"...and of the Holy Spirit", pt. 2

(I do not condone what is pasted here)

The Holy Spirit—God’s Active Force

The Holy Spirit—God’s Active Force

ACCORDING to the Trinity doctrine, the holy spirit is the third person of a Godhead, equal to the Father and to the Son. As the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith says: “The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word most frequently used for “spirit” is ruʹach, meaning “breath; wind; spirit.” In the Greek Scriptures, the word is pneuʹma, having a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the holy spirit is part of a Trinity?

An Active Force

THE Bible’s use of “holy spirit” indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations.

At Genesis 1:2 the Bible states that “God’s active force [“spirit” (Hebrew, ruʹach)] was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” Here, God’s spirit was his active force working to shape the earth.

God uses his spirit to enlighten those who serve him. David prayed: “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit [ruʹach] is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness.” (Psalm 143:10) When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God said to him: “I shall have to take away some of the spirit [ruʹach] that is upon you and place it upon them.”—Numbers 11:17

Bible prophecy was recorded when men of God were “borne along by holy spirit [Greek, from pneuʹma].” (2 Peter 1:20, 21) In this way the Bible was “inspired of God,” the Greek word for which is The·oʹpneu·stos, meaning “God-breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16) And holy spirit guided certain people to see visions or to have prophetic dreams.—2 Samuel 23:2; Joel 2:28, 29; Luke 1:67; Acts 1:16; 2:32, 33.

The holy spirit impelled Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism. (Mark 1:12) The spirit was like a fire within God’s servants, causing them to be energized by that force. And it enabled them to speak out boldly and courageously.—Micah 3:8; Acts 7:55-60; 18:25;

Romans 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19.

By his spirit, God carries out his judgments on men and nations. (Isaiah 30:27, 28; 59:18, 19) And God’s spirit can reach everywhere, acting for people or against them.—Psalm 139:7-12.

‘Power Beyond Normal’

GOD’S spirit can also supply “power beyond what is normal” to those who serve him. (2 Corinthians 4:7) This enables them to endure trials of faith or to do things they could not otherwise do.

For example, regarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: “The spirit of Yahweh seized on him, and though he had no weapon in his hand he tore the lion in pieces.” (JB) Did a divine person actually enter or seize Samson, manipulating his body to do what he did? No, it was really “the power of the LORD [that] made Samson strong.”—TEV.

The Bible says that when Jesus was baptized, holy spirit came down upon him appearing like a dove, not like a human form. (Mark 1:10) This active force of God enabled Jesus to heal the sick and raise the dead. As Luke 5:17 says: “The Power of the Lord [God] was behind his [Jesus’] works of healing.”—JB.

God’s spirit also empowered the disciples of Jesus to do miraculous things. Acts 2:1-4 relates that the disciples were assembled together at Pentecost when “suddenly there occurred from heaven a noise just like that of a rushing stiff breeze, . . . and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.”

So the holy spirit gave Jesus and other servants of God the power to do what humans ordinarily could not do.

Not a Person

ARE there not, however, Bible verses that speak of the holy spirit in personal terms? Yes, but note what Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this in The Triune God: “Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.”

In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: “Sin is a demon crouching at the door,” personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain’s door. But, of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person.

Similarly, at 1 John 5:6-8 (NE) not only the spirit but also “the water, and the blood” are said to be “witnesses.” But water and blood are obviously not persons, and neither is the holy spirit a person.

In harmony with this is the Bible’s general usage of “holy spirit” in an impersonal way, such as paralleling it with water and fire. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8) People are urged to become filled with holy spirit instead of with wine. (Ephesians 5:18) They are spoken of as being filled with holy spirit in the same way they are filled with such qualities as wisdom, faith, and joy. (Acts 6:3; 11:24; 13:52) And at 2 Corinthians 6:6 holy spirit is included among a number of qualities. Such expressions would not be so common if the holy spirit were actually a person.

