (and yes even attire) to be appropriate for the occasion. The rub of course is who gets to define “appropriate”, but almost every culture I’m aware of outside of aborriginal tribes have defined limits. Well even aborriginal tribes have special paints and/or beads reserved for special occasions come to think of it. But these are mearly externals and secondary considerations. God of course looks on the heart. But being “goofey, self depreciating and informal” in **some** settings provides an accurate snap-shot of the heart which I will leave for each individual to define.
Bo,
Does your wife allow you or the kids to come to the inside supper table, shirtless and in their underwear?
My point again, is that there is a time and season for everything and there **is** a time for a little decorum and seriousness. Joy does not necessarily translate to glib or trite, and freedom does not necessarily result in license. Respectfulness and being focused does not necessarily translate into dull and boring.
And when God shows up Rick does that ever result in “goofy”? I would think the evidence would show it results in reverential awe.
Old Testament:
Isaiah: Isa 6:5 Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”
New Testament:
John (an intimate of Christ): Rev 1:17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Gomer Pyle: Well Golllll-ah-ah-ly.
Hmmm…If God is living in the believer… why and how does He then “show up”… and yes God can get goofy and fun sometimes. I have had some of the most fun with my friends as we experience the joy of the Lord explode in us with laughing and goofing about.
Really I wonder at the overly seriousness that some see God with and wonder if Jesus in their mind ever had fun.
iggy
You know we are not now dealing with the man Jesus Christ. We are now dealing with the ascended God/Man.
In every post-resurrection (and especially post ascension) appearance of Christ He always has to reassure and say – “do not be afraid” (or wake us up from a dead faint). We have to be reminded that we can approach the mercy seat of God with full assurance of acceptance. Why? Because He is terrible in splendor and when faced with such splender and like Isaiah we see ourselves as we are, (even as the Redeemed) and that is the human response. Not, goofy playtime with our homeboy.
Yes, Jesus is our friend, our Savior, and our spouse but He was creator and Lord before He was any of these. To be accepted in the Beloved is too wonderful to fully comprehend. We are joint heirs, but we are in no way equals. There is a balance to grasp hold of here somewhere.
Are there any posts on this blog that qualify as “best”? This blog is one of the least biblical, while claiming to be biblical.
It has been evident for quite awhile that the posts and comments on this site only muddy the waters further.
IOW, you offer nothing of substance in return for what you “deconstruct” Congratulations that means you qualify as “pom0-musers” and emergent.
Iggy. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I get very tired of people pulling the “Hmmm…If God is living in the believer… why and how does He then “show up”… ” Any Christian with the rudiments of theology knows that God is omnipresent and is especially present in a Believer at all times. But are you denying their are certain times in a Christian’s life when the presence of God is extraordinarily manifested? The answer is that God has not changed. He is always **there** it just at certain special times we change and let go of self and are open to sense the presence of God in a special way. You read a certain passage of Scripture and God becomes very present in the momement. You attend an anointed worship service and the sense of God becomes especially evident in the moment.
Really I wonder at the
overly seriousnessglibness that some see God with and wonder if Jesus in their mind is everhad fun.seen as Lord of Lord and King of Kings?Whatever John… I enjoy God and have learned that fear has to do with punishment and have moved on to being perfected in His Love… that is all… sorry that soooo offends you.
Before I came to Christ I tried suicide… after Jesus came into my life I found joy, peace and a real friend who loves me.
I no longer search for God as He now lives in me. Again, sorry if that offends you…
iggy
John – soemhow I got lost in the conversation. What specifically are you referring to when you say “goofy”?
I’m lost on the “goofy” thing, as well…
My own church treats our weekly gatherings in a similar fashion as the Hebrews treated Shabbat and other holidays – a time of celebration. There are some times that are more solemn (just as with Hebrew celebration of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana), but 95%+ are celebrations. As such, I’m not sure why we would have any expectations of formal attire for the majority of occasions…
Actually John H’s hostility sort of shocked me also!
I have sat on dirt floors in Central America without a shirt, playing the guitar for the 10 people in the pitch black room, and experienced a powerful presence of the Risen Christ. I have as well been in a church of many thousands with formal attire and a 300 voice choir and experienced very little.
The trimmings have very little to do with God demonstrating His presence, it has to do with the hearts of His people. Goofy to me is sitting in a worship service, supposedly concentrating on Christ, but consumed with the actions of an unsaved couple in your line of sight.
That is truly “goofy”. To be fair, Ken has a post on AM which reveals some goofy stuff too. But I have been in what we would call “charismatic” services which lasted for many hours where no one seemed concerned about attire or anything else, and we all were under conviction and brokenness and God met with us in a special way. Some were on their faces, some were weeping, some were standing, some were pacing, some were shouting, but nothing seemed goofy.
