Monday, December 26, 2022

The Trinity Series by Andrew Schumacher

 

Former long time Unitarian and now long time Trinitarian Andrew Schumacher has set up on his blog "The Trinity Series" where he presents an introductory case for and defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. His materials are especially informative and useful because he understands the mind and rationale of Unitarians because he himself was a Unitarian for many years. So his evidences and arguments are ones that can specifically address Unitarian concerns and objections. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the series.




Tuesday, November 8, 2022

Jordan Cooper Playlist on the Trinity

 

Calvinism and Lutheranism are both theological traditions that sprung from the Reformation. Proponents of both traditions consider each other fellow Christians despite the many theological differences. While I'm a Calvinist myself, I appreciate the Lutheran tradition and I find that Jordan Cooper is an excellent expositor and defender of the historic conservative Lutheran position. The link below is a YouTube playlist of talks Cooper gave on the topic of Christology. In them he discusses Lutheran distinctives and often compares and contrasts them with other traditions [e.g. Calvinistic understanding(s) of Christology].


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkBbAXXDZEo&list=PLxaDcwyjYomxEsLr_dbmrrG2uBLz2oOTl

Thursday, September 15, 2022

Andrew Murray Affirming the Personhood and Divinity of the Holy Spirit

 

I've read a number of Andrew Murray's book and have been benefited by them tremendously. However, one thing I've noticed whenever I've read his books is how he's reticent to refer to the Holy Spirit as divine or as a person. He doesn't outright deny it, but he sometimes makes statements which made me wonder whether he privately denied the personhood and full divinity of the Holy Spirit, and hence denied the doctrine of the Trinity.

As a Dutch Reformed theologian and pastor he was required to profess belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. It was part of his ordination process. But merely because someone is ordained in a Trinitarian denomination and professes to believe something doesn't necessarily mean that he does or continued to do so afterwards.

However, I have recently found a passage in one of Murray's books where he does seem to kind of affirm the personhood and full divinity of the Holy Spirit. It's not clear or unambiguous. His statements could still be interpreted in a Unitarian or Pneumatomachian way. But it at least approaches an acknowledgement of the full personhood and divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is the closest I recall seeing Andrew Murray doing so. The passage is the 29th chapter in his classic book Waiting On God. Here are various links to the chapter (or book) which is hosted on different websites:

Here: https://ccel.org/ccel/murray/waiting/waiting.xxxii.html

Or Here: https://archive.org/details/waitingongoddail00murr/page/134/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater

Or Here: https://www.biblestudytools.com/classics/murray-waiting-god/twenty-ninth-day.html

Or Here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cr60098201&view=1up&seq=141

Or scroll down to chapter 29 Here: https://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/waiting/waiting.htm

Here's the text as taken from the last link posted above. I'll highlight in yellow the relevant passages.

Day 29. FOR THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER

"He charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father." Acts1:4 ASV

In speaking of the saints in Jerusalem at Christ's birth—with Simeon and Anna—we saw how the call to waiting is no less urgent now, though the redemption they waited for has come, than it was then. We wait for the full revelation in us of what came to them, but what they could scarcely comprehend. In the same way, it is with waiting for the promise of the Father. In one sense, the fulfillment can never come again as it came at Pentecost. In another sense, and that in as deep a reality as with the first disciples, we need to wait daily for the Father to fulfill His promise in us.

The Holy Spirit is not a person distinct from the Father in the way two persons on earth are distinct. The Father and the Spirit are never without or separate from each other. The Father is always in the Spirit; the Spirit works nothing but as the Father works in Him. Each moment, the same Spirit that is in us is in God, too. And, he who is most full of the Spirit will be the first to wait on God most earnestly to further fulfill His promise and to still strengthen him mightily by His Spirit in the inner man. The Spirit in us is not a power at our disposal. Nor is the Spirit an independent power, acting apart from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is the real, living presence and the power of the Father working in us. Therefore, it is he who knows that the Spirit is in him who waits on the Father for the full revelation and experience of the Spirit's indwelling. It is he who waits for His increase and abounding more and more.

