Home » Posts tagged 'Trinity'
Tag Archives: Trinity
Videos on How to Lead an Evangelistic Bible Study
Numbers of churches have found the evangelistic Bible study series here helpful in their practice of Biblical evangelism. If you have never led someone else through an evangelistic Bible study, the link above provides an example a lost person can watch that could also be helpful for a believer in learning how to do them. A series of videos on how to teach these Bible studies is also going up on YouTube. Study #1 on the nature of God’s revelation in the Bible, study #2 on the nature of the Triune God, and study #3, on God’s law and sin’s consequences, now all have extensive exposition, and study #4, on the gospel, namely, on Christ’s redemptive death, burial, and resurrection, is in progress. Lord willing, when they are complete they will provide as much helpful teaching as a solid college class on Biblical evangelism.
Watch the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study by clicking here.
Of course, a fantastic way to learn to do an evangelistic Bible study is to go with your pastor or other experienced soulwinner to regularly preach the gospel, and learn how to do an evangelistic Bible study from that knowledgeable person in your church. Watching the videos above may supplement, but cannot replace, faithful evangelism in a faithful local independent Baptist church.
–TDR
The Repercussions of Jesus Simultaneously Being Both Completely 100% God and Completely 100% Man
All of us know that 100 plus 100 equals 200, not 100. If a single being is at 100 and Jesus is a single being, then He must be 100, so how can He or could He be 200? What does all this mean? How could Jesus effectively be completely, 100% man, when He is completely, 100% God? This is usually a struggle when teaching about Jesus to anyone. I’ve been asked about it many times and in various ways.
From my study and experience, the number one thought that brings together His complete humanity with His complete Deity is the teaching that by becoming man Jesus gave up the free exercise of His attributes, a doctrine that centers on Philippians 2:7, which reads:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
The words “made himself of no reputation” translate two Greek words, eautou kenoo, the second of which translates into the four words, “made of no reputation.” That second Greek word is the basis for a doctrine called, “kenosis.” The two words, eautou kenoo, mean literally, “he emptied himself.” If it means, “he emptied himself,” of what did Jesus empty Himself?
The doctrine of kenosis says that when Jesus became man, He was still completely, 100% God, but He emptied Himself of the free exercise of His attributes. This is saying that He had all these attributes. He kept all of them. He did not exercise these divine attributes freely. This was an aspect of His condescension and humiliation, which is taught in Philippians 2:3-10.
The doctrine of kenosis (not kenotic theology) has its one proof text in Philippians 2, but it also emerges from the Gospels. It makes sense of certain statements that don’t complement the Deity of Christ very well. You read it and you ask, why? The doctrine of kenosis answers these, bringing harmony to all of these passages.
Consider God’s attribute of omniscience. God knows everything. Many times Jesus shows omniscience. He can read people’s minds. He knows what they’re thinking in a supernatural way (Matthew 9:4, 12:25, Mark 2:8, Luke 11:17, and John 13:5). Jesus told the woman at the well things that He could not have known about her unless He was God (John 4). At the same time, in the Olivet Discourse Jesus said in Mark 13:32,
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Jesus didn’t know this. Only the Father knew it. This is an example of Jesus limiting the free exercise of His attributes. There were other ways that He did, but you get the point.
Theologians call the union in Jesus of the Divine and the human the hypostatic union. To make sense of the hypostatic union means exploring how He did divine works like forgiving sin (Luke 7:48), while doing things as a human being not characteristic of God, such as sleeping (Mark 4:38), weeping (John 11:35), and hungering (Mark 11:12). Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom. If Jesus was omniscient, how could that be true?
The purpose of God necessitated the incarnation. Jesus must become man, while remaining fully God. He would not fulfill the Davidic covenant without a human lineage. Jesus rose from dead with Divine power, but He was dead because He was human. As a human He could pay sin’s price for humans and yet rise again as God. Still a tension exists.
Jesus said in Luke 22:42, “Not my will, but thine, be done.” Wait a second. Wasn’t the will of the Father and the will of the Son exactly the same? They had the same will, right? This is where we understand something further in the doctrine of kenosis. As a human being, Jesus must submit His will, His human will, to the will of the Father. As a human being, Jesus must learn obedience. That might sound impossible, but a verse teaches this. Hebrews 5:8 says,
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
Did Jesus need to learn anything? Yes. He didn’t need to learn obedience as God. He and the Father forever had the same will. His subservience to the Father’s will, His submission to the Father’s will, was an aspect of His humanity. Like other human beings, He learned that. This was again part of His emptying Himself of the free exercise of His attributes.
For awhile and today still an argument exists concerning the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father (known as EFS, eternal functional subordination). I understand why people have believed it. The main argument against, and I agree with it, is the following. As both God in essence, the Father and the Son cannot have two wills. They do not have two wills. The obedience of the Son, His earthly submission to the Father, represents kenosis, Jesus’ emptying Himself of the free exercise of His divine attributes.