I guess I trust Jesus to not be afraid as he commands us so often… as John even pointed out…
Why not just believe Jesus and “Do not be afraid”?
Why when Jesus states to “Do not be afraid” John insist that we should out of awe?
Strange to me…. and really foreign to my faith and experience in my personal relationship with God.
iggy
Rick,
Even “awe” to me is not about fear… it is reverence for sure, but it seems that Jesus does not want us to fall down at His feet (I know I will get hit on that one) at least out of fear… but out of love.
That is why I see Jesus saying “do not fear” so many times… it is a way of saying, ”
Sometime take a moment and look up how many times Jesus says, “friend” or calls someone friend… it is amazing when you think about it…. here the Living God incarnate is calling mere man…”Friend.”
iggy
“goofy is from Comment #15
True worship can and does elicit differing emotions and experiences. Sometimes we should feel broken before Him; sometimes we should feel extremely humbled; sometimes we should feel unworthy/grateful; sometimes we should feel overwhelmed by His love and grace; sometimes we feel glad and unplifted; sometimes we should feel unbridled joy; and many times we feel a mixture of some of those emotions that the Spirit ministers to us personally, yes, designed to commune with us individually.
There are times when I, of ALL PEOPLE, am at a lost for words to describe how my Lord has revealed Himself to me. Many times I feel forbidden of the Spirit to speak of a particular experience since many will not understand and sometimes sharing can diminish it. Sometimes I feel the necessity to tell everyone, to write about it and share it endless times and in diffferent degrees the Spirit blows fresh life into it.
Worship is a sacred thing, and by God’s grace He receives it from His adopted children even with all their many, many faults. But there are those special times, times where time disappears, times where burdens vanish, times where you feel the loving arms of Christ wrap His presence around you and I am sometimes transported back to March of 1975 when I first met Jesus.
Many people consider me goofy, but when it comes to attempting to shed to trappings of culture and the acceptance of man I am a fool for Jesus. Afetr 34 years I do not care anymore.There was a time I considered my ecclesiaistic reputation important, I now consider it pure dung. I do not care what people think of me when I say a good word about Rob Bell or Mike Ratliff or Steve Camp or all three of them in one sentence, it no longer matters.
To know Christ and speak the truth that is in your heart, and to passionately in the extreme to follow in His steps is paramount to an old broken down preacher who most likely will not last long. I no longer care about politics, governmental or ecclesiaistical, I have much more grace for searchers and little patience for the self righteous. I seek to know Him and Him alone.
All the doctrinal menageries and the systematic stones mean less and less to me. If you all could spend one week with me many of you would consider me goofy. But I guarantee two things -
* You would not be bored
* You would be convinced I love Christ.
The latter hopefully being the lasting impression. Those sentimenst, my friends, spiral higher than debates of service cancellations and music styles, those type of things bore me and I believe bore God. I believe the worship “service” I mentioned in Central America was on a Tuesday night. I hope God din’t mind.
I’m all for joy Iggy. Not offended.
Most excellent. Joy is a fruit of the Holy Spirity. Joy
=goofyNot talking about that as I previously clarified and not offended. Every Christian with a minimum understand of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit understand this. Are you denying there are times when you **feel** closer to God than others? It is possible to live with someone and not be on intimate terms or connect with them from time to time.
I agree 100%. Attitude is almost everything. But a man’s actions reflect the attitudes of his heart.
Night. Got to go.
Peace all you lovable goof-balls!
John H,
I have learned that feelings are deceptive but the Turth (Jesus) lives in me… so if I “feel” such that JEsus is far away… I remember he lives in me and trust that and not my “feelings”… Truth is not based on feelings…
So it does not matter how I “feel” I remember the Truth.
And if I feel Jesus is far away… it is not Him who is… it is me and I then return to faith and not feelings.
iggy
Changing the subject just a bit and perhaps to a bit of the OP. Below is a portion of a post I made on Steve Camp’s blog today which originally dealt with Warren’s prayer at the inaugural:
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-is-kind-of-biblical-prayer-that.html
I do hope that Camp would agree to do so. As of yet, no response.
“Opinions are like blogs, everybody’s got one.”
Rick Frueh
circa 2009
Rick: I don’t have a blog. But I’m familiar with the original quote where another word, beginning with a, was used instead of blog. Appreciate your Christian candor.
I like this site. I also like Slice. A lot of the time, I think Ingrid is dead on the money. Sometimes, I think she lapses into legalism.
I like to think that I’m dead on the money sometimes too, but sometimes I lapse into legalism and, shudder, even liberalism.
Oh the battle goes on.