See this in the apostles. They were filled with the Spirit at Pentecost. When they, not long after, on returning from the council where they had been forbidden to preach, prayed afresh for boldness to speak in His name, a fresh coming down of the Holy Spirit was the Father's fresh fulfillment of His promise.

At Samaria, by the Word and the Spirit, many had been converted, and the whole city was filled with joy. At the apostles' prayer, the Father once again fulfilled the promise. (See Acts 8:14-7.) Even so to the waiting company—"We are all here before God"(see Acts 10:33)—in Cornelius' house. And so, too, in Acts 13. It was when men, filled with the Spirit, prayed and fasted, that the promise of the Father was afresh fulfilled, and the leading of the Spirit was given from heaven: "Separate me Barnabas and Saul" (Acts 13:2).

So also we find Paul, in Ephesians, praying for those who have been sealed with the Spirit, that God would grant them the spirit of illumination. And later on, that He would grant them, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man.

The Spirit given at Pentecost was not something that God failed with in heaven, and sent out of heaven to earth. God does not, cannot, give away anything in that manner. When He gives grace or strength or life, He gives it by giving Himself to work it—it is all inseparable from Himself. Much more so is the Holy Spirit. He is God, present and working in us. The true position in which we can count upon that working with an unceasing power is as we, praising for what we have, still unceasingly wait for the Father's promise to be still more mightily fulfilled.

What new meaning and promise does this give to our lives of waiting! It teaches us to continually keep the place where the disciples tarried at the footstool of the throne. It reminds us that, as helpless as they were to meet their enemies, or to preach to Christ's enemies until they were endued with power, we, too, can only be strong in the life of faith, or the work of love, as we are in direct communication with God and Christ. They must maintain the life of the Spirit in us. This assures us that the omnipotent God will, through the glorified Christ, work in us a power that can bring unexpected things to pass, impossible things. Oh, what the church will be able to do when her individual members learn to live their lives waiting on God—when together, with all of self and the world sacrificed in the fire of love, they unite in waiting with one accord for the promise of the Father, once so gloriously fulfilled, but still unexhausted!

Come and let each of us be still in the presence of the inconceivable grandeur of this prospect: the Father waiting to fill the church with the Holy Spirit. And willing to fill me, let each one say.

With this faith, let a hush and a holy fear come over the soul, as it waits in stillness to take it all in. And, let life increasingly become a deep joy in the hope of the ever fuller fulfillment of the Father's promise.

My soul, wait thou only upon God!




Around the beginning of March 2023, I found another quote that is allegedly from Andrew Murray that appears to have him implying the genuine divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit. See page 5 of the pdf HERE of Alliance Weekly. In an article by Rev. Robert D. Kilgour [starting on page 4 in the pdf], he quotes Andrew Murray as saying:

 "Just as wonderful and real is the divine work of God on the throne, graciously hearing, and, by His mighty power, effectually answering prayer; just as divine as is the work of the Son, interceding and securing and transmitting the answer from above, is the work of the Holy Ghost in us in the prayer which awaits and obtains the answer. The intercession within is as divine as the intercession above." END QUOTE

Notice how the author of the quote distinguishes the person of God the Father and His work, then the Son and His work, and then the work of the Holy Spirit. The logic of the quote implies the genuine personality of the Holy Spirit and His separate activity distinct from the work of the Son and the Father. Unfortunately, Kilgour didn't cite where he got that quote. Therefore, I'm uncertain whether it really is from Andrew Murray. I'll continue searching for the source of the quote.







Saturday, August 13, 2022

DELETED Anthony Rogers Debates


DELETED Anthony Rogers Debates

The following is a YouTube Link to a Playlist of Videos of Anthony Rogers Debates which includes some that have been deleted from their original channel. David Wood had decided to delete most of his channel's videos and give the channel to a fellow Christian apologist. Some of the videos he deleted included debates that were uploaded onto another channel by someone unaffiliated with David Wood. But with David Wood's permission. Since Wood has repeatedly said that any of his video can be uploaded by anyone onto their own video channels.  

