Reading Review: Deity of the Holy Spirit

The following article is another reading review assignment I completed for Theology 1 class through Central Baptist College, Conway, AR. As with our lively Godhead discussions, the professor and I had at least one heated discussion concerning the Deity of the Holy Spirit in regards to the Oneness of the Godhead, especially when he charged Oneness theology with "one of the worst cases of Scriptural gymnastics" he had ever seen (honestly, given his confession that he had never even studied about Oneness Pentecostals prior to meeting me, I am sure that the "Scriptural gymnastics" comment is something he read in a book). However, I answered his charge by stating, "Up to this point in your class, I have been cordial and non-confrontational -- until now. You have the audacity to say that our belief that the distinction in the Godhead that the Deity of Jesus Christ is the Father, and the Humanity of Jesus Christ -- God manifest in flesh is the Son, yet you believe that the Father is fully God separate and distinct from the Son who is fully God separate and distinct from the Holy Spirit is fully God and that's not three Gods?! That's Scriptural gymnastics!"

I even pointed out how that his proof text on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was Romans 8:9, which does not use the term "Holy Spirit," it uses the terms "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ." So, I asked my professor (who has a PhD in religion) if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. His pause before answering, showed me that he was weighing the consequence of his answer. If he answered, "No," then he is forced to believe in two Spirits, when Ephesians 4:4 clearly says "one Spirit." However, my professor, finally answered "Yes," which I then pointed out according to 1 Cor. 2:11 you cannot separate a person from their spirit and make them two distinct persons, thus the Spirit of Christ IS Christ, and if the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit, then our conclusion is sound that Jesus IS the Holy Spirit. He had no response, except to move along in the class. Again, what follows in this article is my one-page reading response to an article concerning the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

Jason L. Weatherly

THE3311-3H

Dr. Smith

Reading Review

October 22, 2016

             I agree with the basic premise of Matthew Barrett’s article. However, we would disagree with the conclusions of his thesis statement. Rather than appeal to man-made creeds, my proofs of the deity of the Holy Spirit are based solely on the Scriptures.

            The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force or power of God as the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. However, neither does the Spirit “possess divine attributes” as Barrett stated (p. 39). The Holy Spirit does not “possess deity,” rather the Holy Spirit IS deity! The Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of the Father. In John 4:23-24, Jesus declared that God the Father is Spirit. In the context of these passages, when Jesus stated that “God is Spirit,” the term “God” refers directly to “the Father” mentioned in the previous statement.

            The deity of the Holy Spirit is clearly illustrated by simply comparing parallel statements in the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew 3:16 declares that it was the “Spirit of God” that descended at the baptism of Jesus. However, Luke 3:22 records that it was the “Holy Spirit” that descended in the bodily form of a dove. In Matthew 10:20, Jesus told His disciples that in times of persecution do not predetermine what you will speak for “the Spirit of your Father” will speak for you. However, Mark 13:11 says that it is the “Holy Spirit” that speaks. Further still, Luke 21:14-15, Jesus said, “I will give you a mouth to speak.” Thus, the Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of the Father who is Jesus Christ!

            The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Jesus in Acts 16:6-7. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures agreed that the “Spirit of Jesus” in verse 7 is the “same Spirit who in verse 6 had forbidden going into Asia” i.e. the “Holy Spirit.” The term “Spirit of God” is used synonymously with the phrase “Spirit of Christ” in Romans 8:9. In Philippians 1:19, Paul referred to the Spirit as “the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” In 1 Peter 1:10-11, Peter stated that “the Spirit of Christ” testified through the Old Testament prophets, yet in 2 Peter 1:21, Peter said holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the “Holy Spirit.” Thus, the Spirit of Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father—ONE SPIRIT (Ephesians 4:4). Therefore, the argument can be made that the Holy Spirit is deity because the Spirit of the Father is deity. As Paul illustrates in 1 Corinthians 2:11, just as the spirit of a man is not a separate person from man, so also the Spirit of God is not a separate and distinct person from God.

            In John 14:16, Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “another Comforter (Paraklētos).” Barrett errs when he deduces that there are “two Helpers” i.e. the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Jesus is not a separate Paraklētos from the Holy Spirit. The word “another” (allos) means “another of the same sort.” The word allos is also used in the LXX 1 Samuel 10:6 of Saul who would be turned into “another man,” yet Saul wasn’t turned into a separate, distinct person. Jesus stated that the Paraklētos was the Spirit of Truth who was then dwelling “by the side” of the disciples (Robertson), but would be in them. This refers to the fact that although Jesus was then side-by-side with the disciples in flesh, He would later be in them by His Spirit—the Spirit of Jesus Christ which is the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5), which Paul referred to as “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). Not two separate Paraklētos (Comforters), not three separate Spirits, but One Spirit (Ephesians 4:4). Thus, the Spirit of Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father.

