#i see the development of trinitarian language similarly

[ainsi-soit-il]

Regarding other non-trinitarian groups, I would not consider Oneness Pentecostals and Arians to be theologically Christian either, though again, as far as anthropology goes, I think it makes sense to place them in the "Christian" category. Same goes for various other non-trinitarian religious groups that emerged from Christianity (Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, etc.). I might not consider myself to be a sibling in Christ with y'all or these various other groups, but I don't deny we have a common history.

Regarding pre-Nicene Christianity, I feel like the question implies that the Trinity was entirely unheard of before the Council of Nicaea, which is not my understanding of Christian history. Even before Nicaea, we still have the Trinitarian formula and the word Trinity, and while a lot of the explanatory language isn't quite what we're familiar with (e. g. iirc Justin Martyr uses some slightly different wording than what most modern orthodox Christians would be accustomed to), the underlying ideas are very much there. Based on what we do have, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the idea was there even if the Nicene Creed itself wasn't there yet.

I also think it's worth bearing in mind that prior to Nicaea, the Church spent a lot of energy just. trying to survive. While persecution was at times more localized, and some government officials were more tolerant than others, this was still the Church under such delightful characters as Nero. That doesn't mean Church councils didn't happen (The Book of Acts describes the Council of Jerusalem, for example), but most of the pre-Nicene councils were not on the same scale as Nicaea (which makes sense; when you're facing off-and-on persecution, gathering a significant number of your religious leaders from across the Roman world into one township is pretty dangerous).

In addition, it's also worth considering that the issues facing the Early Church in, say, the 1st century are not the same as the issues facing the Early Church in the 4th century. We see examples of the questions they were facing early on in other texts (e. g. "What is the role of the Jewish Law in the Christian life?" throughout the New Testament epistles, "Are Christians atheists and/or cannibals?" in Justin Martyr's Apology, etc.). So I'd posit another reason why we don't see the exact language we see from 325 onward is because the questions being asked (from both inside and outside the Church) looked different.

What's more, I recognize that I'm approaching this issue as a Christian with a couple thousand years' worth of biblical and theological tradition to look back on. There are God-knows-how-many theologians who have had far more time to think about the best way to word this incredibly challenging theological concept, and I have the benefit of being able to read their work. Christians living before 325 didn't have that, and with that in mind, I'm pretty humbled. I don't know that I'd do half as well as my pre-Nicene theological forebears at articulating these same ideas.

All of that is to say, yes, I would consider pre-Nicene Christians to be Christian. They may not have used the precise language a post-Nicene Christian like me would be familiar with, and they may not have written in detail or at length about trinitarianism, but I don't think that necessarily means they were automatically not orthodox in their understanding of God.

Regarding what LDS theology teaches about Christ's divinity, I genuinely appreciate that clarification, @demoisverysexy. Your clarification led me to this essay on LDS Christology from BYU professor Grant Underwood, which goes into some of the ins and outs of Christ's exaltation, the LDS perspective on His divinity, and a more LDS-inclined reading of Christian history. While I'm still not sold on the view that y'all are theologically Christian, I do want to better understand what y'all believe, even if I disagree with it.

Thanks again, God bless, and Merry Christmas!

mormons are christians

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, anon. There are some key theological points historically shared by the rest of orthodox Christianity that the LDS Church does not share with the rest of Christianity.

(What I am about to say here presumes that by "Mormons", you mean "LDS", since that's commonly how the term is used. I am less familiar with trinitarian Mormon groups such as the CoC, so I don't feel comfortable getting into all that here, and I feel like that's another post anyway.)

((I am also aware that my explanation may be misconstrued as me biting your head off. That's not my intention at all, and I apologize profusely if it reads that way. I've just done a lot of digging into LDS theology and history over the years, and I wanted to give a rundown of why I understand this issue in the way that I do.))

(((This is also about to get really long and unwieldy so. Apologies for that too.)))

The LDS Church teaches a fundamentally different view of the nature of God. Little-o orthodox Christianity is trinitarian. Not going to get into any biblical defenses of the Trinity here, because I feel like other people have explored it in much more depth, but suffice it to say this is a very old and long-accepted doctrine. Protestants, Catholics, etc. are all in agreement here.

