Studies 2.1 and 2.2 have given ample evidence that God’s spirit refers to
His power, which reflects His “mind” in a very broad way. Because the way
God’s spirit acts is such an accurate reflector of the essence and
personality of God, some have argued that God’s spirit is a person who is
also God. A careful re-reading of the previous sections will show that God’s
spirit is His mind and power. Electricity is an unseen power that can
produce results for the person controlling it, but it cannot be a person.
Love is a part of someone’s character, but it cannot be a person. God’s
spirit includes His love, as part of His character, and also refers to His
power, but in no way can it refer to a person who is separate from Him.
It is a tragedy to me that this mistaken view (of the spirit being a person)
is believed by the majority of Christians, seeing that they believe in the
doctrine of the ‘trinity’. This effectively states that there are three gods
who are somehow also the same - God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus.
There is good reason to believe that the ‘trinity’ was fundamentally a
pagan idea imported into Christianity - hence the word does not occur in the
Bible. If we accept this idea that God is a trinity, we are then driven to
reach the conclusion that somehow God’s power/spirit is a person, who is
also God, although not God the Father. When confronted with the illogicality
of their position, the most popular escape route is for such people to claim
that God is a mystery, and that we should accept such things in faith
without requiring a logical explanation.
This pointedly overlooks the
references in the New Testament to the mystery of God being revealed through
the word and work of Christ.
• “I would not, brothers, that you should be
ignorant of this mystery” (Rom. 11:25).
• “The preaching of Jesus...the
revelation of the mystery” (Rom. 16:25).
• “I shew (explain to) you a
mystery...” (1 Cor. 15:51).
• “Having made known unto us the mystery of
his will” (Eph. 1:9; 3:3).
• Paul’s preaching was “to make known the
mystery of the Gospel” (Eph. 6:19; Col. 4:3).
• “The mystery...now is
made manifest to his saints” (Col. 1:26,27).
With all this emphasis - and
it is that - on there not now being any mystery attached to fundamental
doctrines, it will only be someone still in darkness who will claim that
there is. And does such a person not worry that the Bible’s name for
“Babylon”, the system of false religion described in Revelation, is
“Mystery” (Rev. 17:5)? The obvious implication is that this system proclaims
that its beliefs are a mystery; but the true believers understand the
mystery of that woman (Rev. 17:7).
Such hazy reasoning arises from having
an understanding of God which is based upon subjective things like human
experience, or the sense we have of church traditions. If we are expected to
be truly humble to the teaching of God’s Word, it follows that we are also
required to use basic powers of reasoning and deduction in order to discover
its message.
Never did any preacher of the Gospel recorded in the Bible
resort to saying, ‘This is a complete mystery, you cannot begin to
understand it’. Instead, we read of them appealing to people through reason
and drawing logical conclusions from Scripture.
In his preaching of the
type of Gospel fundamentals which we are considering in these Studies, Paul
“reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, … that Christ needed to have
suffered, and risen again” (Acts 17:2,3). Here was systematic, logical Bible
reasoning par excellence; and the record prefaces this sentence with, “Paul,
as his manner was...reasoned...”. This was, therefore, his usual style (see
also Acts 18:19). In keeping with this, during the great campaign at
Corinth, Paul “reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the
Jews...(but) when they opposed themselves...” (Acts 18:4-6). Those who were
converted went through a process of persuasion by Paul’s Bible-based
reasoning.
Notice, too, that the inspired record makes an appeal to logic
and rationality, by pointing out that they “opposed themselves”. Likewise at
Antioch, Paul and Barnabas “speaking (the word) to them, persuaded them...”
(Acts 13:43). Their next stop was Iconium, where they “so spake, that a
great multitude...believed” (Acts 14:1).
As he stood trial for his life
a while later, the same glorious logic continued to inspire Paul’s sure hope
for the future: “He reasoned of righteousness, temperance and judgment to
come” with such penetrating clarity that even his cynical, laid-back judge
“trembled” (Acts 24:25).
Because our conversion should be based on such a
process of reasoning, we should be able to give a logical Biblical account
of our hope and doctrine.
“Be ready always to give an answer to every man
who asks you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).
To talk
in a sober voice about one’s personal experiences, valid testimony as this
can be, is not the same as the Gospel. We must be ever giving a reason of
the Gospel hope. Such personal anecdotes must not be allowed to conflict
with the words of Paul: “We preach not ourselves, but Christ” (2 Cor. 4:5) -
and that from a man who ‘had a personal relationship with Jesus’ more than
most.
The logical, Biblically reasonable manner of our conversion should
set the pattern for our wider relationship with God through the rest of our
days. Our examples, as always, are the first Christians who used “reason” to
figure out the solutions to their problems of administration (Acts 6:2). The
New Testament letters also assume their readers’ acceptance of using
Biblical logic. Thus “by reason of” what the High Priests were like under
the Law of Moses, we can understand details about the work of Christ (Heb.
5:3). Having spoken of the surpassing love of God in Christ, Paul urges that
it is “your reasonable (Greek ‘logikos’ - i.e. logical) service” to totally
dedicate ourselves to Him in response (Rom. 12:1). The word ‘‘logikos’ is
derived from the Greek ‘logos’, which is the word normally translated “the
word” with reference to God’s Word. Our “logical” response in Biblical terms
is therefore one which is derived from God’s Word.
If we cannot draw
logical conclusions from the Scriptures, then all Bible study is vain, and
there is no need for the Bible, which can be treated just as sweet
platitudes or a piece of fascinating literature. This is all it seems to be
on many bookshelves.
However, to their credit, there are many earnest
Christians who believe that the spirit of God is a person, and they do try
to give Biblical reasons. The verses quoted are those which speak of God’s
spirit in personal language, e.g. as “the comforter” in Jn. 14 16, or
reference to the spirit being “grieved”.
We demonstrate in Study 4.3 that
a man’s “spirit” can be stirred up (Acts 17:16), made troubled (Gen. 41:8)
or happy (Lk. 10:21). His “spirit”, i.e. his very essence, his mind and
purpose, which gives rise to his actions, is therefore spoken of as a
separate person, but, of course, this is not literally so. God’s spirit,
too, can be spoken of in the same way.
It must also be understood that
the Bible often uses the language of personification when talking about
abstract things, e.g. wisdom is referred to as a woman in Prov. 9:1. This is
to demonstrate to us what a person who has wisdom would be like in practice;
‘wisdom’ cannot exist except in someone’s mind, and so this device of
personification is used. For more on this, see Digression 5, “The Principle
of Personification”.
Paul’s letters contain opening salutations which
refer to God and Jesus, but not to the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2
Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:2;
1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Philemon 3). This is strange if he
considered the Holy Spirit to be part of a godhead, as the ‘trinity’
doctrine wrongly supposes. Some of the Holy Spirit was poured out on men
(Acts 2:17,18; the same Greek construction is found in Mk. 12:2; Lk. 6:13;
Jn. 21:10 and Acts 5:2). How can we receive part of a person? We are given
“of His [God’s] spirit” (1 Jn. 4:13). This is nonsense if the Holy Spirit is
a person. Another serious nail in the coffin of the proposition that the
Holy Spirit is a person is the fact that the Holy Spirit is described in the
Greek text with a neuter gender (as reflected in the AV of 1 Jn. 2:27, where
it is called “it”). This means that when we read passages which speak of the
Holy Spirit as “he”, we are definitely seeing a personification of a power,
not a reference to an actual person.