Presumably the deleted video debates have been uploaded as audio on Anthony Rogers' mp3 Apple Podcast here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anthony-rogers-debates/id1443906144?fbclid=IwAR196HAP6DuPTG8m3X1SPg26oTjojva_FDjtO2nsqk7o9zmyQcpVV7dnN-w


Heiser, Mormonism, and the Divine Council of Psalm 82

 

The following are links to Michael Heiser blogs and papers on the Divine Council as it relates to Mormonism. Specifically how some Mormons are abusing his research to promote their views.

Heiser, Mormonism, and the Divine Council of Psalm 82 by Michael Heiser


You've Seen on Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82 by Michael Heiser  [or HERE]


“Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Honest (and Orthodox) Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible” by  Michael S. Heiser, PhD [or HERE]

 

An Underrated Biblical Proof for Jesus' Deity


In the following video Erik Manning demonstrates that the Apostle Paul believed in the full Deity of Jesus Christ from a passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. The video is based on an article by Jonathan McLatchie which is also linked below.   


An Underrated Biblical Proof for Jesus' Deity
https://youtu.be/rbf0pkg8MEU



Christ the Spiritual Rock: Deuteronomy 32 in Relation to the New Testament by Jonathan McLatchie






Tuesday, July 12, 2022

The Analytic Christian YouTube Channel Playlists on the Trinity

  

 The Analytic Christian is a Christian YouTube channel that focuses on philosophical theology. Jordan Hampton usually interviews experts in specific fields of philosophical theology. Here are some of the channel's Playlists that are directly relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew32U1gyOc8&list=PLlVH-ThCazKmStWtxqvoCPP3QD_mhfCI8


The Incarnation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ-m5nl4x4w&list=PLlVH-ThCazKkHW-733L5uQlR4EKRRDcy1



A Discussion on the Trinity & Unitarianism Between William Lane Craig and Dale Tuggy

 

This discussion is between world renowned Christian theologian and apologist William Lane Craig who defends basic Trinitarianism, and leading Unitarian defender Dale Tuggy.


A Discussion on the Trinity & Unitarianism
https://youtu.be/zZIepfBcD94


I've informally dialogue and debated Dale Tuggy on a number of occasions at Triablogue. Here's a blog to a collection of links to some of those conversations:

Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy 







Wednesday, July 6, 2022

Jesus Is Yahweh: The Deity of Christ

 

Steven Bancarz is a former New Age teacher who converted [reverted back] to Christianity a few years ago. He was well known in the New Age community. He has grown in his understanding of Biblical Christianity to the point that his videos are now fairly orthodox. Here's a recent video of his where he explains and defends the full Deity of Jesus Christ as the 2nd person of the Trinity. 


Jesus Is Yahweh: The Deity of Christ
https://youtu.be/tuEtWE2Y5ig









Wednesday, June 8, 2022

My Outer and Inner Trinitarian Options

 

This is a kind of continuation of my blogpost here: The Purpose of This Blog


I'm open to various Trinitarian formulations. I'm not dogmatic on any one view. I think there's room for disagreement among Trinitarians because while the Bible (IMO) teaches some form of Trinitarianism, it is underdeterminative regarding which version is correct. The Bible just doesn't provide enough information for us to confidently determine which view is correct or closest to correct. That the Bible doesn't fully disclose all the intricacies of the Trinity might be due to our inability to understand it due ot our finitude. In which case, God might reveal just enough that we can have some grasp of the Godhead sufficient for our worship of the Deity and our salvation. While I'm open to various Trinitarian formulations and not dogmatic on any particular one, it does seem to me that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. There are also Unitarian views which I reject on the basis of Biblical revelation. Since the Bible does seem to teach the fully deity/divinity of the Son and Spirit and the genuine distinction between all three persons of the divine triad. 


The following is my description on some of the options and what I find to be their strengths and weakness. Since my understanding of the variations and permutations of Trinitarian formulations is limited, my analyses will necessarily be based on my finite understanding. I'm still growing in my understanding in these issues. I'm only an amateur theologian.