Yeah, Ingrid “lapses” into legalism like Ted Kennedy “lapses” into not being sober…
“I like this site. I also like Slice.”
You cannot serve two masters.
Ingrid and legalism – who knew?
BTW steve, just liking this site gets you into several of her post categories. We like to have funhere sometimes! Thanks!
john b (#74), don’t hold your breath.
Ihhh: I think we’re being mean.
For me, the granddaddy of the ODMs is Phil Johnson’s annotated bookmarks. That cat knows his theology. I originally found out about slice by checking his online friends.
I think it would be fun to an ODM roundabout. Great big long streaming post like: “ODM 1 condemns Ministry A, which is supported by ODM 2 who is a friend of ODM 1. However, ODM 1 supports Pastor Joe, who is roundly condemned by ODM 3, ODM 4, and ODM 5 (as well as McDonalds.) However, ODM 4 and ODM 2 are brothers and ODM 4 embraces the heretical teaching of Pastor Guido and his Vegetable Odor Program, which Pastor Joe, ODM 3, and Ministry A all condemn.”
You get the idea…
“vegetable odor program”.
THAT has to win some kind of a prize.
too funny.
My original choice was “Bangladesh Renegade Dwarf Program.”
hahahahaaaaa
Comment #81 is an accurate depiction of what can happen when these particulars are present:
* You consider yourself a crusader
* You get fixated on particular people
* You consider everything as an essential
* You resort to creative name calling
* You practice grace as a theological concept
* You believe love means rebuke
* You believe that doctrinal purity is the same thing as following Jesus
Connecting the ODM dots between each other and the many different attack tributaries is futile since the many nuanced views are difficult to deconstruct without unveiling some hypocrisy.
Ya think?
All that list could be summed up this way:
Swimming in the spitoon.
You know, I probably wouldn’t be a believer today if it weren’t for the late Walter Martin. I was 15, driving with my dad, and there was a cassette tape of his lecture, the Maze of Mormonism, on the seat. I was bored, so my dad and I listened to the tape. It was an eye-opener. I realized that my faith is not just a part of who I am, it’s the defining component. Had it not been for that brief window of time, I might have turned into one of those liberal “cultural Christians.” The kind who goes to church twice a year, lives with his girlfriend, thinks all religions lead to God and that we can get there if we’re just good people.
Phil Johnson said something precient once. I’m paraphrasing, but I believe it was that he’d break bread with anyone who confirms the doctrine of justification by faith, which really is the line that divides us from everyone else in the world, be they secular or religious. I tend to agree. I think that some believers can be confused on some doctrinal issues (I’ve never met a new Christian who can explain to me the doctrine of the trinity) but I won’t disqualify them from fellowship for such a reason.
I agree, Steve.
“I’ve never met a new Christian who can explain to me the doctrine of the trinity”
I’ve never met a mature theologian who can adequately explain the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet some make it an essential for salvation. BTW – I think I believe in it, but the divinity of Jesus Christ is the essential.
Heh. Touché, Rick.
I believe in the trinity because I grew up Catholic, since defected to the baptists, and, after careful study, realized that the trinity is the only way to make sense of the seeming conflict between monotheism and scriptural evidence that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God (not a god, which is what the JWs say.)
And because I read that awesome 3-in-1 apple book.
Personally, I don’t subscribe to the Trinity – does that disqualify me from the faith?
In retrospect though, I think this guy may be the master of ODMs, or whatever he is.
http://www.atruechurch.info/
Near as I can tell, he believes that his little church comprises the only true Christians in all of history. After the apostolic age, there was complete apostasy. Only Darwin, in the latter part of the 20th century, and his followers, are true heavenbound believers.
Not sure, Paul.
Though I would ask how you reconcile Christ’s deity with the monotheism that is taught so clearly in the Bible.
Paul C,
Fascinating…
I assume you hold to some kind of binitarianism then? Or some form of Oneness modalism?
I always think it’s fascinating to meet people who are open about their position on the Trinity…
Tillich said that the Trinity expressed in the Creed is not a solution, but is rather the stating of “the problem”.
Paul, are you saying you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are manifestations of the one divine Person?
BTW – if you believe that Jesus was God you’re good with me.
Rick/nc:
I believe that there are 2 entities in the Godhead: the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. They are joined together (as we are joined to them) by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is not a person.
The clarity of this is borne out in several ways:
1. pick ANY epistle (by Paul to John) – and see how they are introduced, without fail. If Paul believed there were 3 entities wouldn’t he have introduced his epistles this way? But he introduces them only with the Father and Son made mention of.
2. at the conclusion – in the book of Revelation (21 & 22), we see that the FATHER and SON are the light of the temple. Where is the Holy Spirit?