God is one, so He has one will, not two. As human, Jesus learned obedience. He always obeyed, but that subordination was not eternal. The subordination of the Son to the Father does not extend previous to His incarnation. This is a repercussion of Jesus simultaneously being both completely 100% God and completely 100% Man.
Is the Trinity Practical? by Ryan McGraw
Some time ago I reviewed on this blog Ryan McGraw’s fine book Knowing the Trinity: Practical Thoughts for Daily Life.
I recommend the book highly; too many Christians think that the Trinity is just a doctrine that one holds that has no impact on his life, when, in fact, the Trinity is at the heart of all of the believer’s relationship with God and is thus at the core of the Christian’s new birth, sanctification, glorification, and eternal heavenly fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
If Dr. McGraw’s book (easy to read and not especially long) book is more than one wants to read, however, he has also written a short and helpful pamphlet called “Is the Trinity Practical?” which one can read quickly in just a few minutes, and which distills the truth in his longer book (which itself was a distillation of John Owen’s Christian classic Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a great treasure which I discuss in my Trinitarianism class here for several lectures.)
I purchased a number of copies of “Is the Trinity Practical?” to share with others. While the links in this post are to Amazon as Amazon affiliate links (if you get things on Amazon, please consider using Amazon Smile as discussed here), where you can also see what other people have thought of the book in the relevant book review section at Amazon, the cheapest place that I found to get copies of McGraw’s pamphlet, at least as of writing this post, was with Reformation Heritage Books, which, at the time of my writing this, had a nice sale on McGraw’s pamphlet.
I believe McGraw’s pamphlet could be very helpful for practically all church members. Perhaps you should consider getting some copies and sharing them with others in your congregation? The only warning I would make is that as an orthodox Presbyterian with Puritan leanings McGraw uses the word “sacrament” a few times instead of the better Biblical term “ordinance.” for baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But his Trinitarianism is completely orthodox, and other than the word “sacrament” there is nothing that points to Presbyterian ecclesiology in his pamphlet. Dr. McGraw is to be commended for summarizing in short compass what far too many who have even graduated from Bible colleges do not know in our theologically loose day–that the Trinity is central to everything in the Christian life, and is therefore most eminently practical.
–TDR
Why is the Holy Ghost the “Holy” Spirit?
A few weeks ago on 9/17/2021 we answered the question “Why is the Holy Spirit named the Holy ‘Spirit'”? We learned that the answer to that question is that, most fundamentally, the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit” because He proceeds from the Father and the Son in a manner comparable to being breathed forth, just as the Father and the Son are Father and Son because the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.
What about the “Holy” in this most frequent designation of the third Person in the Trinity? Just as we saw in the last post that the Holy Ghost is not in His essence “Spirit” in a sense any different than the Father and Son are Spirit, so the Father’s essence is infinitely holy, the Son’s essence is infinitely holy, and the Spirit’s essence is infinitely holy (for the three possess the identical undivided essence, as they are homoousios), so the Holy Spirit is not in that sense any more or any less holy than the infinite holiness that is a glorious attribute of the Father and the Son.
So why, then, the “Holy” Spirit?
First, the Holy Spirit is so called because He possesses the infinite Divine holiness, in contrast to all created spirits (and it should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit is the immediate Agent of Christ casting out unclean spirits.) Second, as One who is utterly transcendent and pure in His being, and One who is to the highest degree consecrated to and in the closest union with the Father and the Son–that is, as One who is holy, and in accordance with the order of operations in the Trinity where the Divine acts are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit, because the Son is eternally of the Father, and the Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son, the Spirit is the Divine Person who immediately acts in making men holy. In other words, He is called the Holy Spirit because His nature is holy and His operations or works are holy and produce holiness in redeemed creatures.
So the title “Holy” is not expressive in particular of the Spirit’s procession or spiration from the Father and the Son; the Name expressive of the Spirit’s manner of subsistence in the Trinity is “Spirit,” as “Father” and “Son” are the Names expressive of the first and second Person’s manner of subsistence. “Holy” is not indicative of His ontological personal property, but “Spirit” is indicative of ontology, like Son and Father. “Holy” instead is a title frequently adjoined to the personal Name “Spirit” of the third Person in a manner somewhat comparable to the way in which “Lord” is affixed to the name “Jesus.”
Since the Spirit is eternally from the Father and Son, He draws us into fellowship with the Father and the Son. He is termed the “Holy Spirit” because He is infinitely consecrated to the Father and Son, perfectly holy in His own essence, and set apart from created spirits as possessor of Divine holiness to the highest degree, who is holy the way only God is holy. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, He is the One who applies the work of Father and Son He makes us holy.
