Chief
Chief of Sinners.
Last edited:
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
Chief
Chief of Sinners.
Adventists regard the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, guiding believers closer to Christ and helping them connect with God the Father.
Read more about this fundamental belief here.
The Holy Spirit's Role
- Identity in the Trinity: The Holy Spirit is part of the triune God, witnessed in creation and sent by Christ to be God’s presence on Earth.
- Inspiration of Scripture: The Spirit guided the writing and interpretation of the Bible.
- Support in Jesus' Ministry: Jesus relied on the Spirit for strength, serving as an example for believers.
- Impact on Believers: The Spirit empowers Christ’s followers, convicts them of sin, leads them into truth, offers peace, interprets prayers, writes God's law in their hearts, and grants strength to testify about Christ.
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Baptism in the Holy Spirit signifies empowerment to witness for Christ, as seen in the apostles' boldness post-Pentecost. To be filled with the Holy Spirit, believers must allow God to cleanse them of contrary influences.Receiving the Holy Spirit
God is eager to give the Spirit to those who desire it. Key steps include asking, seeking, living in obedience, and relying on the Spirit for daily empowerment. The Holy Spirit is crucial for Adventists, enabling a deeper connection with Jesus and providing freedom, healing, and hope.Read more about this fundamental belief here.
Why is this doctrine of "God the Spirit" spiritualistic?
According to the dictionary, we find that spiritualism stems from a belief in which the spirit is separate from matter (the body) which leads, in religious practice, to communications with that spirit entity, such as even after one has died (a part of the heresy being that the spirit is immortal). See the definition copied below.
Note that it is not spiritualism to believe in the existence of spirits. It is spiritualism to believe that they have a separate existence to that of their (e.g. bodily) source, i.e. that they are beings unto themselves.
Let's look at a Biblical case by which to illustrate this. Consider Paul's teachings:
We see that Paul's spirit, biblically speaking, could be present in a place where he was not bodily present. Now, if we were to say that the “spirit of Paul” was present there, we are speaking biblically, in agreement with the teaching of Paul in this passage. But suppose we were to say, instead, that “Paul the Spirit” were present—what change does this reordering of the words make?
It converts the “spirit” into a separate being, which is spiritualism.
Let's consider another example:
To whom were the sons of the prophets bowing? By the way, these “sons of the prophets” were themselves prophets. Consider earlier verses as evidence for this.
So the sons of the prophets in two places, Bethel and Jericho, had given the same prophetic message to Elisha before Elijah was taken away. When they afterward say “The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha,” what are they meaning? Do they mean to say that Elijah the Spirit is with Elisha?
No. That would be spiritualism.
Consider Nebuchadnezzar.
Just as Elijah, Paul, Nebuchadnezzar, and every other person on earth, has a spirit, so does God have a spirit. But just as it would be unbiblical to refer to “Elijah the Spirit,” “Paul the Spirit,” or “Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit,” it is unbiblical to refer to “God the Spirit” or “Jesus the Spirit” or “Christ the Spirit.” Nowhere in the Inspired Writings are any of these “_____ the Spirit” forms of address used.
Nowhere.
The reason is clear: this would be spiritualism.
When applied to God, these terms make of Him virtually a non-entity—exactly what our pioneers warned us of. It is the very essence of pantheism.
Because God's Spirit is omnipresent, a belief that this spirit is itself a being separate from God is the very essence of pantheism. The mere use of the expression “God the Spirit” implies that God is in the very fabric of the universe, because His Spirit is everywhere present, and therefore, the universe is itself God.
In another sense of the word, of course, God is a spirit. We see this truth spoken clearly by Jesus himself in John 4:24. This, however, is not to be taken to mean that God has no form. It is simply to be understood that God is not flesh and blood as we are. Though He is “a spirit,” there is no separate being from God to be addressed as “God the Spirit.” This would be absurd. God is already a spirit. If we say “God the Spirit,” assuming that God is plural, then do we not mean to say that at least one of those beings within the plurality is not a spirit? And then what would that make of Jesus' words at the well? At best his words would have been but a half-truth, right?
How can a person, at one and the same time, believe that God is a spirit and that He is not? If God the Father, the only true God (John 17:1-3), is a spirit, then whom does one reference in saying “God the Spirit”?
Consider, too, the potential ramifications of the theology of this verse on a Trinitarian reader's mind. Suppose we have a man named “Heretium.” Now, Heretium reads this verse in John and learns that he must worship God “in spirit.” Should he understand it to mean that “Heretium the Spirit” can worship God, whereas Heretium the Man cannot?
The Bible never once speaks of “God the Spirit.” Neither does Ellen White.
That should give every Trinitarian “Adventist” pause.
