The Holy Trinity?

[Neighbor]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

So what?   I know what I believe and why and it is based on study of Scripture. McArthur has a lot of other problems, theologically and I can post theologians who see Jesus' Sonship as originating with His incarnation, which is what the Bible teaches.

The so what is that  individuals do reach conclusions, strongly held conclusions based upon scripture, their study of scripture, with prayer on the meaning of scripture and thought. They also  can and do  find newer awareness as they study yet again subjects they  had built into doctrine for themselves and others. Some even then  take the time to state that they have actually changed their understanding. Rather than be dogmatic holding onto  a conclusion that was reached based upon human skills in reasoning, they share of their further enlightenment. 

I find that  rather refreshing, and scholarly. If one seeks truths, there will always be some  ah ha moments when old truths are found to be wanting. And a newer truth will supplant the old.

Even  Albert Einstein  did a modification of his theory of relativity as he continued study rather than expouse dogma.

So, the "so what" is- Good individuals trying to serve in the good purposes of  God do have moments when they change their conclusions, as God reveals new insight. Why Saul had such a change in conclusion. Even I have had  such a change, every born again individual has had a change from a strongly held conclusion! The opinions of man on many issues is not worthy of suffering any great angst and argument, discussion yes, but great determined dogmatic argument? Don't think so.

 

The idea that one might  modify or even reject old  near doctrinal positions, especially on  non-salvation issues, and embrace new thoughts on old conclusions is not always a bad thing. 

I am lifted up in spirit when I see the humility shown  by some that serve our Lord and savior as pastors and teachers. For they do not hold their sense of scholarly authority  and reputation up for all to see so high as to  (Have to) deny new awareness when it comes to them.  These are the best of scholars, in whom to lean upon for their commentary, for they still have the fine attribute of humility within themselves. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Neighbor

[Guest shiloh357]

56 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

The so what is that  individuals do reach conclusions, strongly held conclusions based upon scripture, their study of scripture, with prayer on the meaning of scripture and thought. They also  can and do  find newer awareness as they study yet again subjects they  had built into doctrine for themselves and others. Some even then  take the time to state that they have actually changed their understanding. Rather than be dogmatic holding onto  a conclusion that was reached based upon human skills in reasoning, they share of their further enlightenment. 

I find that  rather refreshing, and scholarly. If one seeks truths, there will always be some  ah ha moments when old truths are found to be wanting. And a newer truth will supplant the old.

Even  Albert Einstein  did a modification of his theory of relativity as he continued study rather than expouse dogma.

So, the "so what" is- Good individuals trying to serve in the good purposes of  God do have moments when they change their conclusions, as God reveals new insight. Why Saul had such a change in conclusion. Even I have had  such a change, every born again individual has had a change from a strongly held conclusion! The opinions of man on many issues is not worthy of suffering any great angst and argument, discussion yes, but great determined dogmatic argument? Don't think so.

 

The idea that one might  modify or even reject old  near doctrinal positions, especially on  non-salvation issues, and embrace new thoughts on old conclusions is not always a bad thing. 

I am lifted up in spirit when I see the humility shown  by some that serve our Lord and savior as pastors and teachers. For they do not hold their sense of scholarly authority  and reputation up for all to see so high as to  (Have to) deny new awareness when it comes to them.  These are the best of scholars, in whom to lean upon for their commentary, for they still have the fine attribute of humility within themselves. 

Again, so what?   Is his position correct simply because he changed it?   How is holding to what one believes an act of pride and unscholarly?   I know  many other scholars who disagree with McArthur.  Are they unscholarly because they see things differently?   Isn't this really just a case of persona bias on your part?   You agree with McArthur and since I have the courage and temerity to hold to what I believe and not change simply because McArthur changed, you feel the need to run me down, right?  I was supposed to change my views because McArthur did?   And my unwillingness to change my views offends you and it is a lack of humility on my part because I didn't fall down at the feet of John McArthur?

[FresnoJoe]

10 hours ago, brakelite said:

The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, it is Christ Himself....
It is not a third person however that dwells within us....
it is the Father AND the Son. Christ in us....
the hope of glory....