By contrast, LDS theology uses the language of three separate beings united in one purpose. This is particularly apparent in the Book of Abraham, which refers to "the Gods organiz[ing] and form[ing] the heavens and the earth" (Abraham 4:1, emphasis mine). In addition, LDS theology depicts God the Father as an exalted man (see the King Follett Discourse for more on that) and ascribes a physical body to Him (D&C 130:22), which is unheard of in orthodox Christianity.

Furthermore, LDS theology teaches a fundamentally different relationship between God and His People. In orthodox Christianity, when we speak of God as our Father, there is an understanding that we are not His literal children in a biological sense (John 1:12-13). Instead, God being described as our Father is one of various images that He uses in order to communicate His love for His people. As another example of this kind of language in action He is also described as our Husband (e. g. Isaiah 54:5, Ezekiel 16:32, Hosea). This is because God's love for us is so vast and so deep and so complete that it is impossible to use just one analogy and encapsulate all of it perfectly. (I'd argue it's also because the magnitude of God's love is what makes all these other forms of love possible. We love because He first loved us, after all.)

In LDS theology, however, this Father-Child relationship language is not an analogy. It's literal. We are the biological spirit children of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

The Heavenly Mother is another aspect of this that is very different from Christianity. In LDS Theology, God is held to be actually male, with a male body and a wife. In Christianity, God is neither male nor female. We may use masculine language to refer to God ("Father", "Son", "He", etc.), and Jesus chose to take the form of a human male, but Scripture also uses feminine language to describe God through the language of motherhood, childbirth and breastfeeding (e. g. Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 42:14), and various orthodox Christian theologians have leaned into that language (Julian of Norwich, for example).

I say all that not out of sensationalism or because I want to showcase how "weird" I think LDS beliefs are. All religions are weird (and heck, all of human existence is weird, if we're really honest about it). All of that to say, I'm saying this because it's necessary background to the LDS conception of who Jesus is.

In LDS theology, Jesus is the eldest of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother's spirit children (and therefore, our elder spirit brother), who volunteered for the role of Savior in our preexistence. Satan is Jesus' younger spirit brother, who was cast out of Heaven for trying to take away humanity's free will. Jesus was later exalted to the status of godhood after His resurrection.

In the event that someone tries to claim I am making all this stuff up or misrepresenting LDS beliefs, the LDS Church is completely transparent about this aspect of their theology:

"Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister." (Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents)

"In harmony with the plan of happiness, the premortal Jesus Christ, the Firstborn Son of the Father in the spirit, covenanted to be the Savior. Those who followed Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were permitted to come to the earth to experience mortality and progress toward eternal life. Lucifer, another spirit son of God, rebelled against the plan and 'sought to destroy the agency of man.' He became Satan, and he and his followers were cast out of heaven and denied the privileges of receiving a physical body and experiencing mortality." (Premortality)

"The Savior did not have a fulness at first, but after he received his body and the resurrection all power was given unto him both in heaven and in earth. Although he was a God, even the Son of God, with power and authority to create this earth and other earths, yet there were some things lacking which he did not receive until after his resurrection. In other words he had not received the fulness until he got a resurrected body" (Joseph Fielding Smith)

"And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him." (D&C 93:12-17).

Again--and I cannot stress this enough--my problem with this is not that I think it is "weird". I don't think it is exceptionally weird, and again, all religions are weird, including my own. Something being "weird" isn't enough to make it not Christian.

My issue is that this is significantly different than orthodox Christian theology. Orthodox Christian theology holds that Jesus is fully God, and has always been fully God, even as an embryo in Mary's womb. Again, fully willing to say that the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, God's neither-male-nor-femaleness, and Jesus being eternally fully God, even as an unborn baby, is all pretty bizarre.

Now, there are absolutely places where orthodox Christian denominations and theologians have disagreements about Jesus. Some of those questions are really significant ones too, like the whole miaphysitism vs. hypostatic union debate. But whatever disagreements we have, I am of the firm belief that the question of Jesus' divinity--that He was, is, and ever shall be God--is a pretty fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. For all of our squabbling, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Wesleyans, Russian Orthodox, etc. have all taken that question very, very seriously. Once a religion leaves that behind, I have a hard time accepting that a member of said religion is a Christian.

I'll concede that in anthropological contexts, it's not incorrect to categorize the LDS Church as "Christian" for historical reasons. After all, various aspects of LDS practice and teaching can only be explained through the fact that Mormonism came about as a blending of various 19th century American beliefs with Second Great Awakening-era low-church American Protestantism.

