BBA Florida The Holy Ghost

Рет қаралды 699

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 5

@paulinedixon6721 3 жыл бұрын

There must be as sound when a baby is born there must be a cry if not something is wrong . teach pastor you saying right

@victor-hn1bh 3 жыл бұрын

Trinitarians and modalists who attempt to discuss their differences often experience frustration. One of the reasons for this is that they are starting with different assumptions. Modalists assume that the word 'God' has the meaning of 'One Divine Person.' Trinitarians do not assume this; to the trinitarian, the word 'God' can denote any or all of the Divine Persons, depending on the context. The same assumption is made about the meaning of other words. For example, Modalism takes the word 'Spirit' to mean 'one person who is a Spirit,' 'Lord' to mean 'one person who is Lord,' etc. My contention is that when we are trying to ascertain what the Bible (or any book, for that matter) really has to say on a subject, we cannot worry too much about whether or not the book conforms to our pre-existing assumptions about the meaning of words, phrases, and the like. Instead, we must simply open up the book and let it speak for itself. The author may be using words in a way that is different from what we are used to. Let us begin with an outline of some of the scriptural passages used to support the Trinity doctrine. Although the unity of God is the main theme of the Old Testament, in some passages the multipersonal nature of God is certainly suggested (see Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, Psalm 45:6-7, Isaiah 6:8 and 48:12-17). However, it is in the New Testament that we find the fullest, clearest revelation of the concept summarized in the Trinity doctrine. The gospel of John begins like this: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made' (John 1:1-3). Three things are immediately apparent: First, the Word was God. The Word had the character and nature of God; what God was, the Word was. Second, the personal pronoun him is applied to the Word, indicating that the Word is a personal being. Third, the Word was with God. The term with* indicates that the Word was not the same Person as the One with whom he was, One who is also referred to as God. John 1:14, 17, and 18 further explain the identity of the Word: 'And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we have beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth . . . . For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' As we read the rest of the first chapter of John's gospel, it begins to become clear that God in verse 1 is God the Father, and the Word who was with him is God the Son. Other passages of Scripture confirm that the Father and the Son are not the same Person -- for example, the Son prays to the Father in Matthew 26:39, calls on his Father as a second witness in addition to himself in John 8:16-18, and sits down with his Father on his throne in Revelation 3:21. The Scriptures also reveal the existence of a third Divine Person: the Holy Spirit. As Jesus spoke with his disciples in John 14-16, he made it quite clear that the Holy Spirit was not the same Person as himself and not the same Person as the Father. In these chapters, the Holy Spirit is revealed to be personally distinct from the Father and from the Son. *Also interesting is the fact that in vs. 1 the first mention of God is preceded by the definite article (in the Greek), but the second mention of God lacks the definite article. The Jehovah's Witnesses make too much of this distinction and end up thinking that the second mention of God really refers to a second god; the Modalists make too little of this distinction and end up thinking that the second mention of God refers to the same Person as does the first. Now let us examine some of the arguments used by modern day modalists. The arguments for modalism are presented first and are followed by answers to those arguments. Argument # 1: Ephesians 1:4 tells us that God chose us in him before the foundation of the world -- but we did not exist as separate persons at that time! Before the foundation of the world, we were only thoughts in the mind of God. God's thoughts were certainly with him, but that doesn't make the thoughts separate persons. The same is true in John 1:1. The term word means not only what is said, but the thought behind what is said. In the beginning God had his plan. God's plan was certainly with him, and it is in that sense that the Word was with God in the beginning. Answer: First of all, we cannot judge an author's intended meaning for a word solely by its lexical (dictionary) definition. We must also observe how the word is being used in the context in which it appears. The term shield does not normally refer to persons or to conscious individuals, but sometimes it can (Genesis 15:1). Similarly, the term word may not normally refer to a person, but it certainly appears that John was using it that way in John 1:1. e If John 1:1 only said that 'in the beginning the Word was in God,' argument # 1 might carry some force. But John made it a point to say that the Word was with God. The Greek word pros that is translated as 'with' favors a trinitarian interpretation over a modalistic one. Lutheran scholar R. C. H. Lenski comments: The preposition [pros], as distinct from [en], [para], and [sun], is of the greatest importance . . . . The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inhering in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him. {2} Referring to Lenski's statement, Dr. Robert Morey, a Christian apologist and writer, says 'John's use of the preposition [pros] is also significant in that it shows he did not view the Logos and the Father as being the same person.' {3} The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states this under the subtitle pro with the accusative: This is very common and denotes motion 'towards.' In this case, which is also the most important theologically, [pros] is almost parallel to [heis]. A radical difference which is often overlooked is that with [pros] the movement breaks off on the frontier of the object sought whereas with [heis] it is continued right on into the object (my italics). {4} Argument # 2: In John 10:30, Jesus said 'I and my Father are one.' That can only mean that Jesus is the Father -- that Jesus and the Father are the same Person. Answer: The word 'one' in this passage does not necessarily mean 'one person.' The term 'one' often denotes a composite unity, as it does in I Corinthians 12:12-14, which speaks of one body made of many members. We know this is also the case in John 10:30, because Jesus explained in John 17:11-22 just how he and his Father are one. In vs. 22, Jesus said of his disciples 'And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.' Jesus' words are very clear. Jesus' followers are to be one in the same way that Jesus and his Father are one. Jesus' followers are to be one body, not one person. In the same way, the Father and the Son are one God, not one Person. Argument # 3: Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus is the Father: 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given . . . and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.' Answer: First, we must note the way the Bible often uses the expression 'called by the name.' Biblically speaking, one's name indicated one's nature. Also, in many cases one person is called by the name of another person (Isaiah 4:1, 63:19; Jer. 14:9, Dan. 9:19). Although Isaiah 9:6 is more striking than any of these references, it still requires clarification from other passages regarding the way in which this name (nature) belongs to the son. Additionally, the word 'father' can mean more than one thing. It can mean source -- as in Abraham, the father of many nations, or Satan, the father of lies. It can also mean one who cares for and looks after like a father (as Joseph was made a father to Pharaoh, Genesis 45:8; and as Job was a father to the poor, Job 29:16). We know that sometimes God is called Father in the sense of Creator (Isaiah 64:8, Malachi 2:10) and sometimes in the sense of fatherly care and concern (Psalm 68:5, 103:13; Jeremiah 31:9). Jesus is 'the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him' (Hebrews 5:9). In this sense, Jesus is the Father of the church. He is also the Father of the church in the sense that he loves it and cares for it. Since he will be alive forever and ever, Everlasting Father is a fitting name for him. According to Hebrew scholars, the words Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 literally mean Father of eternity, or perpetuity -- and as such can mean Father of creation. {5} Since all things were created by the Son (John 1:3, Col 1:16), Father of creation would be a fitting name for him also. Either of the above are possible meanings of the name Everlasting Father. Neither of them mean that the son is the same person as God the Father. That being said, it is certainly true that the son referred to in Isaiah 9:6 bears the Name of his Father.