John Owen in his Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit provides a helpful explanation (pgs. 55ff., Owen, Works vol 3):
Again; He is called, by way of eminency, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. 51:11, רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ, “The Spirit of thy Holiness,” or “Thy Holy Spirit.” Isa. 63:10, 11, רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ,—“The Spirit of his Holiness,” or “His Holy Spirit.” Hence are רוּהַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ and רוֹּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, “The Holy Spirit,” and “The Spirit of Holiness,” in common use among the Jews. In the New Testament he is τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἄγιον, “That Holy Spirit.” And we must inquire into the special reasons of this adjunct. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner. And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev. 20:8, “I am Jehovah which sanctify you.” And God in that work ascribes unto himself the title of Holy in an especial manner, and as such would have us to consider him: chap. 21:8, “I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy.” And this may be one reason of the frequent use of this property with reference unto the Spirit.
But this is not the whole reason of this name and appellation: for where he is first so mentioned, he is called “The Spirit of God’s Holiness,” Ps. 51:11, Isa. 63:10, 11; and in the New Testament absolutely “The Spirit of Holiness,” Rom. 1:4. And this respects his nature, in the first place, and not merely his operations. As God, then, absolutely is called “Holy,” “The Holy One,” and “The Holy One of Israel,” being therein described by that glorious property of his nature whereby he is “glorious in holiness,” Exod. 15:11, and whereby he is distinguished from all false gods, (“Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness?”) so is the Spirit called “Holy” to denote the holiness of his nature. And on this account is the opposition made between him and the unholy or unclean spirit: Mark 3:29, 30, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” And herein first his personality is asserted; for the unclean spirit is a person, and if the Spirit of God were only a quality or accident, as some fancy and dream, there could no comparative opposition be made between him and this unclean spirit,—that is, the devil. So also are they opposed with respect unto their natures. His nature is holy, whereas that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. This is the foundation of his being called “Holy,” even the eternal glorious holiness of his nature. And on this account he is so styled also with respect unto all his operations; for it is not only with regard unto the particular work of regeneration and sanctification, or making of us holy, but unto all his works and operations, that he is so termed: for he being the immediate operator of all divine works that outwardly are of God, and they being in themselves all holy, be they of what kind soever, he is called the “Holy Spirit.” Yea, he is so called to attest and witness that all his works, all the works of God, are holy, although they may be great and terrible, and such as to corrupt reason may have another appearance; in all which we are to acquiesce in this, that the “Holy One in the midst of us will do no iniquity,” [Hos. 11:9], Zeph. 3:5. The Spirit of God, then, is thus frequently and almost constantly called “Holy,” to attest that all the works of God, whereof he is the immediate operator, are holy: for it is the work of the Spirit to harden and blind obstinate sinners, as well as to sanctify the elect; and his acting in the one is no less holy than in the other, although holiness be not the effect of it in the objects. So, when he came to declare his dreadful work of the final hardening and rejection of the Jews,—one of the most tremendous effects of divine Providence, a work which, for the strangeness of it, men “would in no wise believe though it were declared unto them,” Acts 13:41,—he was signally proclaimed Holy by the seraphims that attended his throne, Isa. 6:3, 9–12; John 12:40; Acts 28:25, 26.
There are, indeed, some actions on men and in the world that are wrought, by God’s permission and in his righteous judgment, by evil spirits; whose persons and actings are placed in opposition to the Spirit of God. So 1 Sam. 16:14, 15, “The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.” So also verse 23, “The evil spirit from God was upon Saul.” So chap. 18:10, 19:9. …
To return; As he is called the Holy, so he is the Good Spirit of God: Ps. 143:10, רוּחֲךָ טוֹבָה תַּגְחֵנִי;—“Thy Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness;” so ours:—rather, “Thy good Spirit shall lead me;” or, as Junius, “Spiritu tuo bono deduc me,”—“Lead me by thy good Spirit.” … So Neh. 9:20, “Thou gavest them” רִוּחֲךָ הַטּוֹבָה, “thy good Spirit to instruct them.” And he is called so principally from his nature, which is essentially good, as “there is none good but one, that is, God,” Matt. 19:17; as also from his operations, which are all good as they are holy; and unto them that believe are full of goodness in their effects.
Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 pg. 277) summarizes why the third Person is called “Holy” and called the “Spirit”:
And although the divine being we call God is “Spirit” (John 4:24) and “holy” (Isa. 6:3), in Scripture the term “Holy Spirit” is still a reference to a special person in the divine being distinct from the Father and the Son. He owes this name to his special mode of subsistence: “spirit” actually means “wind,” “breath.” The Holy Spirit is the breath of the Almighty (Job 33:4), the breath of his mouth (Ps. 33:6). Jesus compares him to the wind (John 3:8) and “breathes” him upon his disciples (John 20:22; cf. 2 Thess. 2:8). The Spirit is God as the immanent principle of life throughout creation. And he is called “holy” because he himself exists in a special relation to God and because he puts all things in a special relation to God. He is not the spirit of humans or of creatures but the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11–12; Isa. 63:10–11).
You can learn more about the true God, the Triune God, in the class here.