How is it that the devil has so successfully sold us a bill of spiritualism? Shall we not forthwith make haste to take back to ourselves the precious pillars of our faith from which not a pin was to be moved? Shall we not go back to the truths God gave our pioneers?
On the other hand, if you are quite willing to continue speaking of “God the Spirit,” I expect you will not be offended if one should speak of “Paul the Spirit,” or “Elijah the Spirit” or "Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit."
May God open our eyes.
According to the dictionary, we find that spiritualism stems from a belief in which the spirit is separate from matter (the body) which leads, in religious practice, to communications with that spirit entity, such as even after one has died (a part of the heresy being that the spirit is immortal). See the definition copied below.
Dictionary said:
Note that it is not spiritualism to believe in the existence of spirits. It is spiritualism to believe that they have a separate existence to that of their (e.g. bodily) source, i.e. that they are beings unto themselves.
Let's look at a Biblical case by which to illustrate this. Consider Paul's teachings:
1 Corinthians
5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
We see that Paul's spirit, biblically speaking, could be present in a place where he was not bodily present. Now, if we were to say that the “spirit of Paul” was present there, we are speaking biblically, in agreement with the teaching of Paul in this passage. But suppose we were to say, instead, that “Paul the Spirit” were present—what change does this reordering of the words make?
It converts the “spirit” into a separate being, which is spiritualism.
Let's consider another example:
And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him. (2 Kings 2:15)
To whom were the sons of the prophets bowing? By the way, these “sons of the prophets” were themselves prophets. Consider earlier verses as evidence for this.
And Elijah said unto Elisha, Tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me to Bethel. And Elisha said unto him, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they went down to Bethel. And the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he said, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. And Elijah said unto him, Elisha, tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me to Jericho. And he said, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they came to Jericho. And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. (2 Kings 2:2-5)
So the sons of the prophets in two places, Bethel and Jericho, had given the same prophetic message to Elisha before Elijah was taken away. When they afterward say “The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha,” what are they meaning? Do they mean to say that Elijah the Spirit is with Elisha?
No. That would be spiritualism.
Consider Nebuchadnezzar.
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. (Daniel 2:1)
Just as Elijah, Paul, Nebuchadnezzar, and every other person on earth, has a spirit, so does God have a spirit. But just as it would be unbiblical to refer to “Elijah the Spirit,” “Paul the Spirit,” or “Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit,” it is unbiblical to refer to “God the Spirit” or “Jesus the Spirit” or “Christ the Spirit.” Nowhere in the Inspired Writings are any of these “_____ the Spirit” forms of address used.
Nowhere.
The reason is clear: this would be spiritualism.
When applied to God, these terms make of Him virtually a non-entity—exactly what our pioneers warned us of. It is the very essence of pantheism.
Dictionary said:
Because God's Spirit is omnipresent, a belief that this spirit is itself a being separate from God is the very essence of pantheism. The mere use of the expression “God the Spirit” implies that God is in the very fabric of the universe, because His Spirit is everywhere present, and therefore, the universe is itself God.
In another sense of the word, of course, God is a spirit. We see this truth spoken clearly by Jesus himself in John 4:24. This, however, is not to be taken to mean that God has no form. It is simply to be understood that God is not flesh and blood as we are. Though He is “a spirit,” there is no separate being from God to be addressed as “God the Spirit.” This would be absurd. God is already a spirit. If we say “God the Spirit,” assuming that God is plural, then do we not mean to say that at least one of those beings within the plurality is not a spirit? And then what would that make of Jesus' words at the well? At best his words would have been but a half-truth, right?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)
How can a person, at one and the same time, believe that God is a spirit and that He is not? If God the Father, the only true God (John 17:1-3), is a spirit, then whom does one reference in saying “God the Spirit”?
Consider, too, the potential ramifications of the theology of this verse on a Trinitarian reader's mind. Suppose we have a man named “Heretium.” Now, Heretium reads this verse in John and learns that he must worship God “in spirit.” Should he understand it to mean that “Heretium the Spirit” can worship God, whereas Heretium the Man cannot?
The Bible never once speaks of “God the Spirit.” Neither does Ellen White.
That should give every Trinitarian “Adventist” pause.
How is it that the devil has so successfully sold us a bill of spiritualism? Shall we not forthwith make haste to take back to ourselves the precious pillars of our faith from which not a pin was to be moved? Shall we not go back to the truths God gave our pioneers?
On the other hand, if you are quite willing to continue speaking of “God the Spirit,” I expect you will not be offended if one should speak of “Paul the Spirit,” or “Elijah the Spirit” or "Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit."
May God open our eyes.
