Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 2

Three Common Objections to the Personhood of the Holy Spirit

In my last post, I outlined a straightforward and concise argument for why Christians believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Namely, I demonstrated from Scripture that the Holy Spirit has a will, a mind, and emotions. Since these are the attributes of persons, not impersonal forces, it is better to understand the Holy Spirit as a person.

Let���s now turn to the three objections that were offered to me in response to my case.

The Holy Spirit language is a personification. My Witness guests did not attempt to deal with the specific texts that I presented; rather, they dismissed these verses as personifications. A personification is when personal qualities are attributed to something impersonal. They admitted that some passages appear to portray the Holy Spirit as a person, but said this is merely a literary device.

There are many problems with this response. First, it is a blanket assertion that ignores the specific context of the personhood passages. This response does not even attempt to honestly exegete each passage.

Second, it assumes what needs to be proved. When a Jehovah���s Witness comes to a straightforward personhood passage (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:11; Rom. 8:27; and Eph. 4:30), they assert that it must be a personification. But how do they know it���s a personification? Because they have already assumed the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. This is reasoning in a circle. Jehovah���s Witnesses need to show that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force before they can even begin talking about supposed personifications. But this is exactly what they cannot do.

Third, there are many instances that cannot be explained away by a personification. For example, what does it mean to grieve (Eph. 4:30), or to blaspheme (Matt. 12:32), or to lie to (Acts 5:3), a personified impersonal force? In addition, the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals at historical events. For example, in a meeting at the church at Antioch, the Holy Spirit says, ���Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them��� (Acts 13:2). This is the Holy Spirit using person pronouns of Himself. It appears the Spirit thought Himself to be a person, not a personification.

The Holy Spirit lacks a name. My Witness guests were adamant that if the Holy Spirit is a person, then He would have a name. They stated, ���Since no name is mentioned, the Holy Spirit is not a person.���

This is a deeply fallacious argument. Just because the Holy Spirit is not given a personal name in the New Testament, that does not mean He isn���t a person. Spiritual beings are not usually named in the Bible, but that doesn���t mean they aren���t persons. For example, at the beginning of Jesus��� earthly ministry, Jesus heals a man with an unclean spirit (Luke 4:31-36). Notice that this demon is both unnamed and a person. Furthermore, spirits are routinely identified by a particular characteristic. This was an unclean spirit.

In the same way, the Holy Spirit is identified by His chief characteristic: holiness. If the Holy Spirit can���t be a person because we don���t know His personal name, then all the angels and demons in the Bible who are unnamed can���t be persons either.

The Holy Spirit fills people. My Witness guests offered one last argument. If people are filled with the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit cannot be a person. ���How can one person be filled with another person?��� they asked. ���It makes more sense to be filled with an impersonal force.���

Again, this argument is demonstrably false. As already discussed, undisputed spiritual persons, like unclean spirits, have the ability to enter into human persons. This doesn���t disqualify them as persons, so why would it disqualify the Holy Spirit?

Moreover, our personal God is said to fill things. If God���s presence can fill the temple (2 Chron. 5:14), or fill the whole earth (Num. 14:21), then why is it so hard to believe that the Holy Spirit could fill believers? In fact, Paul calls our bodies the ���the temple of the Holy Spirit��� (1 Cor. 6:19).

These responses were very instructive. Rather than address explicit texts raised against their view, the Jehovah���s Witnesses I spoke to relied on circular reasoning and demonstrably false argumentation. The Watchtower position that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force simply cannot be supported by the testimony of Scripture.

Links Mentioned on the 8/31/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Greg's Daughter Joins Him (0:00)

The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens In Between by Greg Koukl

Questions:

1. The idea of someone worth dying for (0:18)

2. A line of reasoning for original sin (0:24)

3. How do you decide what to do when spending time with Mormon family members? (0:42)

"Mormons Aren't Christians" Is Not an Epithet by Amy Hall

4. Why are Judeo and Christian worldviews always combined? (0:52)

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Why Believe the Holy Spirit Is a Person?

A week ago I had two friendly Jehovah���s Witnesses over for what turned out to be a two-hour conversation. You can read more about that experience here. One of the topics that my Witness guests kept coming back to was the Holy Spirit. Jehovah���s Witnesses do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. Instead, they believe that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal active force.