Then, too, while some Bible texts say that the spirit speaks, other texts show that this was actually done through humans or angels. (Matthew 10:19, 20; Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Hebrews 2:2) The action of the spirit in such instances is like that of radio waves transmitting messages from one person to another far away.

At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name . . . of the holy spirit.” But the word “name” does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say “in the name of the law,” we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament says: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” So baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.

My analysis:

Introduction, Sentences 1-2 (I1-2): I see no issue, I agree with the quote as a correct representation of my position.

Introduction, Sentences 3-5 (I3-5): I see no issue

An Active Force, Sentences 1-2 (AAF1-2): I disagree with their definition, and I’ll show how I think their arguments for it are unsound, but my definition would be something like “the person of the Godhead who lives in every believer”.

An Active Force, Sentences 3-4 (AAF3-4): This seems to be the proof-text for the “active force” definition. However, “active force” isn’t even included in the definitions of ru’ach in I3, and it seems that if ru’ach was translated “Spirit”, which is one of the definitions thereof (and the article states it too in AAF3, that we could modify this definition of the Holy Spirit into the simple definition of “God’s spirit”, such that I think AAF4 should really be saying: “…God’s spirit was His Spirit…” For that reason, I consider this an ineffective proof-text.

An Active Force, Sentences 5-15 (AAF5-15): I see no issue, except I think “the Holy Spirit” should replace “holy spirit”.

‘Power Beyond Normal’, Sentences 1-2 (PBN1-2): I see no issue

‘Power Beyond Normal’, Sentences 3-5 (PBN3-5): This reasoning does not affect my position; if the Holy Spirit came upon Samson (which I believe), and if the Holy Spirit is God (which I also believe), it’s reasonable to say that the power of God/the power of the Lord was the source of Samson’s strength. The Holy Spirit entering Samson does not mean he is a puppet, as it were; rather, it means that he was given strength to be able to accomplish the task of killing the lion with his bare hands.

‘Power Beyond Normal’, Sentence 6 (PBN6): This is the weakest argument presented thus far. The Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove, not as a dove. In addition, the idea that the Holy Spirit is supposed to be a human is absurd. As the name suggests, the Holy Spirit should be a spirit. Since God is a Spirit (John 4:24), the logic of this argument would refute the idea of God manifesting as a cloud or a pillar of fire, yet we see this clearly taught in Scripture.

PBN7-8: No issue other than the “active force” definition, but I already explained why I disagree with that.

PBN9-11: No issue other than capitalization of HS

Not a Person, Sentences 1-2 (NAP1-2): The argument here for the HS not being a person is a lack of revelation thereof in the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e., the Old Testament. This seems strong on surface level; that is, until you realize that the Old Testament isn’t meant to teach the Trinity. Jesus began His public ministry in the New Testament, and the Holy Spirit was first taught about by Jesus in the New Testament. Just because a concept isn’t clearly taught until the New Testament doesn’t mean that teaching is invalid (another example of this is baptism, which isn’t taught until the New Testament).

NAP3-7: This argument is reasonable; it doesn’t strengthen the idea that the HS isn’t God, but it doesn’t strengthen the idea that the HS is God. The only purpose this paragraph serves is to invalidate one—I think one of many—arguments for the deity of the Holy Spirit.

NAP8-9: This could’ve ended up with the same conclusion as NAP3-7; unfortunately, it attempts to take the implications of the argument further than it can go. In doing so, the argument wanders into the logically fallacious territory of an “argument from analogy”. The HS is not forced to be inanimate just because water and blood are inanimate, and the HS was placed in a list with the two. In a court case, not everything that testifies will be a person, because both humans and objects present at the contested event can give proof of a verdict, so the context of 1 John 5 does not support this notion presented in NAP8-9, either.

Mark 1:10 sentence: it literally says “like a dove” to show that the HS isn’t a dove. Also, if it’s the Holy *Spirit*, of course He isn’t human, same as “God is Spirit” in John 4:24

1 John 5:6-8 sentence: Luke 19:39-40

Just because a source is Catholic or Christian doesn’t mean I’m affected