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
Personally I do not like the NT verse "Elohiym ruwach" because we assume we can translate the construct with "is" when the construct is written as "ruwach elojhiym" we assume we can translate the construct as "of" - really ? Are we not biased?
The Bible teaches nobody has seen the shape of the Father or the Holy Spirit - though the HS is written as simile of a bird?
The broadest word meaning for ruwach for all contexts is "medium"
In narrower contexts "a medium can be ordinary wind"
"a medium can carry divine power from the Most High"
"A medium can administrate your medium, so you are Sons of God" we understand this to refer to our character inside of us, a part of what makes humans human and thus unique.
But my point is it is silly to term GOD as a medium, and make the word "ruwach" refer to some body function, when its not a word meaning like this? God is not some ghostly apparition, as this word is suggested.
If you look at the context
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Fuzzy translation by KJV)
John 4:24 Elohiym's medium: and they that worship the Most High worship the Most High via the medium and faith that affirms truth (with Hebrew intent)
Jesus is talking about the medium as a way humans commune with God, not talking about the bodily nature of God.
--------
Can Paul be present as a medium but not as a body when absent in person? Yes, the medium means Paul is carried by His writings and carried by His past experiences that live on in the Church. This does not mean Paul is some ghost apparition. So I agree with you on this.
The hijacking of the term ruwach as spirit is misleading and wrong, as the precepts and traditions of men have taken many.
Do you understand the ruwach is a function administrated by a third co-eternal Being called the Shadday who expresses feminine love - what I term as responding love?
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
This is a poetry parallel and equates the function of the ruwach with the el shaddai. In the next sinless creation there is no need of a grand medium, but the Shadday exists eternally as does the other godhead members:
Re 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Here in Hebrew it says YHWH Elohiym and Shadday as well as the Lamb. Shalom
Personally I do not like the NT verse "Elohiym ruwach" because we assume we can translate the construct with "is" when the construct is written as "ruwach elojhiym" we assume we can translate the construct as "of" - really ? Are we not biased?
The Bible teaches nobody has seen the shape of the Father or the Holy Spirit - though the HS is written as simile of a bird?
The broadest word meaning for ruwach for all contexts is "medium"
In narrower contexts "a medium can be ordinary wind"
"a medium can carry divine power from the Most High"
"A medium can administrate your medium, so you are Sons of God" we understand this to refer to our character inside of us, a part of what makes humans human and thus unique.
But my point is it is silly to term GOD as a medium, and make the word "ruwach" refer to some body function, when its not a word meaning like this? God is not some ghostly apparition, as this word is suggested.
If you look at the context
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Fuzzy translation by KJV)
John 4:24 Elohiym's medium: and they that worship the Most High worship the Most High via the medium and faith that affirms truth (with Hebrew intent)
Jesus is talking about the medium as a way humans commune with God, not talking about the bodily nature of God.
--------
Can Paul be present as a medium but not as a body when absent in person? Yes, the medium means Paul is carried by His writings and carried by His past experiences that live on in the Church. This does not mean Paul is some ghost apparition. So I agree with you on this.
The hijacking of the term ruwach as spirit is misleading and wrong, as the precepts and traditions of men have taken many.
Do you understand the ruwach is a function administrated by a third co-eternal Being called the Shadday who expresses feminine love - what I term as responding love?
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
This is a poetry parallel and equates the function of the ruwach with the el shaddai. In the next sinless creation there is no need of a grand medium, but the Shadday exists eternally as does the other godhead members:
Re 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Here in Hebrew it says YHWH Elohiym and Shadday as well as the Lamb. Shalom
First, the New Testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew...so your references to Hebrew with respect to NT passages has been confusing for me. Are you reading a Hebrew translation of the Greek? I'm well aware that in the case of the book of Matthew, the Catholics have procured such a translation. Some claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (the claim is that Matthew wrote his book both in Hebrew and in Greek), but whether or not this might be so, the only surviving copies of it that we have are those written in Greek.
But to address your question regarding the Hebrew "of" is fairly straightforward. Hebrew, like a number of other Asian languages, has no actual word for "of." The grammar, however, provides for it. It works like this: a noun which is connected to another noun in a genitive (of/belonging to) relationship will be in construct state, with the following noun in its natural form (absolute state). This connects the two in what is called a "construct chain."
For example, in Hebrew: "son" = "ben". So if one were to address "ben Yisrael," one would be saying "son Israel." But if the "ben" is put into its construct state "bene", as in "bene Yisrael," it would now say "son of Israel." The "of" is not explicitly in the Hebrew text, but the grammatical construction indicates its presence in the meaning, and English would require it in the translation. (Note that I read and study the actual Hebrew characters, and I may not be transliterating their spelling to English in a standard manner--I don't always know how they should be spelled in English.)
