The Bible speaks of the holy spirit as a ‘which’ not always a ‘he’. The disciples understood the holy spirit was the spirit of the Father. There is no need to replace their understanding with a fabricated construct opposed by scripture.
Just as the logos is referred to as ‘IT’ and is not a person until it becomes flesh as Jesus..
Thanks for voicing your opinion, Steve. I appreciate your perspective. I'm not sure where you're getting that understanding about the Logos, because John 1:1-3 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
So, even the "Logos" is referred to as "he" (a singular, masculine pronoun) prior to the incarnation.
Perhaps our brain's structural/chemical flaws are what we basically are while our soul is confined within our physical, bodily form. The human soul may be inherently good on its own; but trapped within the physical body, notably the corruptible brain, oftentimes the soul’s purity may not be able to shine through.
I have been uncomfortable referring to the Holy Spirit as "It", but ironically in your article you keep referring to Him as "the" Holy Spirit. We don't say "the" God or "the" Jesus, but saying "the"Holy Spirit comes very naturally. Thus it also comes naturally to refer to the third person as "it."
That's interesting thought. We do actually say, "the Father" and "the Son." We also say, "the Christ" or "the Messiah." And New Testament writers often use the definite article ("the") to refer to the Spirit, because there are many spirits, but he is "the" Holy Spirit; just as there are many fathers and many sons, but we are referring to "the" Father and "the" Son. So, I'm not sure that using the definite article should negatively influence our thinking about his "personhood."
So the difficulty arises because we have no other or "proper" name for the third person of the Trinity. We preach the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we have names for the Father and the Son. It is certainly important that we continue thinking of the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Oooh, that is super interesting. I would say, I'm not sure we are given a proper name for the Father either. The term "God" is generic and all three persons of the trinity are God. YHWH is God's proper name. Of course, we typically think of YHWH being the Father, but YHWH is also applied to the Son.
For instance, Jesus says, "I am" in John 8:58 and that is generally seen as a claim to the divine name. But also passages like Isaiah 40:3 ("prepare the way of the LORD (YHWH)") are applied to the arrival of the Son. So, there really isn't a proper name for the Father that is exclusively applied to him.
Perhaps it is because Jesus is human that he is the only person of the trinity who has a proper name that is exclusively applied to him and not to the other two persons of the trinity. I've never really thought through that before though, so thank you for bringing that up.
The Bible speaks of the holy spirit as a ‘which’ not always a ‘he’. The disciples understood the holy spirit was the spirit of the Father. There is no need to replace their understanding with a fabricated construct opposed by scripture.
Just as the logos is referred to as ‘IT’ and is not a person until it becomes flesh as Jesus..
Thanks for voicing your opinion, Steve. I appreciate your perspective. I'm not sure where you're getting that understanding about the Logos, because John 1:1-3 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
So, even the "Logos" is referred to as "he" (a singular, masculine pronoun) prior to the incarnation.
See 1John 1:1-2 We must not understand a verse in isolation of other verses which lead to truth instead of assertions and conjecture.
Jesus said the Father is the only true God—we should start there instead of dogma.
Perhaps our brain's structural/chemical flaws are what we basically are while our soul is confined within our physical, bodily form. The human soul may be inherently good on its own; but trapped within the physical body, notably the corruptible brain, oftentimes the soul’s purity may not be able to shine through.
I have been uncomfortable referring to the Holy Spirit as "It", but ironically in your article you keep referring to Him as "the" Holy Spirit. We don't say "the" God or "the" Jesus, but saying "the"Holy Spirit comes very naturally. Thus it also comes naturally to refer to the third person as "it."
That's interesting thought. We do actually say, "the Father" and "the Son." We also say, "the Christ" or "the Messiah." And New Testament writers often use the definite article ("the") to refer to the Spirit, because there are many spirits, but he is "the" Holy Spirit; just as there are many fathers and many sons, but we are referring to "the" Father and "the" Son. So, I'm not sure that using the definite article should negatively influence our thinking about his "personhood."
So the difficulty arises because we have no other or "proper" name for the third person of the Trinity. We preach the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we have names for the Father and the Son. It is certainly important that we continue thinking of the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Oooh, that is super interesting. I would say, I'm not sure we are given a proper name for the Father either. The term "God" is generic and all three persons of the trinity are God. YHWH is God's proper name. Of course, we typically think of YHWH being the Father, but YHWH is also applied to the Son.
For instance, Jesus says, "I am" in John 8:58 and that is generally seen as a claim to the divine name. But also passages like Isaiah 40:3 ("prepare the way of the LORD (YHWH)") are applied to the arrival of the Son. So, there really isn't a proper name for the Father that is exclusively applied to him.
Perhaps it is because Jesus is human that he is the only person of the trinity who has a proper name that is exclusively applied to him and not to the other two persons of the trinity. I've never really thought through that before though, so thank you for bringing that up.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses and helping me think this through. I may have to buy one more book now.