And I also recognize that there are other Christians around here that would take a much broader theological stance over who is or isn't Christian than I do. But personally, looking at LDS theology and comparing it to the rest of orthodox Christianity, I would consider the LDS Church one of several American offshoots of Christianity dating to the 19th century rather than orthodox Christianity-proper.

[dalyunministry]

Word Ministration

Topic: Holy Spirit

By - Min. Calvin Nii Bannerman

🔥

It may be helpful to some to notice that there is another spirit mentioned frequently throughout the Scriptures, and in opposite terms, namely, “The Spirit of Fear,” “The Spirit of Bondage,” “The Spirit of the World,” “The Spirit of Error,” “The Spirit of Divination,” “The Spirit of Antichrist,” “The Spirit of Slumber.” No one thinks that these various definitions, if unitedly considered, would justify the thought that there are two or more Satans.

This is my take on the subject of the Holy Spirit.

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God ...Ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” Rom 8:14-16

“And it shall come to pass, afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.” Joel 2:28.

THE GREAT work of the Atonement could not be properly considered, nor clearly understood, if the work of the holy Spirit, in connection therewith, were overlooked or ignored. The holy Spirit has much to do with the presentation of the Atonement making manifest to the believer the divine forgiveness, as well as guiding him into full reconciliation of heart to God. It was under the begetting influence of the holy Spirit, received by our Lord Jesus at his baptism, at the beginning of his ministry, that his consecrated heart was enabled to see clearly and distinctly the Father’s will, the proper course, the narrow way of sacrifice, and to appreciate the exceeding great and precious promises, whose fulfilment lay beyond his humiliation, ignominy and death at Calgary.

But this subject of the holy Spirit, its office and operation, has been grievously misunderstood by many of the Lord’s people for centuries: and only in the light of the rising Sun of Righteousness in the light of the parousia of the Son of Man is this subject becoming thoroughly clear and reasonable, as it evidently was to the early Church, and in harmony with all the various Scriptural testimonies pertaining to it. The doctrine of the Trinity, which, as we have seen, began to rise in the second century, and reached a large development in the fourth century, is responsible, in considerable measure, for much of the darkness which blends with the truth on this subject in many Christian minds, much to their disadvantage confusing and mystifying all religious convictions.

By the holy Spirit, therefore, our Redeemer was enabled to perform his great work, being guided thereby to do that which was pleasing and acceptable before the Father, and which provided the ransom for all humanity. Similarly the holy Spirit is identified with the Church: all who have accepted the merits of the great sin-offering, and who have come unto the Father through the merit of the Son’s sacrifice, and who have presented themselves living sacrifices, in harmony with the high calling to the divine nature held out to such during the Gospel age, have needed and had the holy Spirit’s aid. Only in proportion as any receive the holy Spirit of God are they able to come into proper lines of fellowship with the Father, and with the Son, so as to be able to “prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God,” and to do it. Only by the holy Spirit are we guided beyond the mere letter of the divine testimony, into a true appreciation of “the deep things of God,” and all those things which God hath in reservation for them that love him, which the human eye hath not seen, the human ear hath not heard, neither hath entered into the human heart to understand and appreciate. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10.

There is consistency in the Scripture teaching that the Father and Son are in full harmony and oneness of purpose and operation, as we have just seen. And equally consistent is the Scripture teaching respecting the holy Spirit that it is not another God, but the spirit, influence or power exercised by the one God, our Father, and by his Only Begotten Son in absolute oneness, therefore, with both of these, who also are at one or in full accord. But how different is this unity of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit from that held and taught under the name of Trinitarian doctrine, which in the language of the Catechism (Question 5 and 6) declares There are three persons in the One God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: “these three are one God, the same in substance , equal in power and glory.”

The careful student of the preceding chapters has found abundant testimony from the Scriptures, to the effect that there is but one All-mighty God Jehovah; and that he has highly exalted his First Begotten Son, his Only Begotten Son, to his own nature and to his own throne of the universe; and that next to these in order of rank will be the glorified Church, the Bride, the Lamb’s wife and joint-heir otherwise styled his “brethren.” These shall be made associates of his glory, as in the present age they are required to be associates in his sufferings. The students have noticed also, that all scriptures harmonize and agree in the above testimony; and further, that there are no scriptures whatever which, either directly or indirectly, actually or apparently, conflict with these findings.

• The question then arises, Who, Where, What, is the holy Spirit?