In our conversation, they were adamant about talking about the Holy Spirit. They repeatedly told me that the Holy Spirit is never referred to as a distinct person. This led me to ask a question, what attributes would distinguish a person from an impersonal force? Or, to ask the question a different way, does the Holy Spirit have the attributes of personhood?

There are three primary characteristics of personhood: will, mind, and emotions. It should be obvious that a force, like gravity or electromagnetism, cannot possess these properties. However, the New Testament demonstrates that the Holy Spirit has a will, a mind, and emotions. For simplicity, I walked through one example of each with my guests.

The Holy Spirit has a will. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12:11 that the Holy Spirit distributes spiritual gifts as He wills. Paul writes, ���All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills.��� It is clear from the context that it is the Holy Spirit who makes the decision about what gift each respective Christian receives. An impersonal force does not have the ability to make decisions. This is an attribute of persons, not impersonal forces.

The Holy Spirit has a mind. In Romans 8, Paul describes how the Holy Spirit intercedes (or prays) for believers. He says, ���Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And He who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God��� (Rom. 8:26���27). In verse 27, we are told that God the Father knows the mind of the Spirit. An impersonal force does not have a mind and, therefore, could not intercede for believers. This passage only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is a person.

The Holy Spirit has emotions. Probably the most conclusive passage on this point is Ephesians 4:30. Paul states, ���And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.��� How does one grieve an impersonal force? Grief is an emotion that is experienced by a person, not a force. Yet, Paul tells us explicitly that we cause the Holy Spirit to grieve when we commit sins.

After going through these three clear passages, I had one question. If the Holy Spirit has a will that decides (1 Cor. 12:11), a mind that thinks (Rom. 8:27), and emotions that feel (Eph. 4:30), how can anyone rationally claim the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force?

What happened next is very telling. Rather than deal with the argument that I presented, my Witness guests offered three challenges by way of response. In my next post, I will walk through their three responses that I received to this argument and how I responded.

If you want to learn more about witnessing to Jehovah���s Witnesses, read my Solid Ground article titled ���Ready for the Knock on Your Door.��� You may also want to watch this video on the same subject.

Discussing ���17 Points of the True Church��� with Mormons

If you���ve ever spent time speaking with a Mormon missionary before, you may have been handed a card listing the ���17 Points of the True Church.��� Here are the points many Mormons think ought to determine for us which church is the true one:

Christ organized the Church. (Eph 4:11���14)
The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ. (Eph 5:23)
The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets. (Eph 2:19���20)
The true church must have the same organization as Christ���s Church. (Eph 4:11���14)
The true church must claim divine authority. (Heb 5:4���10)
The true church must have no paid ministry. (Acts 20:33���34, John 10:11���13)
The true church must baptize by immersion. (Matt 3:13���16)
The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. (Acts 8:14���17)
The true church must practice divine healing. (Mark 3:14���15)
The true church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals. (John 17:11, 20:17)
The true church must teach that God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and bone. (Luke 23:36���39, Acts 1:9���11, Heb 1:1���3)
The officers must be called by God. (Heb 5:4, Ex 28:1, 40:13���16)
The true church must claim revelation from God. (Amos 3:7)
The true church must be a missionary church. (Matt 28:19���20)
The true church must be a restored church. (Acts 3:19���20)
The true church must practice baptism for the dead. (1Cor 15:16, 29)
���By their fruits ye shall know them.��� (Matt 7:20)

To help people use this LDS list as a starting point for discussions, I created a second list of 17 points. Some of the points are direct responses to their numerical counterparts on the LDS list, and some bring in ideas not mentioned on the LDS list that are unique to Christianity and not shared by Mormons. Since each list includes aspects of the unique theology of its group, by going through their list and ours and examining the context of the verses cited, you can quickly move into deep and meaningful conversations with your LDS friends. (Download a card-sized version to print and cut out here.)