@victor-hn1bh 3 жыл бұрын

The historic teaching of the Church is that there is one God who exists in three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This teaching has come to be called the Trinity doctrine. Shortly after the New Testament was completed, some began to think that it made more sense to believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really three manifestations of the same Person appearing in different modes. This doctrine has come to be called Modalism. In the last century, a modern form of Modalism is often called the 'Oneness' or 'Jesus only' doctrine. The goal of this study is twofold: (1) To give the reader an outline of the evidence that convinced me to become a trinitarian and (2) to examine the merits of some of the arguments used by modalists I have met over the years. (1) There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:21-22, I Cor. 8:4). (2) The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. (A) The Father is God (I Peter 1:2; John 6:27, 20:17; Galatians 1:1; Matthew 11:25; Jude 1). (B) The Son -- or Word -- is God (John 1:1, 8:58, 20:28; Hebrews 1:1-8, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13). (C) The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5 :1-11; I Corinthians 2:11; 6:19-20). (3) The Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, and the Holy Spirit is a Person. (A) The Father is a Person. We can have fellowship with him, 1 John 1:3; he knows, Matthew 6:6-8; he teaches, Matthew 16:17; he loves, John 16:27; he is a witness, John 8:18; he has a will, John 5:30. (B) The Son is a Person. We can have fellowship with him, 1 John 1:3; he knows, Matthew 11:27; he teaches, John 1:18, Rev. 2:18; he loves, Romans 8:35, Gal. 2:20; he is a witness, John 8:18; he has a will, John 5:30; he can be grieved, John 11:35. (C) The Holy Spirit is a Person. We can have fellowship with him, Philippians 2:1, II Cor. 13:14; he knows, I Cor. 2:11; he teaches, Luke 12:12, I Cor. 2:13; he loves, Romans 15:30; he is a witness, Acts 20:23, Romans 8:16; he has a will, I Cor. 12:11; he can be grieved, Ephesians 4:30. (4) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct from one another. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are able to: (A) Send or be sent by one another (John 3:17, 10:36, 14:23-26, 15:26, 16:7). (B) Speak to each other (John 17:1-26, Romans 8:26-27, Hebrews 1:7-8) and about each other (Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, John 8:13-18). (C) The Father and Son love and honor each other (John 3:35, 5:20, 14:31).

@victor-hn1bh 3 жыл бұрын

Argument # 4: The Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Father, for it is a part of His Substance. That which was conceived in the virgin Mary was of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 1:20. The truth becomes evident that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the Son. To try to separate the Father and the Holy Spirit and form two Persons, would give the Son two Fathers, which is impossible. {6} Answer: First of all, the Scripture never calls the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus. Matthew 1:20 says that before Mary and Joseph came together, she was found with child 'of the Holy Ghost.' Somehow (we are not told how) the Holy Spirit caused a woman to be with child -- a result normally requiring a human father. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit was Jesus' father. Somehow Jesus caused water to turn into wine, a result normally requiring a grapevine. But does that mean that Jesus was a grapevine? Of course not! Even assuming that we were to call the Holy Spirit 'father' of Jesus because the Holy Spirit was the source of Mary's pregnancy, remember that it was the presence of a human father that the Holy Spirit had replaced. In contrast, passages like John 17:5 show us that before Jesus ever took on a human nature, he was already with God the Father. The Fatherhood of God and the 'fathering' of the man Jesus represent two completely different senses of the word father. Therefore even if we were to grant that the Holy Spirit 'fathered' Christ's humanity, it would not follow that the Holy Spirit is the same Person as God the Father.