In the case of the "spirit of God," such as is found in Genesis 1:2, the word "ruach" (spirit) is in construct state, indicating that it is in a genitive relationship with the following noun, "elohim" (God). So this is correctly translated as "spirit of God." When you look for this in an interlinear Bible, remember that Hebrew reads from right to left, so the words will appear in the reverse order, i.e. "God" followed by "spirit of" if reading left to right.
The Trinity dogma was invented by the papacy, largely during the fourth century at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and at Constantinople (AD 381). But even the Catholics still adhered, at least in speech, to a belief in God as a single being. Our Adventist website recently changed its language on this doctrine from that of "three co-eternal beings" to "three co-eternal Persons," probably because people were pointing out the incongruity with Ellen White's teaching that "God is a Being," an expression she uses dozens of times in various forms, e.g. "God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being."
So in brief, no, I do not believe that God's spirit is a third co-eternal Being. God's spirit is not even a being. God is a Being; His spirit is His presence. He shares this spirit with His son. Ellen White says of Christ: "In His mediatorial work Christ gives to His servants the presence of the Holy Spirit."
rob
Active member
I see, so you do not believe in the Shadday as an administrator of the Holy Spirit, as Job 33:3 says? Thus you do not consider the Shadday as the third co-eternal person on the Godhead?
Consider this verse (and yes I always translate the Greek (a fuzzy translation) back to Hebrew ( God's truth )
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.
If we take your theory that the Most High and his spirit is the same essence of the Most High, we have a problem here.
The term is overshadow. You cannot make a shadow from a solitary one Divine Being. Unless you split the Most High and His spirit into two separate beings across space at the same time - a silly thought!
The term overshadow implies the Most High as light as a source and another separate being blocking or filtering the light to make the term overshadow and hence shadows....
What is here according to the word yalad - to be born - is two heavenly divine parents - the Shadday (HS) and the Most High Father.
Shalom
The term "co-eternal" is Catholic nonsense which has no application to God. God is "eternal." His son, as you may recall, died and was in the tomb for parts of three days. How "eternal" is that? If God also died during those three days, I suppose one could say that the two were "co-eternal." But since God is immortal and cannot and did not die, the "co-eternal" term simply does not apply: it is Trinitarian gibberish, and no inspired writer ever employed the term.
The writers of the New Testament wrote God's truth in Greek. Greek is not "fuzzy." The truth is, Greek is more clear than Hebrew. Hebrew is "fuzzy" if you want to use such a term, where I would prefer the term "ambiguous." Hebrew words have more breadth of meaning. "Elohim" is a prime example of this: It applies to God, to angels, to false gods, to people, etc. whereas the nearest Greek equivalent, "theos," applies specifically to a God/god, not to angels or others.
Furthermore, Hebrew has no verb tenses. Verbs in Hebrew are either perfect or imperfect, which means they can imply completion or incompletion. Hebrew verbs may have many forms, indicating active or passive voice, reciprocity, etc., but it is not always clear which verb in translation best applies. Greek verbs have tenses (times) and are far more clear in general as to their intent.
Now, I happen to like Hebrew better than Greek. But I cannot be honest if I try to say Hebrew is more clear than Greek. The reverse is true. The only times when Hebrew might have an edge is where the Greek writer was quoting directly from Hebrew--then we might as well go to the Hebrew itself for its meaning. But even in those times, the inspired Greek may tell us something that was not clear in Hebrew, a bit like Ellen White helping to sharpen our understanding of certain Biblical passages by adding her inspired insights.
Ellen White warns us off the ground of addressing God's "essence." I will not go here. Trinitarians do this regularly, but it does not make it right. There are things we do not know about God, cannot know, and need not know. This is one of those.
The translation itself which you provided is of poor quality. The term "holy thing" does not exist in the original text. Nowhere does scripture address any "thing" inside Mary. Scripture references Mary as pregnant, and references the one who should be born of her, but does not address any "presence" within her. The KJV "with child" is misleading, and inaccurate. In the days of the KJV translation, the term "pregnant" was apparently embarrassing, and "with child" was the formal way of expressing this. However, the scriptures do not have a "child" being addressed. One is not a child until one has been born.
Nonsense. I can make a shadow, even in moonlight, and I am just a solitary being.
This is antibiblical. The Bible is clear that Jesus' parents, as the "son of man," were God (the Father) and Mary. If both his parents had been "God," he would not have been a man.
Note Luke 2:33: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." Joseph is not called Jesus' father--for good reason. But Mary is "his mother."
The incarnation itself is a mystery. But what is revealed is for us and our children. Who Jesus' parents were is revealed.