3. Trinity – as you know, this wasn’t a formal doctrine until centuries later when dogma became the order of the day.
There are a ton of other reasons as well, but these become very clear in my view.
I have no problem with that interpretation since it does not do damage to the Incarnation. Jn.3:16 gives us the requirements for salvation. Thanks Paul for being brave enough to state that, be careful though, you might show up elsewhere in a post!
Welcome Steve… I poked around tghis guys site and you very well may be right. This is the first time I have seen “The Early Church Fathers” as a whole, commended as false teachers… and Keith green too… what a disappointment.
I was part of a group that wrote a doctrinal statement. We spent weeks on the Godhead. Words like “…manifest in…” or “…persons…” became serious sticking points.
It is interesting that the Bible clearly says that God is Spirit. And it clearly spells out that Jesus is God incarnate. There were definitely people in our group who felt that the Father and the Holy Spirit were the same part of the Godhead.
Is that a biunity?
No, it’s a Binity.
Oh yea, tin foil with all the accutrements. It seems everyone who likes any preacher but him is unsaved. In his “doctrinal statement” he oncludes before anyone was created God chose to love a few and hate the many.
Hmm…I’m not convinced.
Thanks Rick… Nathanael – once you start looking at it honestly, a lot of things start coming together. I was just looking at this scripture:
John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”
ALSO
Romans 8: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”
Interesting conversation here…
I believe in the Trinity.
All are personified in the Biblical language.
Jesus calls the Holy Spirit as The comforter or The Counselor and then refers to the Holy Spirit as “He”… not an “it”.
So we know that the HOly Spirit is not an just a “Union” of Jesus and the Father… as a “union” is an it not a person…
I see the Holy Spirit is the ethereal par of God that is to indwell us> In our design we were meant to be the literal body of the Holy Spirit… so that God through man could be the image bearer. So again, if the HOly Spirit is just the Union or God and Jesus, then we miss He is the Union of God and Man also through Jesus.
To say the Trinity was not formal doctrine until centuries later misses that it is through out the bible starting in Genesis 1.
God creates the Heavens and earth… the Spirit of God hovers over the abyss of chaos (waters) and then God says, “Let there be…” and it was. Jesus is the very words spoken by God at creation for through Jesus all things came to be.
To read Ephesians 1 it is apparent the Trinity is there before the councils as Paul writes of the Three in One all through his writings.
So I would disagree with the idea that Trinity is not in the bible as well as the idea of the Holy Spirit not being a Person…
iggy
The doctrine of the Trinity may be true, however it is still a coagulated collection of particular Scripture clues gathered by men but not any 3 or 4 or 5 connected verses that actually address the issue specifically. There is more in Scripture about how believing slaves and masters should interact than there is about the Trinity.
To suggest that we mortals can actually understand the “nature of God” is like suggesting an ant can provide a thesis on black holes. What we know about God is what He has shared with us on our own infinitely restricted level. To use the mystery of God’s nature as a redemptive extrance exam is to expoit Him.
Iggy – please pick any epistle written by Paul, Peter, James or John. Can you explain why, in their introductions, they all greet the recipients in the name of the Father and the Son, but neglect this third person, the Holy Spirit?
Also, why is there no mention of the Holy Spirit in Revelation 21/22 when the Kingdom of God is finally established upon this earth? Several mentions go to both the Father and Son as separate entities, but no mention of this third person.
I agree with Rick that these things are hard to fathom and no human mind can grasp the depths of God, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Paul – I follow your reasoning, but what is your opinion of why Jesus said statements against the Spirit are unforgiveable? If only the Son and the Father are divine, why is the unforgiveable sin blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Isn’t the definition of blasphemy words against God?
Paul C.,
You answered Iggy’s argument with a couple questions based on an argument from silence. I’m curious how you would answer his arguments. Also, if the Spirit is not a “person” in the same sense as the Father and Son – how could we grieve him?
Neil – could you present an answer to my question?
Regarding Iggy’s comments…
Agreed.
I agree with this also (as the first part of my comment 96 stated).
Could you elaborate here as I might be missing something, but don’t see how the Trinity is referenced?
I think this is a very fair question. Here’s an answer I found that highlights what I would argue.
The concept of “blasphemy against the Spirit” is mentioned in Mark 3:22-30 and in Matthew 12:22-32. The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” We would apply the term to such sins as cursing God, or willfully degrading things relating to God. It is also attributing some evil to God, or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him. This case of blasphemy, however, is a specific one, called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31. In Matthew 12:31-32, the Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by the demon “Beelzebub” (Matthew 12:24). Now notice that in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what exactly they did to commit “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
This blasphemy has to do with someone accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of Spirit-filled.