–TDR
Why is the Holy Spirit called the Holy “Spirit”?
Last Friday we asked some questions, including the following:
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
So what are the answers?
The third Person in the Godhead possesses a spiritual nature identical to that of the Father and the Son. He is denominated the Spirit with reference to his Person, not only with reference to His essence. He is no more or less spiritual as to his substance than is the Father or the Son, for He is one being–homoousios–with them, but is called the Spirit because of the mode in which the essence is communicated to him, namely, by procession from the Father and the Son or by the Father and the Son’s spiration: “Spirit, because spirated.” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, pg. 268) “The Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, but the Holy Spirit is emphatically the Spirit. Not that he is spirit in any higher or any different sense of the word spirit, but upon other accounts, the name of Spirit is emphatically and more peculiarly attributed to him” (Waterland, Second Defence Q. 2). The chart below comes from Bible Study #2, Who is God?, where the Scriptural evidence for it is found, as it is in the detailed study in my Trinitarianism college class:
The Father is most fundamentally Father not because in the work of God toward us–the economic Trinity–He adopts His people and make them His adopted children, but because considering God as He is in Himself–the ontological Trinity–He is eternally the Father of the eternal Son, and the Son is eternally begotten by the Father; in time the Son was sent by the Father to be born in Bethlehem because in eternity the Son’s “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), the Father’s begetting expressing the eternal relation between the eternal Persons. The Son is eternally Son because He is eternally begotten of the Father. (Lecture #7 in the Trinitarianism course discusses the Biblical evidence that the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s procession are eternal.) Likewise the Spirit is eternally the Spirit because He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) and the Son (cf. John 20:22) in a manner that is comparable in an ineffably exalted way to being breathed forth, rather than the way the Son is of the Father, in an ineffably exalted way that is comparable to being begotten.
John Owen helpfully writes concerning the designation of the eternal third Person as the “Spirit,” and how this differs from the spiritual essence possessed in common by all three Trinitarian Persons:
This, then, being the name of him concerning whom we treat, some things concerning it and the use of it, as peculiarly applied unto him, are to be premised:1 for sometimes he is called the “Spirit” absolutely; sometimes the “Holy Spirit,” or, as we speak, the “Holy Ghost;” sometimes the “Spirit of God,” the “good Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of truth” and “holiness;” sometimes the “Spirit of Christ” or “of the Son.” The first absolutely used denotes his person; the additions express his properties and relation unto the other persons.
In the name Spirit two things are included;—First, His nature or essence,—namely, that he is a pure, spiritual, or immaterial substance; for neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks can express such a being in its subsistence but by ruach and pneuma, a spirit. Nor is this name, firstly, given unto the Holy Spirit in allusion unto the wind in its subtilty, agility, and efficacy; for these things have respect only unto his operations, wherein, from some general appearances, his works and effects are likened unto the wind and its effects, John 3:8. But it is his substance or being which is first intended in this name. So it is said of God, John 4:24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός·—“God is a Spirit;” that is, he is of a pure, spiritual, immaterial nature, not confined unto any place, and so not regarding one more than another in his worship; as is the design of the place to evince. It will therefore be said, that on this account the name of “Spirit” is not peculiar unto the third person, seeing it contains the description of that nature which is the same in them all; for whereas it is said, “God is a Spirit,” it is not spoken of this or that person, but of the nature of God abstractedly. I grant that so it is; and therefore the name “Spirit” is not, in the first place, characteristical of the third person in the Trinity, but denotes that nature whereof each person is partaker.
