The Spirit: not a junior member of the divine Trinity

[thehonorableryu]

But I tell you the truth, It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
When He, the Spirit of reality, comes, He will guide you into all the reality...-John 16:7, 13a
Here the Lord says that the Spirit’s presence is better for us than His pre-resurrection

Comments

[anti_nietzsche]

Awesome, Ryu. That was a great explanation of the work of God on us. It helps much.

What really amazes me about the Spirit is His thorough friendliness and well-meaning-ness. And His power - He really can effect you powerfully. God is love - and it's a powerful love. My heart finds peace ...

[thehonorableryu]

I'm glad you found it helpful, brother Daniel. :)

The Lord said, "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter/Helper, that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16), and then in verse 20 He says, "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you."

The fact that the Lord says that He will ask the Father to give another Comforter/Helper, implies that the Lord Himself is also a comforter/helper. That He said that "in that day" we will know that the Lord Himself will be in us means that when the Spirit comforts you, the Lord Jesus is comforting you, too.

[catholic_heart]

Great post, brother. The neurotic in me has just a little bit of trouble with one aspect of the wording you used, The Holy Spirit has received an extract of Christ, but I think any language used there would give pause, since language isn't entirely sufficient sometimes. But that's a minor quibble in an entirely excellent post. Thank you, it was very edifying :)

[thehonorableryu]

You picked out a past tense typo, brother. :) I don't mean to imply that the Holy Spirit has received a percentage of Christ (as if the Lord was divisible) on one occasion in the past

[catholic_heart]

That makes perfect sense. Honestly, I knew what you were getting at, I was just in a neurotic mode with a slavish desire for linguistic precision :-D

Your last two paragraphs in this comment were particularly enlightening :)

[thehonorableryu]

That makes perfect sense. Honestly, I knew what you were getting at, I was just in a neurotic mode with a slavish desire for linguistic precision :-D
Well, I'm thankful for the many thoughtful and discerning believers here who want to make sure that I'm not actually saying or could be misconstrued as saying something erroneous. :) I was fully counting on the content of this post being "new" and sounding strange to many ears. But, as I said to Chaz below, I believe the realization of which is important for our daily enjoyment of Christ.

Your last two paragraphs in this comment were particularly enlightening :)What's really neat is that Scripture is full with many revelations and pictures of the intimate relationship between Christ and the Spirit

[gtrnvox]

On what basis are you rendering αληθεια as "reality" instead of "truth" in the context of John 16?

[broken_skai]

I was wondering about that myself.... The Spirit of reality sounds different than The Spirit of Truth.

[chaz_lehmann]

Reality and truth in Koine Greek are both rendered with the word αληθεια. It's a beautiful thought theologically. That which is untrue has no constitutive reality of its own.

[gtrnvox]

That doesn't answer my question regarding interpreting αληθεια within the context of John 16.

[martiancyclist]

I don't see how you can get the Holy Spirit having Christ's human nature from 1 Corinthians there. My initial impression is that your conclusions are incorrect.

[thehonorableryu]

Think of it this way.

Do you believe the Lord Jesus actually lives inside of you (Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27; John 14:20)?

How can the Lord dwell in you unless He has not only has ascended bodily as a Man, but is also pneumatic--that He became a life-giving Spirit?

Does the Lord Jesus dwell in you with only His divinity; did He leave his humanity behind? When Christ is formed in you (Gal. 4:19), when you are transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from "the-Lord-the-Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18), does He conform you only unto likeness of His divinity, or also of His perfected humanity? Now is this work separate from the transformation work of the Holy Spirit, or is it in all practicality the same salvific activity?

I don't mean that the Holy Spirit (as the third of the trinity) has the humanity of Jesus separately from the exalted Son. What I mean flows from the truth that the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit, though distinct, are never separate

[martiancyclist]

Christ can dwell in me just fine; I ate him a few days ago.

You also seem to be doing what I've heard called "spaghetti citing" -- taking a whole bunch of verses from all over the place, and using them together to demonstrate a point. It doesn't make what you say wrong, but it does not demonstrate anything conclusively. You can demonstrate a bunch of contradictory things using spaghetti citing.

One key thing is that words can have different meanings; 'spirit' might not always mean 'the Holy Spirit', depending on the context.

You may also be conflating Christ in the Church with the charism of the Spirit.

Basically, I want to know where you're getting all this. Did you come up with it on your own, or did you hear it from somewhere else? And if so, where?

[thehonorableryu]

You also seem to be doing what I've heard called "spaghetti citing" -- taking a whole bunch of verses from all over the place, and using them together to demonstrate a point. It doesn't make what you say wrong, but it does not demonstrate anything conclusively.
Brother, I would call it interpreting the Bible with the Bible. Did the early church fathers do anything differently? They didn't claim to have direct revelation from the Spirit, and doctrines don't fall from heaven in creedal form.

John 1:14 says the "Word became flesh," but it is by those who have gone before us interpreting the Bible with the Bible that we now conclusively understand this to mean that the Word didn't cease to be the Word when the Word became flesh, that this verse does not challenge God's immutability, that the "flesh" here does not refer to the flesh of the sin but to the real nature and body of a man, etc.

You can demonstrate a bunch of contradictory things using spaghetti citing.Well, the New Testament declares many apparently contradictory (actually

[chaz_lehmann]

I don't know exactly how to take this post.

From moment to moment as I read it I vacillate between condemning it as modalistic and praising it as a beautiful confession of the filioque.

Could you maybe help me out a bit and clarify how you see the Son and the Spirit as distinct?

[catholic_heart]

It's interesting, I was having the same trouble. I think ultimately it just demonstrates how difficult it really is to put into words reality as ineffable as the Holy Trinity.

[thehonorableryu]

I think ultimately it just demonstrates how difficult it really is to put into words reality as ineffable as the Holy Trinity.
Definitely. :) Augustine was accused of modalism. Dionysius of Alexandria was accused of tritheism because he didn't use the term "homoousios" because he didn't find it in Scripture (but was luckily vindicated by Athanasius). Gregory of Nyssa was accused of both modalism and tritheism depending upon what Scriptures he used to expound upon the mystery of the Trinity.

Speaking about the mystery of the Holy Trinity is like handling explosives--one false move and all of your language and understanding will blow up in your face. :)

[thehonorableryu]

Anyway, to be clear as possible, the view of the Trinity that is informing what I have written in this topic is simply that the three of the Trinity are distinct but never separate, as any orthodox confession will confirm.

Example: "Thus the three are one by nature, not as person. Nevertheless, these three persons are not to be considered separable since, according to our belief, none of them ever existed or acted before another, after another, without another. For they are inseparable both in what they are and what they do...For this reason we profess and believe that this Trinity is inseparable and distinct (inconfusa). We say, therefore, of these three persons, as our forefathers defined it, that they should be acknowledged, not separated....Therefore, neither do we confuse these three persons whose nature is one and inseparable, nor do we preach that they are in any way inseparable."

-from Eleventh Council of Toledo's Symbol of Faith
The trouble for us is that when we say the word "person" in English today, we typically mean a