Just for the record: I have never, ever heard a single person give a plausible reason to Point 1 & 2 in comment 96. Not to say there isn’t one, but these omissions should not simply be ignored in favor of traditional religion and dogma.
Yes, Paul, but why not say they blasphemed Jesus? Why treat the Spirit as a person on the same level as God? When Jesus said He was God the Pharisees claimed he was a blasphemer, so why would saying a word against the Spirit be considered blasphemy if the Spirit was not a person and not divine.
I believe the absence of the Spirit’s mention in Revelation is due to His humble ministry which was to obey the Father and lift up Jesus, both at the expense of drawing notoriety to Himself.
While I won’t call myself a “trinitarian” (since I don’t truck with systematic theologies), I will say that I see many truths within the doctrine of the trinity – whether or not the over-all system is accurate or not.
My understanding, though, I base on Genesis 1:1-3
- In v. 1, we have God the Father, Creator. He is called “Elohim”, which is “God”, but it is also plural.
- In v. 2, we have the Ruach ha Kosesh – the Holy Spirit.
- In v. 3, we have God the Word.
I see, then, that John carries this motif on in his Gospel.
So, John identifies – particularly for his Jewish readers, for whom the question “Who/What is the Word?” was a topic of debate – who the God the Word is in Gen 1:3. Thus, we have both God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son.
How exactly they act/interact, I don’t claim to know, and it’s knowledge I’m not all that sure is required for salvation.
Rick, I believe He answered this way because it was by the Spirit of God that He was doing His work:
Would this also account for Spirit’s (as a person) absence in the introduction to ALL the epistles?
As Jesus says (John 15:26), the Holy Spirit is the Spirit that comes from God. It is the power of God.
As you progress through Ephesians 1
Note…
1. Ephesians 1:1. Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Paul’s opening we have the Father and the Son..
Paul explains that we are in Christ through Jesus as Jesus was the eternal mystery that was before creation and that all was created through.
Then Paul progresses to Jesus and the Holy Spirit and how we are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit
13. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14. who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory.
Then Paul uses all three:
17. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
So we have God the Father of Jesus giving the Spirit so that we may know The Father better.
iggy
Iggy – in your above review, in no way does that identify the Holy Spirit as a person of the Godhead. It is clear that the Father and Son are (as per his opening sentence – and the opening sentence of EVERY OTHER epistle written).
Keep in mind, I don’t deny there is a Holy Spirit (I actually believe in speaking in tongues and the power of the Spirit), but Ephesians 1 in no way connotes the Spirit as deity, but more so the vehicle through which God communes with us.
Paul,
You are correct that the doctrine of the trinity wasn’t formalized until the fourth century, but it had roots much earlier. Tertullian pretty much offered a version of the Trinity a hundred years before there was a doctrine put into a creed. Besides that, there was near universal agreement that the Holy Spirit was a person in the Godhead. The debate was pretty much always over how Christ fit in and what exactly did it mean that He was the Logos of God and how the squared away with the incarnation.
Yet to say I I see trinity in a traditional sense is not quite true…
I see God more holistically as:
Father = Speaker
Jesus = Word Spoken
Holy Spirit = The Breath of God
All our dependant on each other
As a speaker speaks, the words that existed in the speaker before they are spoken. The Breath precedes the Word… as breath propels the words from the Speaker…
One cannot speak without breathing out words… words cannot exist if not spoken out and a speaker cannot exist unless he speaks.
Yet, also they are independent on no one else.
No one else can speak my words out of my mouth using my breath… so I am independently the only one that can speak forth my own words…
God is independent in many other ways, though this is one example.
To me there is an integration of all that is the Triune God.
iggy
“Would this also account for Spirit’s (as a person) absence in the introduction to ALL the epistles?”
Possibly. Paul deals extensively with the ministry of the Spirit, even saying He leads, directs, empowers, grieves, envies, knows, and a host of other activities also used to describe the Father and Christ.
It seems evident the Holy Spirit is a separate entity in the divine ministry, or else why use that noun if it is the Father and/or Jesus? Why construct such an obvious ministry for a person who does not exist?
The only issue I have with the Trinity is whether there is one divine person who reveals Himself in three manifestations or whether they are three distinct and separate persons. It, to me, is unimportant.
Phil, is there a plausible reason as to why the epistles (whether from Paul, James, Peter or John) omit the Holy Spirit in their introductions? Also, is there a plausible reason the Holy Spirit is omitted in Rev 21 & 22 as a person in the Godhead?
While I respect the early church fathers who labored after the apostles, I would still say we are built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets with Christ the chief cornerstone.
