Biblical Unitarian Patrick Navas Responds to My Comments on the Holy Spirit
Ed,
Even if the passages you mention unequivocally establish the "personhood" of the Spirit (which they do not), how do they establish, first in reference to Matthew 28:18-19, that the Spirit, Son and Father are all three persons that make up the one God? At what point did Jesus or the apostles teach this?
Although supporters of classical, trinitarian orthodoxy, respected Protestant Bible scholars, McClintock and Strong, acknowledged that this text (Matthew 28:18, 19), “taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” —Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume X, p. 552.
Without necessarily abandonding your overall position, should you not be able to acknowledge the same?
You wrote:
"John 14:26 is clear as well, that three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are being clearly delineated and differentiated from each other."
This is, of course, an obvious point and one we would accept. The three subjects are clearly delineated and differentiated from one another. But where is it taught that the three collectively constitute the one God? That is the real issue.
The other point you make about Matthew 28 is confusing. Anthony suggests that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (a point you yourslef make) yet it almost seems like you are mistaking his point to mean that the Spirit is the Father, because you argue:
"What you are saying in a sense, is that Jesus, in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 refers to the Father twice, "Father, the Son and Father again..."
Anthony is not saying that, in any sense. The Spirit to him is not the Father himself but the Spirit of the Father (and Son), that which proceeds from the Father, and that which serves to santctify, empower and unify the Father's children. I'm not sure that any Bible scholar or student would ever deny that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Father. And I fail to see how the argument you advance above has any application or relevance to Anthony's point.
Why would Christ refer to the Holy Spirit in the personal pronoun "He" and not "it" if the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and unique person from the Father.
It is entirely appropriate for the writers and participants in the Bible to refer to the Spirit with the personal pronoun "he" whenever the Spirit is spoken of as the "helper" or "advocate." The Greek term, parakletos, is masculine and so the pronoun must agree with the gender of the subject it has reference to. But in reference to John 14:26 specifically, the verse can and has been translated as follows:
But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.”
In this case "which" (ho) agrees with pneuma (spirit) which is neuter.
While most Trinitarian apologists have pointed to the use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) in connection with the Spirit as evidence of “personhood,” Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, although a defender of Trinitarianism, observed: “contrary to the supposition that the proximity of pneuma to ekeinos in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the pneuma is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun…The fact that pneuma and not parakletos is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.” Wallace also notes: “The grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of the doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment.” —“Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit”, Bulletin for Biblical Research (Wallace-HS), 2003, pp 108, 125.
Best wishes,
Patrick Navas
Even if the passages you mention unequivocally establish the "personhood" of the Spirit (which they do not), how do they establish, first in reference to Matthew 28:18-19, that the Spirit, Son and Father are all three persons that make up the one God? At what point did Jesus or the apostles teach this?
Although supporters of classical, trinitarian orthodoxy, respected Protestant Bible scholars, McClintock and Strong, acknowledged that this text (Matthew 28:18, 19), “taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” —Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume X, p. 552.
Without necessarily abandonding your overall position, should you not be able to acknowledge the same?
You wrote:
"John 14:26 is clear as well, that three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are being clearly delineated and differentiated from each other."
This is, of course, an obvious point and one we would accept. The three subjects are clearly delineated and differentiated from one another. But where is it taught that the three collectively constitute the one God? That is the real issue.
The other point you make about Matthew 28 is confusing. Anthony suggests that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (a point you yourslef make) yet it almost seems like you are mistaking his point to mean that the Spirit is the Father, because you argue:
"What you are saying in a sense, is that Jesus, in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 refers to the Father twice, "Father, the Son and Father again..."
Anthony is not saying that, in any sense. The Spirit to him is not the Father himself but the Spirit of the Father (and Son), that which proceeds from the Father, and that which serves to santctify, empower and unify the Father's children. I'm not sure that any Bible scholar or student would ever deny that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Father. And I fail to see how the argument you advance above has any application or relevance to Anthony's point.
Why would Christ refer to the Holy Spirit in the personal pronoun "He" and not "it" if the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and unique person from the Father.
It is entirely appropriate for the writers and participants in the Bible to refer to the Spirit with the personal pronoun "he" whenever the Spirit is spoken of as the "helper" or "advocate." The Greek term, parakletos, is masculine and so the pronoun must agree with the gender of the subject it has reference to. But in reference to John 14:26 specifically, the verse can and has been translated as follows:
But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.”
In this case "which" (ho) agrees with pneuma (spirit) which is neuter.
While most Trinitarian apologists have pointed to the use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) in connection with the Spirit as evidence of “personhood,” Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, although a defender of Trinitarianism, observed: “contrary to the supposition that the proximity of pneuma to ekeinos in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the pneuma is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun…The fact that pneuma and not parakletos is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.” Wallace also notes: “The grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of the doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment.” —“Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit”, Bulletin for Biblical Research (Wallace-HS), 2003, pp 108, 125.
Best wishes,
Patrick Navas
posted by Ed Enochs at 12:01 PM
<< Home