Both Arianism and Semi-Arianism seem to be unbiblical. Arianism seems false because it has the Son [or also the Spirit] as created "from" or "of" nothing. Indisputedly making the Son a [or also the Spirit] creature[s]. While Semi-Arianism denies that the Son [or also Spirit] are created from/of nothing because the Son [or also the Spirit] in some sense derives from the the Father's nature/essence [which is an improvement on Arianism], the nature and essence of the Son [or also the Spirit] is[/are] not truly divine. In which case the Son [or also the Spirit] STILL falls the creature side of the Creator and creature divine/distinction.


Nicene Monarchism as understood/defined by David Waltz is an attempt to return to what the Council of Nicaea believed about the triad. See Waltz' blog here:https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

Again, I'm not sure just how much I understand these options, but with the level I think I do, my criticism of Nicene Monarchism is that while it affirms the true personal distinctions and divinity of the Son and Spirit, its apparent weakness is that it denies true the unity of the Godhead as to essence. It's a marked improvement on Arianism and Semi-Arianism, and I'm open th Nicene Monarchy, but I think other views do better justice to the true unity of the Godhead.


The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is also a position I'm open to. However, like Nicene Monarchy, it's open to the criticism of not fully affirming the true unity of the Godhead or even denying it. Nor does it [or at least doesn't seem to be able to] explain the difference between the generation/filiation of the Son and the spiration/procession of the Holy Spirit. Without the filioque, difference/distinction seems arbitrary and unexplained. Under the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, why aren't both the second and third person of the Trinity generated? Why aren't they both Sons of God so that God has two Sons? Or why aren't both the second and third person of the Trinity spirated so that God has two Holy Spirits? While I'm open to the filioque being false, I lean toward it for at least one reason. It gives some explantion for why the derivation of the second and third persons of the Trinity are different. The second person of the Trinity derives from the Father, and the third person of the Trinity derives from the Father and the Son [or from the Father through the Son]. But again, the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is susceptible to the charge of tritheism as is Nicene Monarchy.


It seems to me that the view that all three persons of the Trinity sharing the same identical nature does most justice to the unity of God and of monotheism, than conceptions of the triad whereby each of the three have differing and distinct types and individual essences and/or natures.


There are Evangelical conceptions of the Trinity that have three persons share the one being of God. William Lane Craig's view is among them. If I'm not mistaken, Craig's willing to understand and refer to the persons of the Trinity as three centers of consciousnesses [or something equivalent if he doesn't use that term]. The problem is that Craig denies the doctrine of the eternal generation/filiation of the Son and the eternal procession/spiration of the Holy Spirit. While I'm open to a view that denies both doctrines, doing so gives no explanation as to why there are differences between the person of the Trinity. As a Trinitarian, I reject on Biblical grounds the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the ontological subordination of the Spirit to the Son and/or the Father. I'm also open to a denial of ERAS/ESS/EFS. Though, I lean toward them [i.e. Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission/Eternal Subordination of the Son/Eternal Functional Subordination] because that's what the Bible seems to teach as well as the early church fathers. If Craig's view is correct, why does the Bible seem to teach the eternal, even ante-creational, subordination of the Son and Spirit in the ontological/immanent Trinity [again sans creation]? Given Craig's view, why doesn't the Bible present the persons of the Trinity as three identical triplets? Instead, Scripture presents the eternal Fatherhood of the Father, the eternal Sonship of the Son, and the eternal Spirit of God and of the Son.


The positive of variations of Modalism is that it affirms the true unity of God. The negative problem of Modalism is that it denies the true and genuine distinctions of the persons of the Trinity, making God unipersonal, rather than truly multi-personal/pluri-personal/tri-personal.


With Latin Trinitarianism usual affirmation of *absolute* divine simplicity in the vein of Thomism, it attempts to affirm both the unity and triadic nature of Trinity. But because of its conception of ABSOLUTE divine simplicity, its affirmation of the persons of God as subsistencies seems to only give lip service to the genuine plurality of God. If a criticism that could potentially be leveled against the Eastern Orthodox conception of the Trinity is that of apparent Crypto-Semi-Arianism [crypto meaning "secret" or "hidden"], then on the oppose side Latin Trinitarianism could potentially be charged with Crypto-Sabellianism/Modalism.