I don’t necessarily disagree here. Jesus is the Word or Arm of the Lord (the One who carries out the Father’s designs). I believe the Holy Spirit is the life force/breath of God as well, through which He communicates to us and empowers us to overcome. Without the Spirit there is no hope for us.
Paul C,
Actually if you look closely at the greeting… Paul uses the Father, Son and Holy Spirit… as the “every spiritual blessing” are the blessings that come by the Holy Spirit… now if you tie that to the other verses you will see that God sends the Holy Spirit as a gift, the gifter and as the promise Seal of Salvation.
Again, you will see the theme that the Father sends the Son who is glorified and then the Father sends the Holy Spirit as the Promise Seal of our salvation.
It is all tied together quite neatly in Ephesians 1.
It is as Jesus stated also in the Gospels that He must go away and be glorified so that the Holy Spirit can be sent.
That the Holy Spirit is the Promised Seal of our salvation and God alone saves should be enough proof that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead… for if the Promised Seal is not God then there is God+ instead of God alone saving us.
iggy
Paul – since the Scripture interchange the indwelling of the Spirit with Christ in us, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is Christ, but not another entity?
BTW – Spread the word, Christians can have a substantive theological discussion without the words liar, heretic, liberal, apostate, and all the rest being thrown around.
Brilliant!
Hi Rick – no I am not suggesting the Spirit and Christ are one and the same. I am suggesting that there are 2 entities in the Godhead: The Father and Jesus Christ, the Son. The Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God are in fact the Holy Spirit.
I believe this is quite clear here in Romans 8:
Does that make sense?
Iggy – I respect your position and argument, but to say that the Holy Spirit is actually referenced in Ephesians 1 is a stretch (especially when put in context with the intro of EVERY OTHER epistle).
Actually, Igs, this is more traditional that you might think, at least if look at the fathers. Tertullian used an analogy of the sun where God was like the sun, Jesus the sun’s rays, and the Holy Spirit the apex or reflection of the light. They are the same substance, but different revelations, as it were, of that substance.
Rick – in thinking a little further about your comment 111 (re the omission of the Holy Spirit in Rev or the epistles’ intro), consider this…
Christ Himself is the humility of God. His entire ministry of condescension is humility, his birth in a manger, his growing up in a dustbowl town, his baptism by John, his selection of 12 nobodies, his compassion to sheep without a shepherd, culminating in the night before his crucifixion and then the crucifixion itself. It all points to one thing: “Learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart.”
That is His core – humility – from which everything else seems to flow.
I believe Paul highlights this beautifully in the oft-quoted passage of Philippians 2.
I do not believe anything (even if the Spirit were a person) can be more humble than our Christ.
Is what you are saying is that the word “spirit” just means the essence or presence of either the Father or the Son but is not an actual entity?
Paul – the Risen Christ is no longer defined by His humility, He now is defined by His eternal glory. In Revelation it seems that the Father takes a somewhat back seat to the Risen Christ as well.
I would also add that probably one of the most convincing passages when it comes to the Trinity is the Great Commission where we are specifically told to baptize people in the “name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The fact they’re all specifically named like that seems to point to a differentiation of personhood. Matthew was written before the end of the first century.
I think this is because Christ is acting out as the mediator between us and the Father. But as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, He will hand everything back to the Father once His kingdom is established forever, and even He Himself will be subject to His Father.
My point was that humility is personified in Christ: for this cause God has highly exalted Him and given Him a name above every name.
I think this would be fair. It is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, graciously shared among those who believe, and the element by which we receive power to work out our salvation and live for Him. Without the Holy Spirit we can do nothing.
Paul C,
Paul,
No doubt Paul uses this greeting in other letters…. though some he does not.
Paul had certain purposes in mind… and sometimes the greetings reflect that purpose.
1. Corinthians Paul does not use this greeting.
2. Galatians Paul does yet it is not the same… Galatians was a reminder that it was by the will of God the Father and the Son that they are saved by Grace.
3. Philippians Paul uses it to go into the issue of divisions in the church and going into verse 5 Paul states (by reference to “he”) that God will finish what he started in them…. later to confirm this in verse 19 as Paul references who is working in himself.
4. Colossians is much like Ephesians in that when Paul uses the greeting he then goes into the same theme that we have all spiritual wisdom through the Holy Spirit. Again, all are mentioned and much the same progression as in Ephesians.
5. 1 Thess uses the same greetings and again Paul goes into the workings of the Holy Spirit using the greeting as a foundation to build the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
6. 2 Thess Paul uses the greeting yet now having built the foundation about the Holy Spirit in 1 Thess teaches about perseverance… which of course we only have because of the Holy Spirit living and working in us.