But, moreover, as it is peculiarly and constantly ascribed unto him, it declares his especial manner and order of existence; so that wherever there is mention of the “Holy Spirit,” his relation unto the Father and Son is included therein; for he is the Spirit of God. And herein there is an allusion to somewhat created,—not, as I said, to the wind in general, unto whose agility and invisibility he is compared in his operations, but unto the breath of man; for as the vital breath of a man hath a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine emanation, still abiding one with them: for all those allusions are weak and imperfect wherein substantial things are compared with accidental, infinite things with finite, and those that are eternal with those that are temporary. Hence, their disagreement is infinitely more than their agreement; yet such allusions doth our weakness need instruction from and by. Thus he is called … Ps. 33:6, “The Spirit” or “breath of the mouth of the LORD,” or “of his nostrils;” as Ps. 18:15, wherein there is an eminent allusion unto the breath of a man. … And from hence, or the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in an eternal emanation from the Father and Son, as the breath of God, did our Saviour signify his communication of his gifts unto his disciples by breathing on them: John 20:22 … and because in our first creation it is said of Adam that God … “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” Gen. 2:7. He hath the same appellation with respect unto God, Ps. 18:15. Thus is he called the “Spirit.” …
Again; He is commonly called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord; so, in the first mention of him, Gen. 1:2, רוּחַ אֶלֹהִים, “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I doubt not but that the name אֶלֹהִים, “Elohim,” which includes a plurality in the same nature, is used in the creation and the whole description of it to intimate the distinction of the divine persons; for presently upon it the name Jehovah is mentioned also, chap. 2:4, but so as Elohim is joined with it. But that name is not used in the account given us of the work of creation, because it hath respect only unto the unity of the essence of God. … Now, the Spirit is called the “Spirit of God” originally and principally, as the Son is called the “Son of God;” for the name of “God” in those enunciations is taken personally for the Father,—that is, God the Father, the Father of Christ, and our Father, John 20:17. And he is thus termed … upon the account of the order and nature of personal subsistence and distinction in the holy Trinity. The person of the Father being [the font of the Trinity], the Son is from him by eternal generation, and is therefore his Son, the Son of God; whose denomination as the Father is originally from hence, even the eternal generation of the Son. So is the person of the Holy Spirit from him by eternal procession or emanation. Hence is that relation of his to God even the Father, whence he is called the “Spirit of God.” And he is not only called … the “Spirit of God,” but … “the Spirit that is of God,” which proceedeth from him as a distinct person. This, therefore, arising from and consisting in his proceeding from him, he is called, metaphorically, “The breath of his mouth,” as proceeding from him by an eternal spiration. On this foundation and supposition he is also called, secondly, “The Spirit of God” … to difference him from all other spirits whatever; as, thirdly, also, because he is promised, given, and sent of God, for the accomplishment of his whole will and pleasure towards us. The instances hereof will be afterward considered. But these appellations of him have their foundation in his eternal relation unto the Father, before mentioned.
On the same account originally, he is also called the Spirit of the Son: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts,” Gal 4:6;—and the Spirit of Christ: “What time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,” 1 Pet. 1:11. So Rom. 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The Spirit, therefore, of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same; for that hypothetical proposition, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” is an inference taken from the words foregoing, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” And this Spirit of Christ, verse 11, is said to be the “Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead.” Look, then, in what sense he is said to be the Spirit of God,—that is, of the Father,—in the same he is said to be the Spirit of the Son. And this is because he proceedeth from the Son also; and for no other reason can he be so called, at least not without the original and formal reason of that appellation. Secondarily, I confess he is called the “Spirit of Christ” because promised by him, sent by him, and that to make effectual and accomplish his work towards the church. But this he could not be unless he had antecedently been the Spirit of the Son by his proceeding from him also: for the order of the dispensation of the divine persons towards us ariseth from the order of their own subsistence in the same divine essence; and if the Spirit did proceed only from the person of the Father, he could not be promised, sent, or given by the Son. Consider, therefore, the human nature of Christ in itself and abstractedly, and the Spirit cannot be said to be the Spirit of Christ; for it was anointed and endowed with gifts and graces by him, as we shall show. … This, therefore, is the formal reason of this appellation: The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Son,” and the “Spirit of Christ,” upon the account of his precession or emanation from his person also. Without respect hereunto he could not be called properly the “Spirit of Christ;” but on that supposition he may be. He is so denominated from that various relation and respect that he hath unto him in his work and operations. Thus is the Spirit called in the Scripture, these are the names whereby the essence and subsistence of the third person in the Holy Trinity are declared. How he is called on the account of his offices and operations will be manifested in our progress. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 3 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.], 54-64)
So most fundamentally the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit,” Pneuma, because He is, as it were, “breathed forth” (pneo, cf. Psalm 147:7, “he will blow his breath, pneusei to pneuma autou,” [LXX]) in an eternal procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle, while the Son, by contrast, is eternally begotten by the Father.
That is why the Holy Spirit is most fundamentally designated the “Spirit”; it is because of His eternal relation to the Father and the Son. Why is He so frequently called “Holy”? Stay tuned–that will be the subject of an upcoming post (although it may not be next Friday; I’m thinking October 15th’s blogpost, probably).
–TDR
Why is the third Person in the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
Also, the Father is the “holy Father” (John 17:11), and the Son is the “Holy One” (Acts 3:14). The Holy Spirit is not in a higher degree morally pure or righteous than the Father or the Son–Father, Son, and Spirit are all infinitely righteous, possessing equal, immeasurable, infinite holiness.
So why “the Holy Spirit”?
What do you think?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
Lord willing, I’ll tell you what I think next Friday in my post then. But you can share your thoughts now in the comment section.
Here’s a clue–why is the “Father” the “Father” and the “Son” the “Son”?
By the way, for a simple overview of the Biblical teaching on the Trinity, see Bible study #2 here; for something with more depth, see the college class here.