The true church must base its doctrine on what the Bible teaches. (2 Tim 3:16���17, 2 Pet 1:21, Ps 12:6)
The true church must teach there is only one God. (Isa 43:10, Isa 44:6, Isa 44:8)
The true church must teach that God has been God from all eternity. (Ps 90:2, Mal 3:6, Jas 1:17)
The true church must worship only one God (the LORD, Jehovah). (Ex 34:14)
The true church must teach that God does not have a physical body. (John 4:24, Luke 24:39, 1 Kings 8:27, John 1:18, 1 Tim 1:17)
The church must teach that within the one being of God there are three Persons. (Matt 3:16���17, Matt 28:19���20)
The true church must teach that the eternal, fully divine person of Jesus took on a human nature when He came to Earth. (Phil 2:5���8, John 1:14)
The true church must worship Jesus. (Matt 28:9, Matt 2:11)
The true church teaches that the Gospel is: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. (1 Cor 15:1���4)
The true church teaches that when you believe the Gospel, you receive the Holy Spirit, you are born again, and He makes you into a new creation. (Acts 10:36���45, John 3:1���8, 2 Cor 5:17)
The true church teaches that a trusting belief in Christ is all one needs to be saved to eternal life with God. (Acts 16:30���31, John 6:28���29, 1 John 5:11���12)
The true church must not teach that eternal life with the Father can be reached only after doing certain works. (Eph 2:8���9, Rom 11:6, Gal 3:2���3)
The true church must not make the issue of what we eat or drink a requirement of the Gospel. (Mark 7:18���20, Rom 14:14���18, Col 2:13���17)
The true chruch must teach that we are forgiven of our sins when we confess them. (1 John 1:9, Heb 10:10, 14���18)
The LORD commands his people to financially support those devoted to ministry. (Num 18:8���24, Luke 10:2���7, 1 Cor 9:7���14, 1 Tim 5:17���18)
The true Church was established by Jesus, has never been overcome, but has existed on the earth throughout all generations since Jesus. (Matt 16:18, Eph 3:21)
The true church must compare all new revelation with the Bible and reject whatever disagrees. (Deut 13:1���3, Gal 1:8, Isa 8:19���20, 1 Thes 5:21, Acts 17:11)

For more discussion of the LDS 17 points, see Alpha and Omega Ministries and Mormonism Research Ministry. See also these related articles on the differences between LDS and Christian doctrine:

LDS View of Atonement Clarified
Is God an Exalted Man?
LDS Test Is Necessary, Not Sufficient
Is Mormonism Just Another Christian Denomination?
���Mormons Aren't Christians��� Is Not an Epithet

Why Doesn't God Require a Designer?

If life is so complex that it requires a designer, then why does an even more complex God not require a designer?

 

New Report Examines Scientific Studies on Sexuality and Gender

The journal The New Atlantis has published ���a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research���from the biological, psychological, and social sciences���related to sexual orientation and gender identity.���

From Ryan Anderson:

A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation���s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that ���some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.���

Read Anderson���s summary of four major conclusions of the study, or read the report���s executive summary (or the full report) here. We will surely see pushback against this study. Watch to see if those arguing against it refute its analysis of the available evidence or merely attack its writers. Anything that falls into the first category should be carefully considered.

Links Mentioned on the 8/26/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: How to Stay Christian in College (0:00)

reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences ��� California (Sept. 23���24), Texas (Oct. 21���22), Alabama (Apr. 21���22, 2017)
Strengthen the Basics by Amy Hall ��� Two suggestions for apps to help you develop spiritual habits of Bible reading and prayer
Apologetics Aren't Enough to Connect You with a Person by Amy Hall ��� Keep feeding your soul.
Apologetics, prayer and Bible reading, fellowship and accountability.

Questions:

1. Do we have to sin, or is it possible for a Christian to live sinlessly? (0:16)

2. Is a vote an endorsement of a candidate���s character? (0:31)

3. Is God in time? (0:41)

Is God in Time? by Greg Koukl
God, Time, & Eternity (Audio) by William Lane Craig
God & Time: Four Views ��� Edited by Greg Ganssle

4. Will there come a point when people are so hostile to Christianity that no dialogue is possible? (0:51)

How Are Tactics Used with Someone Who Is Very Aggressive? by Greg Koukl

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

We���re Seeing a Clash of Worldviews, Not an Inevitable Force of Progress

In his analysis of David Gushee���s recent article exhorting Christians to not be ���left behind��� by all of the other American people and institutions on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, Jake Meador calls attention to (and argues against) the idea that this revolutionary change in our society is the result of some kind of inevitable force:

To read Gushee is to be told that we aren���t seeing a fight between two fundamentally different visions of reality with competing claims about the nature of human beings, sexuality, and family life. We���re simply seeing a fight between the inevitable forces of progress objectively understood and those backwards people who would oppose it.