7. 1 Tim Though Paul purpose is not to teach Timothy of the Holy Spirit Paul does get into it in 3:16 with
I could go on, and I am not stating that every time Paul uses the greeting it is purposed to prove the Holy Spirit, yet Paul writes with purpose and in hte case of Ephesians that is to explain the Holy Spirit… as you read through Ephesians the theme is “Christ in you”…. and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
So, at least for me I do not write of a greeting as just saying “Hello” rather that it is often the launching pad to remind those of the Father and Son who now by the Spirit does God’s works in and trhrough us.
Ephesians is just the most obvious.
Now this is not just my opinion, as John Stott has written a great book called “The Message of Ephesians” who stated what I am stating… though I will say I noticed this before I read the book I was happily amused he also states this about Ephesians and how Paul used the greeting in that book.
iggy
Phil
I agree, though some will state that this passage was not in some of the original texts and was added later to affirm the Trinity.
And not all of those are JW’s that do so.
So though to me it is the most obvious, I tend not to use it for that reason. Again, Genesis 1 is the most powerful one to me… once you read it and understand what John is saying in his Gospel… then realize Jesus is the Spoken Word in Genesis… and is God… then you see God (the Father) the Holy Spirit (hovering over the waters) and Jesus ( the Let there be…” )
Then later we have Elohim show up… which is a clue that this God has a plurality going on.
iggy
No I cannot. I do not think it is possible to say “why” something is not mentioned. It’s begging an argument from silence.
LOL. I’m not. It was never responded to although Camp answered the rest of my post. Hmmm.
Wow, a deep theological discussion about the Trinity and no one was accused of being unsaved. I love it when we can discuss things with respect and maturity, and I have found an ocean of humility when at the end my views are always unassailable and correct.
I hope this helps. (quoted from someone who used to comment here
)
Rick,
you just celebrated compromise.
you piece of crap apostate.
As opposed to piece of crap orthodox?
I used to say this until someone made it that it sounds condescending… which was strange to me as I did hope it helped the other person see the thing I was explain… I never meant it as “hey stupid I hope this helps” as if I wanted to say that I said that…
So if I slip and say “I hope this helps” don’t take it condescending… as if I am going to be condescending to you pieces of crap… I will just be outright about it.
iggy
Ah dang, a Trinity conversation and I missed it!
I have found it interesting that one of the pinnacles of Christendom – the Trinity – is so nebulous (more so than any other dogma).
Whether someone believes the Trinity or not, it would be dishonest to say that it does not strike you as abundantly odd that EVERY SINGLE epistle starts with a greeting in the name of the Father and Son, but for some reason omits the Holy Spirit.
Could it be the reason there is silence is because the apostles simply didn’t preach, teach or believe it? How can we expect them to defend or even mention a teaching if they never actually believed in it, but then dismiss this silence as their vote of confidence for it?
Jesus was God in the flesh – that is the core doctrine which must be believed. If it turns out in eternity that God was one person revealed in three manifestations will those who taught the Trinity be in hell?
Hell – now that’s another topic that should be discussed
I agree with your point though, as I said earlier.
I think the argument from silence is very weak. It’s pretty clear when you look at the history of the doctrine that the Holy Spirit was referred to as a person for a long time, and that belief didn’t just spring up from nowhere. If it was thought heretical or unorthodox, it would have been dealt with.
The other thing is what I mentioned before. If you look at the Council of Nicea, where the doctrine of the Trinity was really formalized, no one was arguing about the Holy Spirit, really. They were arguing about Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a created being. There are plenty of references in the first and second century to the Holy Spirit as a separate entity from God the Father.
136:
hahaha
“They were arguing about Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a created being.”
And that is the core of the debate. Somebody give me a precise definition of a “spirit”.
We can move on when that is established.
Phil, how would you personally answer the question about the omission of the Holy Spirit in every epistles’ opening (Paul, James, Peter, John) or the omission of the Holy Spirit in Rev 21/22?
Then this line of reasoning would follow for the doctrine of Hell in which Dante’s Inferno has become the template for the majority of Christendom’s understanding for hundreds and hundreds of years. It’s unbiblical, but not widely questioned.
I don’t know if rhetorical forms in the epistles are determinative of or indicative of or operate as “shorthand” for a fully fleshed out theology proper.
The letters are occasional in nature and so their respective focuses reflect that.
Taking your thinking about this and applying it to the “end” of the letters where he often names people by name, we could start arguing for some very interesting ecclesiology too.
I just don’t see how the greetings in letters indicate anything other than Paul’s singular concern to bear witness about Christ. I’ll grant they are christological, but again I still can’t see how they are indicative of his theology proper.
145:
Dante’s conception of hell comes after the loss of a universal conciliar system. Also, a mistaken conception of hell is not the same as a theology of hell.