Where does that leave me? Most of the above are my outer or peripheral options. The following are my inner preferred options. As I said, I'm open to many of the options and permutations I've listed above among others I didn't mention [with the stated exception of Unitarian versions I automatically reject like Arianism and Semi-Arianism, etc.]. But my default view seems to be that of affirming ERAS of the Father, Son and Spirit who all share the one/singular identical being/essence/substance of the Godhead and where the PERSONS OF Son and Spirit [to the exclusion of their essences] eternally derive from the Father with an affirmation of something like the filioque whereby the being of God is singular and underived. Traditionally, the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit involves BOTH their 1. person and 2. being/essence/substance. But there has been some in the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition that affirmed only the persons proceeding from the Father, while their substances not being derived. The persons share the one/singular being of God. That makes a lot of sense to me. With the persons each being a center of consciousness [even though some Trinitarians resist or reject that conception and terminology]. To use a human analogy with human consciousness, the Father could be analogous to the consciousness of God, the Son the reflective SELF-consciousness of God, and the Holy Spirit the self-WORTH and affectional approbation of God regarding God. Jonathan Edwards makes a similar case in his classic Unpublished Essay on the Trinity. I've come to my conclusions [or preferences] because of that essay. The main difference is that Edwards does seem to affirm a genuine distinction and derivation of the substances/essences of the Son and Spirit [but I could be mistaken in my interpretation of Edwards].


I'm also open to the persons [i.e. centers of consciousness] AND essence of God being both timelessly eternal, OR being both temporally eternal. Or split so that the persons [i.e. centers of consciousness] are temporally eternal WHILE the essence of God being timelessly eternal. These inner options and permutations seem to have all the pros I want, while avoiding all the cons I want to avoid. They affirm both the true unity of God, and the true plurality of God. They don't affirm unity of God to the unintended denial of the genuine plurality of God. Nor do they affirm the plurality of God to the unintended denial of the unity of God. They affirm the genuine distinctions of the persons, while also giving some explanation as to their distinctions. They also give some explanation to the heirarchy of the persons, while affirming their genuine equality. Rather than affirming a blank equality that leaves unexplained the differences and relations of authority and submission. All the while denying ontological subordination in their affirmation of functional subordination.They explain why the relations are described in the Bible as sans creation [i.e. "before" and APART from creation]. My views can always change. Hopefully, they are constantly refining. But this is how I see things at present.

Sunday, February 27, 2022

Does Isaiah 9:6 Affirm the Deity of Israel's Messiah? by Johnathan McLatchie


Jonathan McLatchie has written the following article. He posted it after a debate on the very topic. I've linked to both the article and the debate.

Does Isaiah 9:6 Affirm the Deity of Israel's Messiah? by Johnathan McLatchie  
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-isaiah-96-affirm-the-deity-of-christ/


Debate:

Does Isaiah 9:6 Affirm the Deity of Christ?
Two Christians Jonathan McLatchie & Samuel Green vs. Two Muslims Shabir Ally & Yusuf Ismail 
https://youtu.be/3MFahYLl-78


Sunday, February 13, 2022

Debate: James White vs. Patrick Navas [in Two Parts]

 

Topic of the Debate: "The deity of Christ is taught in the following texts or families of texts: John 12:41 (cf. Isa. 6 and 53), 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the “I am” statements of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6)."

The website pages has more information. Including the following:

Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author of The Forgotten Trinity, affirms. Patrick Navas, author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, denies.