If anyone does not have the Spirit of CHRIST, he is none of His....
God is Spirit. And it is that Spirit, the Spirit OF GOD, that dwells in us....

Why invent a third person to make something that is already difficult to fully comprehend....
into something that is nonsensical....

Who

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 1:18

Who Is This

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Matthew 3:11

Who Is This Holy Ghost, Who?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:19

~

Believe

But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. Mark 13:11

Believe

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. John 14:26

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

~

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.  It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

From The Inside Of My Gideon New Testament

[Neighbor]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Again, so what?   Is his position correct simply because he changed it?   How is holding to what one believes an act of pride and unscholarly?   I know  many other scholars who disagree with McArthur.  Are they unscholarly because they see things differently?   Isn't this really just a case of persona bias on your part?   You agree with McArthur and since I have the courage and temerity to hold to what I believe and not change simply because McArthur changed, you feel the need to run me down, right?  I was supposed to change my views because McArthur did?   And my unwillingness to change my views offends you and it is a lack of humility on my part because I didn't fall down at the feet of John McArthur?

 My point has nothing at all to do with MacArthur's position then  or now. It has to do with my admiration for real scholars, individuals humble in spirit that are willing to  listen to the views of others, consider those views without any rancor in their heart as they do, study the word, and to even change their conclusion on occasion after further study on a subject.

 I find that to be  in sharp contrast to  pretenders of scholarship, some being frequent posters on boards that  just puff themselves up and make accusations of bad motives at all  those that   reach  conclusions different from  their own. They tend to suffer deeply from a combination of pride, and in that plague upon them that of  accepting only that which  services their cognitive dissonance demands.

 I found John MacArthur to be an example of humility ( a contrast from some pontificators ) that I admire. Doesn't matter what conclusion he may  have reached on any subject. For it is the process of humility exemplified in his acknowledgement, that  is the lesson to be found within his willingness to speak out, showing that  all men are fallible, and all men need be humble in their presentations and exchanges of thoughts theories and even doctrine or closely held truths with others.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Neighbor

[brakelite]

13 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus became the Son of God at His incarnation.   Jesus was not the Son of God when He preexisted the universe we have today.  

Therefore according to the above,God did not send His only begotten Son into the world...He sent someone else who became a son. You rend John 3:16, 1 John 4:9, and a number of other passages, meaningless.

And who is this....Proverbs 30:4  Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?
 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, brakelite said:

Therefore according to the above,God did not send His only begotten Son into the world...He sent someone else who became a son. You rend John 3:16, 1 John 4:9, and a number of other passages, meaningless.

 

Nothing in those verses says that Jesus was begotten before His incarnation.  When God sent Jesus, He was begotten at His incarnation.  It's has simple as that.  

Quote

And who is this....Proverbs 30:4  Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

That's a Messianic prophecy about Jesus.   It is not referencing Jesus pre-incarnation; it's referencing Jesus' first coming as God's Son.
 

[Paper mache]

20 hours ago, OneLight said:

Just read this opening and wondered how you see Jesus meaning while introducing the Holy Spirit, saying in John 14:15-18:  "If you love Me, keep My commandments.  And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."

Start there and read the next few chapters.  Notice that the Holy Spirit is never addressed as an "it", but as a person with "He" and "Him".

The fact that the Holy Spirit is referred to as "he/him" doesn't convince me that the HS is a person. There are other explanations, such as grammar/translation instead of theological doctrine, and the fact that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of the Father/Christ could mean that the "he/him" is referring to the Father/Christ.

17 hours ago, Ezra said:

More DODGING of the issue.  In the Name of whom?  Are there three Persons mentioned?

Isn't it wonderful when people try to dodge and dodge and dodge?

Can you please try not to be rude? If you're not intentionally being rude, you really need to work on how you word things. And, a mention of a name doesn't automatically make the name mentioned God. So I don't know what source you're getting your reasoning from, but it isn't the Bible.