Second, the Holy Spirit is constantly mentioned throughout the NT. Furthermore, 1 Cor. 12:11 clearly attributes a will to the Spirit itself, who is giving spiritual gifts.
Third,
Jesus spoke of the Comforter as a separate entity that he would send.
nc – re the first part of your comment, that’s a stretch in logic. If it were just one or two epistles in which Paul introduced himself under the authority of the Father and Son, then I would gladly concede.
The fact that Paul – along with James, Peter, John & Jude – saw no reason to mention the Holy Spirit (as a person) speaks more deeply about their understanding.
I want to emphasize that this is not simply an argument of omission, but I think, simply demonstrates their way of thinking. Paul is careful to give abundant glory to the Father and Son at every turn.
The only reason he would not see the need to also include the Holy Spirit might be because he didn’t see it as a person, but rather the power of both the Father and Son.
I would simply encourage an open reading on these points… I am open to learning as well.
Well, like Neil said, you can’t really answer the “why” of something that’s not there.
I’d say there are plenty of times when Paul does refer to the Holy Spirit in personal terms, though. Take Romans 5:5, for example:
The fact that he says “whom” rather than “which” seems to indicate he’s thinking of it as a personal entity.
As far as Revelation, I would say that any description of a spirit as visible would have seemed quite odd to first century readers. By definition, a spirit is an invisible, ephemeral thing. It’s actually be more accurate to think of it as the wind – you only see it by it’s effects.
I would also add that in Revelation 22:17, there’s this:
I’m not saying that you’re a heretic or anything, Paul, but I just have a hard time seeing where you’re coming from on this. Of course, no one can say the fully understand the Godhead, or maybe not even a little bit. But to me, the Trinitarian models do seem to make sense.
I think when start looking at the social Trinity conceptions of Moltmann and others, it starts making even more sense.
nc, re 1 Cor 12:11
Before looking at this verse, take a look a little earlier in v 3:
Notice how the “Spirit of God” and the “Holy Spirit” are used interchangeably (really, one and the same).
Also, in v 6:
Who is empowering? It is God, through His Spirit. I believe that is why Paul can say in v 11:
There is really no difference between v 6 and v 11.
So why do you think that it is missing? (that’s the question: how do you reason this out?) Does it strike you as a little odd, if for nothing else but the consistency through each and every epistle?
Paul C,
All that passage indicates to me in Cor. 12–since it mentions “the Lord” too–is the intertwined reality of the Trinity. There has always been a “first place” given to the Father even within Trinitarian thought.
The passage mentions all three.
In the creed we express it as:
The Son is begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
It’s mysterious. We don’t know “how” it works. It just is.
I don’t see how the stretch of logic is mine though with respect to the letters.
I’m not willing to build a theological argument out of the rhetorical forms of 1st c. epistolary.
Your “greetings argument” just doesn’t hold water to me.
But I’m willing to think about it again.
nc – I respect your position.
With this I agree 100%.
The reason I mention the stretch here is only because you said that the intro to the letters (where the Father and Son are mentioned without fail) are no different from the conclusion of the letters (where various people are mentioned).
To me, if Paul (or the others) believed in the Trinity in some form, they would ensure that the Holy Spirit would have been included in their greetings.
John would have done this also, but he says things like:
Surely, they wouldn’t have disqualified the Holy Spirit in these greetings if they believed in the Spirit’s personage.
O.K. it’s still going! I’ll jump on in
I’m with you, Paul, 100%.
Compare say, Genesis 1:2, 45:27, Psalm 77:3, Joel 2:28, John 4:24 just as a few examples, and the word is the same and the contex the same when referencing the Spirit of God and the spirit of man, and yet we don’t call ourselves a duality of persons when we say “My spirit is downcast today.”
Regading the Matthew command to baptise in the three names, note the name the apostles actually baptised in: only Jesus. His is the only name we are given! YHWH/Father is a title, not a name, and “the Spirit” is a description.
In saying all of this however, I know I am wrong about it since it is far too ethereal to formalise to some doctrine, and as evidenced by the apostles writings, they didn’t even think of it in the terms we attempt to categorise it into.
And we hear from the Australian theological outpost, or as we Americans call it “The Queensland Confession”.
I want a fairly clear definition of a “spirit” before we can fully understand the nature of God. Yea, right. A sincere misunderstanding of the Trinity is not a redemptive deal breaker as long as Christ is part of the Godhead.
According to Mr. Strong:
Hebrew:
H7307
????
ru?ach
roo’-akh
From H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, that is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions): – air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y).
Greek:
G4151
???????
pneuma
pnyoo’-mah
From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: – ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590.