–TDR
The Gnostic History of Images of Jesus Christ
Images of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, should not be made for the reasons explained in the appropriate articles in the studies on ecclesiology here. But did you know that the Gnostics were the first ones to makes images of the Savior? Note the following:
The Gnostics, in their enmity to God the Father, had proscribed his image, but being favourable to the Son, they painted and sculptured the figure of the Saviour, of all dimensions, and under various forms. It … appears … that we are indebted to Gnostics for the earliest portraits of Jesus. “It was for the use of Gnostics, and by the hand of those sectaries, who attempted at various times, and by a thousand different schemes, to effect a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Christianity with Pagan superstitions, that little images of Christ were first fabricated; the original model of these figures they traced back to Pontius Pilate himself, by a hypothetical train of reasoning, which could scarcely deceive even the most ignorant of their initiated disciples. These little statues were made of gold, or silver, or some other substance, and after the pattern of those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of antiquity, which those sectarians were accustomed to exhibit, crowned with flowers in their Conciliabula, and all of which were honoured with the same degree of worship. Such, indeed, is the positive assertion of St. Iræneus,* confirmed, or at least reiterated by St. Epiphanius.† This superstition, which on the same principle permitted painted images of Christ, was peculiarly in vogue amongst the Gnostics of the sects of Carpocrates; and history has preserved the name of a woman, Marcellina, adopted by that sect, for the propagation of which she removed from the farthest East, to Rome; and who in the little Gnostic church, as it may be called, which was under her direction, exposed to the adoration of her followers images of Christ and of St. Paul, of Homer and Pythagoras. This fact, which is supported by the serious evidence of St. Augustine,‡ is, besides, perfectly in accordance with the celebrated anecdote of the Emperor, Alexander Severus, who placed amongst his Lares, between the images of the most revered philosophers and kings, the portraits of Christ, and of Abraham, opposite those of Orpheus and Apollonius of Tyana, and who paid to all a vague kind of divine worship.§ It cannot, therefore, be doubted, that this strange association originated in the bosom of certain schools of the Neo-Platonists, as well as in several Gnostic sects, and we may thence infer, that the existence of images fabricated by Gnostic hands, induced Christians, as soon as the Church relaxed in its primitive aversion to monuments of idolatry, to adopt them for their own use.*”[1]
* St. Irenæus, Advers. Hæres. lib. i., cap. xxv., a. 6, édition de Massuet.
† St. Epiphanius, Hæres. cap. xxvii., a. 6. See on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, “de Origine imaginum Christi Domini in Ecclesia Christiana,” s. 10, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iii., 394–396.
‡ St. Augustin, de Hæresib. cap. vii.: “Sectæ ipsius (Carpocratis) fuisse traditur socia quædam Marcellina, quæ colebat imagines Jesu et Pauli, et Homeri et Pythagoræ, adorando incensumque ponendo.” (See the dissertation of Fueldner, upon the Carpocratians, in the Dritte Denkschrift der Hist. Theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig., p. 267, et seq.)
- Æl. Lamprid. in Alexandr. Sever. cap. xxix. “In larario suo, in quo et divos principes, sed optimos (et) electos et animas sanctiores, in queis et Appollonium, et quantum scriptor suorum temporum dicit. Christum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujusmodi ceteros, habebat ac majorum effigies, rem divinam faciebat.” Such is the lesson proposed by Heyne for the employment of this text. (See the dissertation of Alexandr. Sever. Imp. religion. miscell. probant., &c., in his Opuscul. Academ. vol. vi., p. 169–281; see also on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, De Alexandra Severo, Imperatore Romano, Christianorum sacris per Gnostico initiato, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iv., p. 38–79.
* Such, we are told by M. Raoul Rochette, is the inference drawn by the pious and learned Bottari, from the testimony quoted above, Pitture e Sculture Sacre, vol i., p. 196; and that his opinion, formed in the bosom of orthodox Catholicism, has been adopted by all Roman antiquaries.
[1] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Christian Iconography; Or, the History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages, trans. E. J. Millington and Margaret Stokes, vol. 1 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1886), 243–245.
So if you use images of Jesus Christ to (mis)represent Him in curricula for children’s ministries, or around the 25th of December you make a little image of Jesus and put it in a stable, you are not only violating the Second Commandment by engaging in a form of (likely unintentional) idolatry, but you are following the ancient Gnostics.
Maybe it is time to immediately stop making, using, condoning, promoting, or contributing in any way to the use of images of the Son of God.
–TDR
God’s Name Jehovah: What Does It Mean?
I thought that the classical statement below on the significance of the name Jehovah in the very helpful 17th century systematic theology The Christian’s Reasonable Service by Wilhemus á Brakel, theologian of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie or Further/Second Reformation, which was comparable to English Puritanism, was worth reprinting and thinking about. I have reproduced it from one of the appendixes of my essay on the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points:
[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is יְהוָֹה or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as יָהּ or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is אֱלֹהִים or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in יֱהוִה or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons.
The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name אֲדֹנָי or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word kurios, the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One.
The name Jehovah is not to be found at all in the New Testament, which certainly would have been the case if it had been a prerequisite to preserve the name Jehovah in all languages. . . . Even though the transliteration of Hebrew words would conflict with the common elegance of the Greek language, it is nevertheless not impossible. Since they can pronounce the names Jesus, Hosanna, Levi, Abraham, and Hallelujah, they are obviously capable of pronouncing the name Jehovah. . . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (Wilhemus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992] 84-85)
May you be edified as you meditate upon Jehovah and His wonderful Name.