Website for part 1: http://www.theopologetics.com/2011/11/26/episode-67-firstborn-of-creation/

Website for part 2: http://www.theopologetics.com/2011/11/27/episode-68-the-great-i-am/


Permission was given to post the debate on different YouTube channels:


PART ONE

https://youtu.be/pRJsLJRYG9M
OR
https://youtu.be/nJHT3C4rO_Q






PART TWO

https://youtu.be/f_MgTS9mDZA
OR
https://youtu.be/t6MIpv1kljU





Sunday, January 9, 2022

Quotations from the Early Church Fathers Regarding the Deity of the Holy Spirit Compiled by David King


David King is a Christian apologist known (inter alia) for co-writing with William Webster the three volume book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. I'm in a Facebook group with him and he posted some interesting quotes from the early church fathers regarding the Holy Spirit in response to someone who seemed to have doubted the Holy Spirit's full Deity. Below I'll reproduce some of his comments:


Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on Acts 5:4: Not only does the Scripture in this place clearly bear witness to the θεότης of the Holy Spirit, that is the Godhead, but the Lord himself also said in the Gospel: ‘For the Spirit is God’ (Jn 3:6). See Fathers of the Church, Vol. 44, Saint Ambrose: Theological and Dogmatic Works, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 10, §59 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), p. 174.


Basil of Caesarea (A.D. 329-379): We glorify the Holy Ghost together with the Father and the Son, from the conviction that He is not separated from the Divine Nature; for that which is foreign by nature does not share in the same honors. All who call the Holy Ghost a creature we pity, on the ground that, by this utterance, they are falling into the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against Him. I need use no argument to prove to those who are even slightly trained in Scripture, that the creature is separated from the Godhead. The creature is a slave; but the Spirit sets free. The creature needs life; the Spirit is the Giver of life. The creature requires teaching. It is the Spirit that teaches. The creature is sanctified; it is the Spirit that sanctifies. Whether you name angels, archangels, or all the heavenly powers, they receive their sanctification through the Spirit, but the Spirit Himself has His holiness by nature, not received by favour, but essentially His; whence He has received the distinctive name of Holy. What then is by nature holy, as the Father is by nature holy, and the Son by nature holy, we do not ourselves allow to be separated and severed from the divine and blessed Trinity, nor accept those who rashly reckon it as part of creation. Let this short summary be sufficient for you, my pious friends. From little seeds, with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, you will reap the fuller crop of piety. “Give instruction to a wise man and he will be yet wiser.” I will put off fuller demonstration till we meet. When we do, it will be possible for me to answer objections, to give you fuller proofs from Scripture, and to confirm all the sound rule of faith. For the present pardon my brevity. I should not have written at all had I not thought it a greater injury to you to refuse your request altogether than to grant it in part. NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 159, To Euraterius and his daughter, §2.


Moreover, taken in context (contrary to the claims of Roman apologists), Athanasius himself is a witness against your claim. In the citation below, while commenting on this passage from Ad Serapion 1.28, Shapland explains: “It is important to understand what Athanasius is appealing to here. The passage from ad Adelph. which we have already quoted makes it clear that tradition to Athanasius is not an indefinite source of knowledge, independent of Scripture. Not only does he insist upon the sufficiency of Scripture (de Syn. 6 and elsewhere), he does not strictly distinguish tradition and Scripture. See Robertson, Intro. lxxiv. Nor is he appealing to the authority of earlier Fathers. . . .The real direction of Athanasius’s appeal is to be understood from the citation of the baptismal formula later on. It is of the faith as delivered, expounded, and confessed in baptism that he is thinking. Thus the τεθεμελίωται of the succeeding sentence is taken up again in the preamble to the citation of Matthew 28:19 by τοῦτον θεμέλιον τιθέναι, making it plain that the θεμέλιον is nothing other than the threefold Name as invoked in baptism. See C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.28 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), footnote # 28², pp. 133-134. Thus Athanasius is not appealing to some unwritten oral tradition, but the testimony of Scripture in Matthew 28…


Athanasius (297-373): These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit, by themselves alone, show that in nature and essence he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures, but is distinct from things originate, proper to, and not alien from, the Godhead and essence of the Son; in virtue of which essence and nature he is of the Holy Triad, and puts their stupidity to shame.

But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the Holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, ‘who is over all, and through all, and in all’—‘over all’, as Father, as beginning, as fountain; ‘through all’, through the Word; ‘in all’, in the Holy Spirit. It is a Triad not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matthew 28:19). C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.27-28 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), pp. 133-136.