The holy Spirit is variously defined in the Scriptures, and to rightly understand the subject these various definitions must be considered together, and be permitted to throw light upon each other. Notice that the holy Spirit is variously styled“The Spirit of God,” “The Spirit of Christ,” “The Spirit of Holiness,” “The Spirit of Truth,” “The Spirit of a Sound Mind,” “The Spirit of Liberty,” “The Spirit of the Father,” “The Holy Spirit of Promise,” “The Spirit of Meekness,” “The Spirit of Understanding,” “The Spirit of Wisdom,” “The Spirit of Glory,” “The Spirit of Counsel,” “The Spirit of Grace,” “The Spirit of Adoption,” “The Spirit of Prophecy.”

These various titles, repeated many times, and used interchangeably, give us the full, proper assurance that they all relate to the same holy Spirit indeed, frequently the word “holy” is added in, combined, as for instance, “The holy Spirit of God,” “The holy Spirit of Promise,” etc. We must seek an understanding of the subject which will reject none of these appellations, but harmonize them all. It is impossible to harmonize these various statements with the ordinary idea of a third God ; but it is entirely consistent with every one of them to understand these various expressions as descriptive of the spirit, disposition and power of one God, our Father; and also the spirit, disposition and power of our Lord Jesus Christ, because he is at one with the Father and also to a certain extent it is the spirit or disposition of all who are truly the Lord’s, angels or men, in proportion as they have come into oneness or harmony, with him.

All naturally and properly enough recognize the meaning of these terms, as signifying in general the wrong spirit the spirit, disposition or power which has its chief exemplification in Satan; the spirit manifesting itself in all who are in harmony with sin and Satan. Very properly also, none think of these as personal spirits. No more should any one consider the various applications of the word “spirit” in a good sense, as signifying different spirit beings, nor as signifying unitedly another God. These terms, considered unitedly, represent various features of the character, the disposition, the Spirit of our God, Jehovah, and proportionately the spirit or disposition of all who have received his Spirit, become partakers of his disposition and come into harmony with the divine mind.

And the wrong thoughts respecting the Spirit of God and the spirit of man have been intensified and deepened by the fact that the translators of our Common Version English Bible have ninety-two times used the phrase “Holy Ghost” without the slightest authority the original Greek word being pneuma spirit. And the word “ghost,” to the uneducated, has a very vague meaning, which, nevertheless, is very positively identified with the thought of personality . It is worthy of note that in the Revised Version of the New Testament twenty-one of these occurrences of the word “Ghost” were changed so as to read “Spirit,” and that the American Revision Committee recorded its protest in respect to the use of the word “Ghost” in the remaining seventy-one occurrences. And yet both the English and American Committees were composed of strict Trinitarians.

It is urged by some that our Lord’s reference to the holy Spirit, recorded in Joh 14:26 , proves that the Spirit is a person, because our Common Version reads this passage thus: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” But a glance at the Greek text of this passage shows that the translators were influenced by their prejudices on the subject, for there is no ground for the use of the words “whom” and “he.” The Diaglott renders this verse thus: “But the helper, the holy Spirit which the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things and remind you of those things which I said to you.”

There is absolutely no ground whatever for thinking of or speaking of the holy Spirit as another God, distinct in personality from the Father and the Son. Quite to the contrary of this, notice the fact that it was the Father’s Spirit that was communicated to our Lord Jesus, as it is written, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel.” Luke 4:18 ) Turning to the prophecy from which this quotation is made, we read there, in the Hebrew, “The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me, because Jehovah hath anointed me to proclaim good tidings to the humble.” Isaiah 61:1 ) And to the same purport we read again, “And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of reverence of Jehovah.” Isaiah 11:2-3 ) Similarly the same Spirit in Christ is referred to as “The Spirit of Christ,” the mind of Christ“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Philippians 2:5.

Take another illustration“When he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak; and he shall show you things to come. He will glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you.” John 16:13-14 ) In this passage the Greek word, heautou , is translated “himself,” yet the same word is frequently properly translated “itself.” In our Common Version this word heautou is rendered in the masculine, feminine, common, and neuter genders. For instance, in the above text it is rendered.

The same criticism is applicable to the seventeenth verse of the same chapter, which, in our Common Version, reads: “The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him , but ye know him , for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” Here the expression, “Spirit of truth,” is evidently used in contrast with the “spirit of error.” The passage has no reference whatever to a person, but to the influence of the truth, and the effect of the same upon the Lord’s people. The Diaglott translation of this verse reads: “The Spirit of truth, which the world cannot receive, because it beholds it not, nor knows it ; but ye know it ; because it operates with you and will be in you.”