Reading Review: Denials of Orthodoxy: Heretical Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity

The following post is a "reading review" assignment that I had to complete for my Theology 1 class at Central Baptist College, Conway, Arkansas. Being the "token Pentecostal" of the class meant that there were many lively discussions concerning the Godhead, Deity of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit today. It was very beneficial for a Oneness Pentecostal to engage in dialogue with Trinitarian professors concerning theology, mostly because their presentation of Oneness Pentecostals beliefs are not simply biased, but incorrect. For example, my professor charged Oneness Pentecostals with denying the "200 references" to a distinction between the Father and the Son, to which I corrected him that we fully acknowledge a distinction between the Father and Son -- but not a distinction in person. I informed my professor on more than one occasion, that although he claimed to believe in the Trinity, he in fact was not a Trinitarian in that he did not accept the standard definition of "person" as "a self-conscious, self-rational being." (NOTE: Webster's 1828 Dictionary referred to a "person" as an intelligent, thinking being that possesses rational nature). Instead my professor chooses to define "person" as "personality" which are not synonymous terms. One of our assignments was a one-page "reading review" of an article entitled, Denials of Orthodoxy: Heretical Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Below is my assignment that I turned in for class. I did receive a 95% A on my paper. Most college professors will not give a grade higher than 95--97. I'm sure he counted some points off for "doctrinal differences."

 

Jason L. Weatherly

THE3311-24

Dr. ______ Smith

Article—Trinity

September 29, 2016

             Since this reading report of Gregg Allison, Denials of Orthodoxy: Heretical Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity is limited to one page, I will keep my source citations brief and reserved for either my essay paper or Power Point presentation.

            In looking at the very title of this article, the term orthodoxy does not necessitate something that is “biblical,” rather it refers to something that conforms to the doctrines “represented in the creeds of the early church” (dictionary.com). In addition, the primary meaning of the term heresy is “the choice of an opinion contrary to that usually received,” (Vincent, Word Studies, 2 Peter 2:1) and does not necessitate that the doctrine is unbiblical. For example, early Christianity was deemed a heresy by the orthodox Jewish religion (Acts 24:14), yet it actually represented the biblical system of belief. Likewise, many sects or bodies of believers were persecuted as heresy simply because they rejected the creeds and hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Even Protestant Reformers persecuted Lollards and anti-Trinitarian Anabaptist, such as Michael Servetus, as heretics for not conforming to Protestant theology.

            Allisson paints anti-Trinitarianism with a broad stroke when he lumps Oneness Pentecostals (who affirm the deity of Christ) together with Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses (who deny the deity of Christ) and Mormons (who are essentially polytheistic). Such a comparison is unwarranted to say the least.

             Allison equally illustrates his misunderstanding of Karl Barth’s view of the godhead by saying that “Barth used ‘mode of being’ in a way that was synonymous with the traditional word ‘person’.” Barth clearly expressed that he preferred the term “modes (or ways) of being” in order to “avoid the term ‘person’” because “the injection of the modern concept of personality into the debate achieved anything but fresh confusion” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, 355).

            In addition, Allison cannot truly find support in his appeal to prominent Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner. Rahner, in agreement with Barth, stated that “the use of the term ‘person’ in the doctrine of the Trinity becomes increasingly problematic” and suggested that it might be more appropriate to describe God as “three modes of subsistence” which “involves fewer dangers of what is in the last resort a tritheistic misunderstanding of the Trinitarian dogma” (Rahner, Theological Investigations, 18:).

            Allison’s assessment of Oneness Pentecostalism is equally flawed or misunderstood given that his source material is from the prejudiced view of D.A. Reed, a former Oneness Pentecostal turned Anglican priest! Allisson’s explanation of Oneness Pentecostalism as “the only distinction in God is that of transcendence and immanence” and “in Oneness terms, the Father (deity) indwells the Son (humanity)” does not at all accurately describe Oneness doctrine. Finally, Allison’s conclusion that “This truth [belief in the Trinity—JLW] is also why baptism into the name of the Triune God (Matt 28:19) is so important, as it distinguishes Christians from everyone else” contradicts the historical evidence of the book of the Bible. No Christian in the book of Acts was ever baptized “into the name of the Triune God.” Every account of baptism in the book of Acts, or alluded to in the Epistles, describes baptism as taking place “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 3:27).