–TDR
The Tetragrammaton and the Incarnation–A Hebrew Connection?
George Sayles Bishop, contributor to The Fundamentals (George S. Bishop, Chapter IV: The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80-96), defender of the inspiration and preservation of Scripture and opponent of higher criticism and secular lower criticism, and someone I cite in my papers on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points and on the inspiration of the vowels, commented as follows on the Hebrew language and the Tetragrammaton in particular as connected to the incarnation of the Son of God:
[T]he Bible differs on its surface from every other book.
It speaks of a Trinity in the very roots of its verbs, ever one of which is, in the Hebrew, composed of 3 letters—tri-lateral.
It teaches man’s apostasy and restoration in the singular reversal of its text. The Hebrew is written and read from right to left: from God’s right hand where He doth work, is man’s departure. Then the Greek takes him up, a prodigal son at his remotest distance from God and brings him back from left to right—from death to life again.
Incarnation is in the Tetragrammaton [JHVH/YHWH]: that is the Hebrew letters of the word Jehovah, יְהוָֹה, written vertically from up to down give us the outlines of the human figure—God made flesh. This is the difference between Elohim, God in creation; and God in covenant anticipating incarnation.
Again: the Bible puts man’s true relations in the very conjugation of the Hebrew verb. In all occidental languages the verb is conjugated from the first person to the third—“I,” “Thou,” “He.” The Hebrew, in reversal of the human thought, is conjugated from the third down and back to the first: beginning with God, then my neighbor, then myself last—“He,” “Thou,” “I.” This is the Divine order: self-obliterating and beautiful. (George S. Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1977], 8)
What do you think—is his comment just speculation, or is there something to it? God is the Author of language, after all, and it is reasonable to think that He would take the highest degree of care in His own name in the language, Hebrew, in which He originally revealed Himself. On the other hand, does He ever encourage us to draw conclusions like this in the plain statements He makes about how we are to learn of Him in His revelation? Do you agree with Bishop? Why or why not?
“The Anabaptists Church Worldwide” & “Street Preacher Fellowship” cult
There is an organization called “The Anabaptists [sic] Church Worldwide” that supports a “Street Preacher Fellowship.” It is a cult, a false religion.
This blog post will not focus upon peripheral problems, such as the poor English grammar evident in the fact that the organization’s name does not appear to understand the role of the apostrophe and the many grammatical errors in its statement of faith and other documents.
Nor will it focus upon the fact that the cult rejects the congregational church polity of Anabaptism for a form of hierarchicalism with a “Biblical presbytery rule [sic]” and “national bishops” and so is not Anabaptist, but would be better called Episcopalian than Anabaptist, although it may not even understand what episcopalian, presbyterian, and congregational church polity are.
Nor will it focus upon the fact that the cult does not understand that the church of the New Testament is not universal or invisible. Nor will it focus upon affirmations in its doctrinal statement such as that Christians are “at point [sic] of salvation baptized by the Holy Spirit of God into one body . . . and that body being not all [sic] figurative, but altogether real, physically . . . that body is Christ’s . . . each born again child of God is literally made to be . . . members of Jesus Christ’s body, of His flesh and of His bones.” The members of the organization do not, however, literally disappear into the ascended human body of Christ to become part of His literal bone marrow, and, remember, the statement is allegedly literal, “not at all figurative.”
Nor will it focus upon the cult’s extreme Ruckmanism, through which it denies Christ’s promises to preserve the Greek and Hebrew words which were dictated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 5:18) and denigrates study of the preserved words of God in the original languages. Nor will it focus upon how the cult undermines confidence in the King James Bible through its extremism. Nor will it focus upon the bizarre idea in its doctrinal statement that the Bible actually is God in written form, an idea which the pseudo-Baptist cultist Steven Anderson has also adopted.
Nor will it focus upon the cult’s tendency to name-calling and careless study of Scripture, nor upon the fact that the section in its doctrinal statement on (the wicked sin of) sodomy adds ideas not present in the Bible; nor on the fact that the cult also follows Steven Anderson and rejects Scripture by teaching that sodomites cannot be saved (with the “Anabaptists Church” cult making certain qualifications to this), nor on the fact that it spends more time on sodomy than it does on the nature of God, and that only its statement on sodomy, but nothing else in its doctrinal statement, ends with the affirmation: “This section of the Articles of Faith of the Anabaptists Church [sic] Worldwide is not subject to revision, and shall never be changed by any presbytery without the dissolvement [sic] of the Church Worldwide.” Apparently even the bad grammar in this section of the cult’s articles of faith cannot be changed; but that is not the focus of this blog post.