• What qualities or qualifications of the divine character or power are represented by the word “spirit?”

The answer will best be found by first of all examining the strict meaning of the word “spirit,” and then examining all the different methods of its use throughout the Scriptures.

• The Meaning of the Word “Spirit”

The question, then properly arises, what senses or meanings attach to the words “holy Spirit” as used in the Scriptures?

Because the wind is both invisible and powerful , these words, ruach and pneuma , gradually took on much wider meanings, and came to represent any invisible power or influence, good or bad. And since divine power is exercised through channels and by agencies beyond human sight, therefore this word “spirit” came more and more to be applied to all of the Lord’s dealings. Naturally also it came into common use in connection with such human influences as are invisible; for instance, to represent the breath of life, the power by which the man lives, which is invisible , designated the “spirit,” or “breath of life”; also for the power of the mind, which is invisible , called “the spirit of the mind.” Life itself is a power and is invisible, and hence it also was called spirit by the ancients. A few illustrations of these various uses of the Hebrew word ruach and the Greek word pneuma may be helpful.

The word “spirit,” in the Old Testament, is the translation of the Hebrew word ruach , the primary significance or root-meaning of which is wind . The word “spirit” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word pneuma , whose primary significance or root-meaning likewise is wind . But let no one hastily conclude that we are about to attempt to prove that the holy Spirit is a holy wind, for nothing could be farther from our thought. But we desire to present this obscure subject in such a manner as will be helpful both to the learned and the unlearned: hence we begin with the acknowledged root-meaning of these words, that we may ascertain how and why it was used in this connection.

Pneuma in the New Testament is translated (besides “ghost” and “spirit”) “life,” “spiritual,” and “wind,” as follows:

“To give life to the image of the beast.” Rev 13:15

“Forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts.” 1Co 14:12

“The wind bloweth where it listeth and ye hear the sound thereof.” Joh 3:8

And let us not forget that all of these various translations were made by Trinitarians. We do not object to these translations they are quite proper: but we call attention to them as proofs that the words ruach and pneuma , rendered “spirit,” do not signify personality , but do signify invisible power or influence .

“God is a Spirit”; that is to say, he is a powerful but invisible being; likewise the angels are called spirits, because they also, in their natural condition, are invisible to

men, except as revealed by miraculous power. Our Lord Jesus, while he was a man, was not designated a spirit being, but since his exaltation it is written of him, “Now the Lord is that Spirit” he is now a powerful and invisible being. The Church of this Gospel Age is promised change of nature, to the likeness of her Lord, as it is written, “ We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” The Church is spoken of as being spiritual, inasmuch as she is in harmony with the Lord and is declared to be begotten again by the Spirit to a new nature, a spirit nature , with the assurance that that which is begotten of the Spirit will, in the resurrection, be born of the Spirit. This use of the word spirit, it will be perceived, is related to personality spirit beings. 2 Corinthians 3:17 ; 1st John 3:2 ; John 3:6.

Ruach in the Old Testament is translated “blast” 4 times, “breath” 28 times, “mind” 6 times, “smell” 8 times, “wind” and “windy” 91 times. In every instance the thought behind the word is an invisible power or influence . Samples of these translations of ruach are as follows:

“With the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together.” Exo 15:8

“All flesh wherein is the breath of life.” Gen 6:17 ; Gen 7:15

“In whose hand is the... breath of all mankind.” Job 12:10.

Another use of the word spirit is in the sense of generative power or fecundity, as in Gen 1:2 , “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” that is to say, the power of God, his vehicle of energy, fecundated waters, or rendered them fruitful, prolific. Similarly, “Holy men of old spoke and wrote as they were moved by the holy Spirit,” the holy influence or power of God fecundated their minds, causing them to bring forth thoughts such as God wished to have expressed. 2Pe 1:21 ) Similarly, the skilled workmen whom Moses selected to prepare the paraphernalia of the Tabernacle were brought under the influence of the divine power, to the energizing or quickening of their natural faculties, without affecting them in any moral sense, even as the waters of the great deep were not affected in a moral sense.