Niceta of Remesiana (335-415): However, it is possible that these benign and beneficent qualities do not rouse our mind to an understanding of the power of the Holy Spirit. Let us turn, then, to aspects more terrifying. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that the disciple Ananias sold his possessions and by fraud kept back part of the price, and, bringing the rest in place of the whole, laid it at the feet of the Apostles. He offended the Holy Spirit whom he had thought to deceive. Now, what did St. Peter without hesitation say to him? ‘Ananias, why has Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldest lie to the Holy Spirit?’ Then he added: ‘Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.’ And being struck by the power of Him whom he had hoped to deceive, he expired. What does St. Peter here mean by the Holy Spirit? He clearly gives the answer when he says: ‘Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.’ It is clear that one who lies to the Holy Spirit lies to God; therefore, one who believes in the Holy Spirit believes in God. The wife of Ananias, who connived at the lie, also joined him in his death. FC, Vol. 7, Writings of Niceta of Remesiana, The Power of the Holy Spirit, §17 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1949), p. 37. Migne attributed this work mistakenly to Niceta the Bishop of Aquileia. See FC, Vol. 7, Introduction (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1949), p. 6.


Augustine (354-430): When the apostle said, Do you not know that your body is the temple in your midst of the Holy Spirit whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a great price, he immediately goes on to say, Glorify God, then, in your body (1 Cor 6:19-20). There he showed with utter clarity that the Holy Spirit is God and that he should be glorified in our body as if in his temple. The apostle Peter said to Ananias, Have you dared to lie to the Holy Spirit? And to show that the Holy Spirit is God, he said, You have not lied to men, but to God (Acts 5:3-4). John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Arianism and Other Heresies, Answer to Maximinus the Arian, Book II:XXI.1, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 304.


Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): Peter also makes us certain of the Holy Spirit by saying to Ananias, “Why hath Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Ghost? You have not lied to men, but unto God,” for the Spirit is of God and not different from God. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) Section IV, 59. Against the impure “Purists,” 10,1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 109.


Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): But now the swarm of testimonies [i.e. scriptural testimonies] shall burst upon you from which the Deity of the Holy Ghost shall be shewn to all who are not excessively stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized in Scripture. Look at these facts:—Christ is born; the Spirit is His Forerunner. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads Him up. He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the Spirit takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God which are not in His power? What titles which belong to God are not applied to Him, except only Unbegotten and Begotten? For it was needful that the distinctive properties of the Father and the Son should remain peculiar to Them, lest there should be confusion in the Godhead Which brings all things, even disorder itself, into due arrangement and good order. Indeed I tremble when I think of the abundance of the titles, and how many Names they outrage who fall foul of the Spirit. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of The Lord, and Himself The Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of Wisdom, of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of Godliness, of the Fear of God. For He is the Maker of all these, filling all with His Essence, containing all things, filling the world in His Essence, yet incapable of being comprehended in His power by the world; good, upright, princely, by nature not by adoption; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; containing, not contained; inherited, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; held out as a threat; the Finger of God; fire like God; to manifest, as I take it, His consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, Who by Baptism and by Resurrection creates anew; the Spirit That knoweth all things, That teacheth, That bloweth where and to what extent He listeth; That guideth, talketh, sendeth forth, separateth, is angry or tempted; That revealeth, illumineth, quickeneth, or rather is the very Light and Life; That maketh Temples; That deifieth; That perfecteth so as even to anticipate Baptism, yet after Baptism to be sought as a separate gift; That doeth all things that God doeth; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled, unhindered, which is the same thing as Most wise and varied in His actions; and making all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable, Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, most subtle (the Angel Hosts I think); and also all prophetic spirits and apostolic in the same manner and not in the same places; for they lived in different places; thus showing that He is uncircumscript.

30. They who say and teach these things, and moreover call Him another Paraclete in the sense of another God, who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven, and who branded with such fearful infamy Ananias and Sapphira for having lied to the Holy Ghost, what do you think of these men? Do they proclaim the Spirit God, or something else? Now really, you must be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you have any doubt about this and need some one to teach you. NPNF2: Vol. VII, The Fifth Theological Oration On the Holy Spirit, Oration XXXI, §29-30.