What is the worst false doctrine of this cult? The worst false teaching is its rejection of the Trinity and of the incarnation of Christ in favor of a bizarre, blasphemous, and ignorant form of modalism. Its article of faith on the Trinity includes the following:
-
2.3 We believe that God is a spirit (John 4:24), and that the Holy Spirit is
that very Spirit of the Lord God (Isaiah 61:1, 10.11, 14), and was the very
breath of Life in Jesus Christ (Isaiah 11:4/ Job 33:4/ John 20:22).
-
2.4 We believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father (John 10:30) manifest in the
flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and that Jesus Christ was and is the bodily
manifestation of God Almighty.
-
2.5 As a ghost is the spirit of a dead man (Luke 24:37/ Matthew 14:26), we
believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus Christ which He gave up on
Calvary when He died for our sins (John 19:30/ Matthew 27:50/ Mark
15:37/ Luke 23:46), and as the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:2-8) is the Spirit of Jesus
Christ (Romans 8:9/ Philippians 1:19). These Three being One God, each
exists eternally as God, and as the manifestations of themselves in One as
distinguished from the Other. God is a spirit, and that spirit is the Holy
Spirit, who was the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) of Jesus Christ, who Himself
was the bodily manifestation of God the Father with the Holy Spirit
breathing within Him as the very Life of God. Though the Eternal God cannot
die, God the Father sent His Son into the world to do just that, yielding up
the ghost when He had finished His Father’s work; upon which the Holy
Ghost of God became the working manifestation of God the Father in
baptizing believers into the very body of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous (1
Corinthians 12:11-14/ Acts 1:5).
The statement that “Jesus Christ is God the Father” is modalist heresy and idolatry. It is a damnable false doctrine. It proclaims a false God, a denial and rejection of the true God. Jesus Christ is the Son, not the Father. By teaching that Jesus Christ is God the Father, this cult shows that they are antichrist, denying the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22).
The affirmations in 2.5 make a crazy confusion of Christ’s human spirit with the Holy Spirit. By denying that Christ’s human soul and spirit were separated from His body at His death, instead claiming that the Holy Spirit was present instead of Christ’s human spirit, the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult denies the true humanity of Christ. Only if Christ had a true and complete humanity, body, soul, and spirit, could He represent and save sinful mankind. Section 2.5 denies Christ’s true humanity by claiming that the Holy Spirit replaced the Lord Jesus’ human spirit, something similar to the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism (although if the cult’s members cannot even write in English properly, and think Anabaptists held to presbyterian church polity, it is not likely that they have much understanding of early Trinitarian controversies). By denying the true and complete humanity of Jesus Christ, the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult shows itself to be of the “spirit of antichrist,” and its members to be deceivers and antichrists (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7).
Various parts of their doctrinal statement also teach the idolatrous idea that God is body, soul, and spirit like people are–the Holy Spirit is allegedly God’s eternal spirit part, based on a confusion of the use of the word Spirit for the third Person and also for the human spirit. The words for spirit, ruach and pneuma, are also used for the wind in the Bible, but the Holy Spirit is not God’s eternal wind. God’s eternal body part is allegedly the Son, denying His true incarnation in time (1 John 4:1-3) and thus evidencing itself as antichrist. God’s eternal soul part is allegedly the Father, something for which Scripture gives not a scintilla of evidence. The cult claims Biblical support for its idolatry by assuming that since man is in the image of God, God must be body, soul, and spirit, ignoring the fact that the image of God in man is “righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:24) and that the image is being progressively renewed in believers through progressive sanctification (Colossians 3:10), so the image of God in man has absolutely nothing to do with the wicked blasphemy that God is an eternal Son-body, spirit-Holy Ghost, and soul-Father.
There are a number of things that a born-again child of God, and a member of one of Christ’s true Baptist churches, could find attractive about the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult. It claims to stand for the KJV; it believes in modesty and gender distinction; it (pretends) to be part of the Anabaptist/Baptist line of true churches; it takes a strong stand against sins the world is promoting, such as homosexuality; it claims to be fearless and bold in its preaching; it practices street preaching, which is very good, and so on. One can hope that perhaps some of the members of this cult are too ignorant to realize that their articles of faith deny the Trinity and the true humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ in favor of modalism and a form of Apollinarianism. Regrettably, none of the above nice things justify its wicked rejection of the true God and of the incarnate Christ. Who cares if you are modestly dressed if you are a blasphemer and idolator? Those that actually believe its doctrinal statement will find themselves in hell with the Antichrist. Those that are too ignorant to understand its heresies have no business preaching to anybody (1 Timothy 3:1) until they learn the rudiments of Christianity on the nature of God.
If you are a member of the “Anabaptist Church Worldwide” and “Street Preacher Fellowship” cult, I call on you to repent of your idolatry and other sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved (Mark 1:15), and then separate yourself from this cult and join one of Christ’s true churches. Learn more about Christ’s true gospel and His true church here.
–TDR
Recent Comments