Thus it is written: “The Lord hath called by name Bezaleel...and hath filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, in all manner of workmanship, and to devise curious works; to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass; and in covering of stones, to set them; and in carving of wood, to make any manner of cunning work. And he hath put in his heart that he may teach, both he and Aholiab,...them hath he filled with wisdom of heart to work all manner of work, of the engraver and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer.” Exo 35:30-35 ; Exo 28:3 ; Exo 31:3-4.

• Gifts of the Same Spirit, the Same Lord, the Same God

“There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit , as there are differences of administration, but the same Lord ; there are divers operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But a manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man [in the Church] to profit withal. For to one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit; to another faith, by the same Spirit; to another, the gifts of healing, by the same Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, discernment of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues; to another, the interpretation of tongues; but all these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” 1Co 12:4-11

• Divine Will, Influence, Power, Spirit

From the foregoing we perceive that a broad definition of the words “Spirit of God,” or “holy Spirit,” would be the divine will , influence , or power , exercised any and everywhere, and for any purpose in harmony with the divine will, which, being a holy will, implies that the steps and operations of the holy Spirit will be in harmony with holiness. God exercises his Spirit or energy in many ways, using various agencies in accomplishing various results. Whatever is accomplished by the Lord through either mechanical or intelligent agencies, is as truly his work as though he were the direct actor, since all those agencies are of his creation. Just as, amongst men, the contracting builder may not be actually working on every part of the construction, but every workman is his representative and under his control: the work, as a whole, is the contractor’s work, though he may never have lifted a tool upon it. He does it with his materials and through his representatives and agents.

Thus, for instance, when we read, “Jehovah God created the heavens and the earth” Gen 2:4 ), we are not to suppose that he personally handled the elements. He used various agencies“He spake and it was done [he gave orders and they were promptly executed]; he commanded, and it stood fast.” Psa 33:6 , Psa 33:9 ) Creation did not spring instantly into order; for we read that time was used six days or epochs. And while we are distinctly informed that “All things are of the Father” by his energy, his will, his Spirit, yet that energy, as we have previously seen, was exercised through his Son, the Logos .

In the light of the Scriptures we may understand the holy Spirit to mean:

(a) God’s power exercised in any manner, but always according to lines of justice and love, and hence always a holy power.

(b) This power may be an energy of life, a physically creative power, or a power of thought, creating and inspiring thoughts and words, or a quickening or life-giving power, as it was manifested in the resurrection of our Lord, and will again be manifested in the resurrection of the Church, his body.

(c) The begetting or transforming power or influence of the knowledge of the Truth. In this aspect it is designated “The Spirit of Truth.” God rules his own course according to truth and righteousness; hence, God’s Word, the revelation of his course, is called Truth“Thy word is Truth.” Similarly, all who come under the influence of God’s plan of Truth and righteousness are properly said to be under the influence of the Spirit or disposition of the Truth: they are properly described as begotten of the Truth to newness of life.

The Father draws sinners to Christ through a general enlightenment of the mind, a conviction of sin and of their need of a Redeemer. Those who accept Christ as their Savior and Advocate, and come to the point of full consecration to God, through Christ, are said to be begotten of God, “begotten by the word of truth,” begotten by the Spirit of God to a newness of life. That is to say, having come into harmony with divine conditions and regulations, God accepts this consecrated attitude as the proper one, and passing by or covering the weakness of the flesh with the robe of Christ’s righteousness justification by faith, he accepts such as “new creatures in Christ Jesus,” whose desire is to be guided by his Spirit into all truth, and to be led by that holy disposition or Spirit into full obedience to the extent of self-sacrifice, even unto death. Such are said to have received “the Spirit of adoption,” because from thenceforth God, through Christ, enters into a special covenant with these as sons.

And the Father, through the Captain of their Salvation, guarantees to such that if they abide in the Spirit of the Truth he will cause that all the affairs and incidents of life shall work together for good to them to the development in them of more and more of the spirit of righteousness, truth, peace, joy; they shall have more and more of the holy Spirit, as they progress in obedience to the Spirit of Truth. Hence the exhortation to such is, “Be ye filled with the Spirit,” “walk in the Spirit,” “let the Spirit of Christ dwell in you richly and abound, and it shall make you to be neither barren nor unfruitful.” This holy Spirit operating in the believer from the time of his full consecration to the Lord, is the same holy Spirit or disposition of the Father which operated in our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence it is also styled “the Spirit of Christ,” and we are assured, “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.” Rom 8:9

Thank you