The trouble here is that this completely misrepresents what is actually happening. What we are witnessing is the triumph of one understanding of reality over another. As I noted last week, market-enabled, government-backed individualism is ascendant; Christianity is in decline���.

And here���s the thing: If we���re honest about the fact of the conflict playing out in front of us, we can be honest about the stakes of the debate, which are enormous: Either we are completely autonomous, self-defining human individuals and the government has an obligation to protect our right to self-definition or we enter into a world given to us in a certain condition, shaped by certain factors outside our control, and filled with norms, rules, and laws we are powerless to change and can only submit to. Gushee���s attempts to obscure this fact do nothing to change it���.

The fact that a huge number of people, including Gushee and his friends, absolutely refuse to see this point doesn���t change the facts of the debate. We either have a right to define our own concept of existence���in which case we should just be done with Christianity altogether���or we do not. There can be no attempt to pretend that our current social revolution is simply the natural progression of history happily moving toward climax as those awful, backwards bigots die off in its wake. Such claims are not only dishonest; they are cowardly.

Meador explains how distorting the conflict in this way damages our society:

Here���s the truly awful thing about all this: This sort of framing makes both real debate and real pluralism impossible. If we recognize the radical nature of our dispute, we might also be able to recognize ways of living together peaceably in the midst of those differences. Consider the many examples of close friends who are fierce ideological opposites. But as long as we insist on this absurd idea that one side is simply going along with history and the other is bitterly clinging to their bigoted religious beliefs, there can be no understanding of the other. And where there is no understanding, there can be no functioning polis.

Meador���s whole piece is worth reading. I���ve been pointing for a while to the fact that this societal conflict comes down to our opposing views on what it means to be human (see here, here, and here). This is yet another reminder that, as Christians, we need to be rock solid on basic worldview issues. The existence of the Christian God, the Creator of reality, affects our understanding of every aspect of that reality, so think deeply and carefully about the implications of being created by and for our good God. Otherwise, our secular culture will be happy to do your thinking for you.

Challenge Response: There���s a Contradiction at the Core of Christianity

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

The Romans 12:2 Approach to Knowing God's Will

The Kindle version of Garry Friesen���s Decision Making and the Will of God is only $1.99 today, and it���s worth getting. (You don't need a Kindle to read it.) It���s an in-depth biblical defense of the wisdom model for making decisions (as opposed to the model where we learn to hear special messages from God as to what we should do in any given situation).

John Piper describes this approach in his sermon on Romans 12:1���2, the passage that instructs us to ���not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.���

If you want to know the future details of God���s will of decree, you don���t want a renewed mind, you want a crystal ball. This is not called transformation and obedience; it���s called divination, soothsaying���.

The Bible does not tell you which person to marry, or which car to drive, or whether to own a home, where you take your vacation, what cell phone plan to buy, or which brand of orange juice to drink. Or a thousand other choices you must make.

What is necessary is that we have a renewed mind, that is so shaped and so governed by the revealed will of God in the Bible, that we see and assess all relevant factors with the mind of Christ, and discern what God is calling us to do. This is very different from constantly trying to hear God���s voice saying do this and do that. People who try to lead their lives by hearing voices are not in sync with Romans 12:2.

There is a world of difference between praying and laboring for a renewed mind that discerns how to apply God���s Word, on the one hand, and the habit of asking God to give you new revelation of what to do, on the other hand. Divination does not require transformation. God���s aim is a new mind, a new way of thinking and judging, not just new information. His aim is that we be transformed, sanctified, freed by the truth of his revealed Word (John 8:32; 17:17). So the second stage of God���s will of command is the discerning application of the Scriptures to new situations in life by means of a renewed mind.

If you���re unfamiliar with this understanding of decision making, I recommend starting with Greg���s ���Does God Whisper?��� Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.