If there is only ONE verse in the Bible that supports Trinitarian doctrine directly (Matthew 28:19), and that verse doesn't even explicitly state that all three of the names mentioned are God/part of the Godhead, then the support for the Trinitarian doctrine isn't very strong.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

That's a Messianic prophecy about Jesus.   It is not referencing Jesus pre-incarnation; it's referencing Jesus' first coming as God's Son.
 

Got any biblical proof that this is a prophecy? (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything. If you supply biblical proof, I will accept it.)

[Guest shiloh357]

46 minutes ago, Brittany said:

The fact that the Holy Spirit is referred to as "he/him" doesn't convince me that the HS is a person. There are other explanations, such as grammar/translation instead of theological doctrine,

The problem with that personhood isn't matter of grammar.   You are confusing the issue of personhood with the grammatical use of gender which has nothing to do with whether or not the object a person or is male or female.  In Hebrew, for instance, everything, even inanimate objects are either male or female.  But that has nothing to do with whether or not the object is a chair a dog or a human being.

The use of the personal pronoun He with refeence to the Holy Spirit is so numerous that you cannot make it an issue of translation or grammar because it is used in conjunction with personal attributes.   "He" is able to do the things we expect a person to do.  He acts like a person and is referred to as a person. 

I would also add that you have no reason to be unconvinced because you have provided NO evidence from scripture that would indicate that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.   So you being unconvinced doesn't really make any sense since you cannot really offer up a refutation.   You simply refuse to go where the evidence leads.

Quote

and the fact that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of the Father/Christ could mean that the "he/him" is referring to the Father/Christ.

Well if that were true, you have two problems.  First of all, if you're going to say that "Spirit of Christ/Father is referring to the Father/Christ, then and you accept that they are persons, you would have to accept that the Holy Spirit is a Person.

The second problem that you have takes us back to the evidence issue.  What evidence is there to suggest that "Spirit of Christ/Father" is just a reference  to the Father and Jesus?  

Jesus said,

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.(Joh 16:7)

Now, if the Holy Spirit and Jesus were the same Person, how could He make that statement?   That makes no sense if Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ) are one and the same Person.    The Comforter is clearly mentioned as a separate entity from Jesus.   If the Holy Spirit cannot come until Jesus departs and sends Him, they are clearly different Persons.  

And notice what Jesus said here:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:(Joh 15:26)

So we see here that according to Jesus, He is going to send from the Father, the Spirit of Truth (another Title of the Holy Spirit), the Comforter,  who also proceeds from the Father.   That means that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not the same Person.

And we have this from Acts:

And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.  (Act 5:32)

The Holy Spirit is a witness of the things that the Apostles said and is given by God to them that obey Him.  Only a person can be a witness, but also note that the Father gives us the Holy Spirit, meaning that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father.

So that's three biblical evidences that the Holy Spirit is a Person and is a separate Person from the Father and Jesus.
 

Quote

 

Got any biblical proof that this is a prophecy? (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything. If you supply biblical proof, I will accept it.)

 

I am not sure what you would accept as proof.   But all references to the Sonship of Jesus always apply to His first coming.  That's when He was begotten and when He took on the role of "Son."

It's a common prophecy that Messianic Jews use to prove that Jesus is God's Son.   It is fulfilled in Matthew:

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:16-17)

 

[OneLight]

1 hour ago, Brittany said:

The fact that the Holy Spirit is referred to as "he/him" doesn't convince me that the HS is a person. There are other explanations, such as grammar/translation instead of theological doctrine, and the fact that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of the Father/Christ could mean that the "he/him" is referring to the Father/Christ.

If you read the verses I suggested, you will see that Jesus meant what he said.  Jesus asks the Father to send another Helper ... if you are looking for a physical body, you won't find one. 

[brakelite]

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Nothing in those verses says that Jesus was begotten before His incarnation.  When God sent Jesus, He was begotten at His incarnation.  It's has simple as that.  

That's a Messianic prophecy about Jesus.   It is not referencing Jesus pre-incarnation; it's referencing Jesus' first coming as God's Son.
 

Then we see things quite different. For me, when God's word says that God sent His Son to save me, I believe He had a Son to send.