Holy Ghost Filled Churches Near Me? All Answers

In Christian theology, the gender of the Holy Spirit has been the subject of some debate recently.

The grammatical gender of the word “spirit” is Hebrew feminine (רוּחַ, rūaḥ),[1] Greek neuter (πνεῦμα, pneûma), and Latin masculine (spiritus). The Greek neuter πνεῦμα is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew רוּחַ. However, the pronouns used to address the Holy Spirit are masculine.

The Holy Spirit was also identified with the (grammatically feminine) wisdom of God by two early church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 180) and Irenaeus (d. 202/3). Historically, however, the majority of theologians have identified wisdom with Christ the Logos.

Gregory Nazianzus wrote in the fourth century that terms such as “Father” and “Son” in relation to the persons of the Trinity are not to be understood as expressing essences or energies of God, but as metaphors. The same position is still held in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.[2]

Grammatical gender[ edit ]

Even in the same language, a difference can arise as to which word is chosen to describe the Holy Spirit. In Greek, the word pneuma is grammatically neuter[3] and thus in that language the pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit by that name is also grammatically neuter. However, when the Holy Spirit is referred to by the grammatically masculine word parakletos “counselor,” the pronoun is masculine (since the pronoun refers to parakletos rather than pneuma), as at John 16:7-8.[4]

William D. Mounce argues that in the Gospel of John, when Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as the Comforter (Greek masculine), the grammatically necessary masculine form of the Greek pronoun autos is used,[5] but when Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as Spirit, in Greek grammatically neuter[6], the masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (“the masculine”) is used.[5] This break in grammatical consistency, which is expected by native readers, is indicative of the author’s intent to convey the person of the Holy Spirit.[7] However, Daniel B. Wallace disputes the claim that Ekeinos is associated with Pneuma in John 14:26 and 16:13-14, claiming instead that it belongs to Parakletos. Wallace concludes that “it is difficult to find a text in which πνευμα is grammatically denoted by the masculine gender”.[8]

In Hebrew, the word for spirit (רוח) (ruach) is feminine (which is used in the Hebrew Bible, as is the feminine word “shekhinah” in rabbinic literature to indicate the presence of God, Arabic: سكينة sakina, a word six times mentioned in the Qur’an).

Also in the Syriac language, the grammatically feminine word rucha means “spirit,” and writers in that language, both Orthodox and Gnostic, used maternal imagery when speaking of the Holy Spirit. This imagery is found in the fourth-century theologians Aphrahat and Ephrem the Syrian. It is found in earlier writings of Syriac Christianity such as the Odes of Solomon[9] and in the Gnostic Acts of Thomas of the early third century[10].

The historian of religion Susan Ashbrook Harvey regards grammatical gender as significant for early Syriac Christianity: “It seems clear that for the Syrians the reference to grammar – ruah as a feminine noun – was not entirely unfounded. There was real meaning in the Spirit’s calling ‘You’.”[11]

In the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit is referred to as “He” in English liturgical texts,[12] but the Holy See directs that “established gender usages of the respective language are to be retained.”[13]

Discussion in mainstream Christianity[edit]

Old church[edit]

For Semitic languages ​​such as Old Syriac, the earliest liturgical tradition and established gender usage for referring to the Holy Spirit is feminine.[14]

The Syriac language, in use around 300 AD, is derived from Aramaic. In documents produced in Syriac by the early Miaphysite Church (which later became the Syriac Orthodox Church), the feminine gender of the word for spirit led to a theology in which the Holy Spirit was considered feminine.[15]

Recent Discussions [ edit ]

Some recent authors (1980s to present), while retaining the masculine reference to Father and Son, have used feminine language for the Holy Spirit. These authors include Clark H. Pinnock,[16] Thomas N. Finger,[17] Jürgen Moltmann,[18] Yves M.J. Congar,[19] John J. O’Donnell,[20] Donald L. Gelpi,[21] and R.P. Nettlehorst.[22][23][24]

Discovering Biblical Equality maintains that looking at God in masculine terms is merely one way in which we speak of God in figurative language. The author reiterates that God is spirit and that the Bible represents God through personification and anthropomorphism, reflecting only a resemblance to God.[25]

There are some Christian churches (see below) that teach that the Holy Spirit is feminine based on the fact that both feminine nouns and verbs and feminine analogies are believed to be used by the Bible to represent the Spirit of God in Describing passages like Genesis 1:1-2, Genesis 2:7, Deut. 32:11-12, Proverbs 1:20, Matthew 11:19, Luke 3:22 and John 3:5-6. These are based on the grammatical gender of both the nouns and verbs used for the spirit by the original authors, as well as maternal analogies used by the prophets and Jesus for the spirit in the original Bible languages.

There are Bible translations in which the pronoun used for the Holy Spirit is masculine, in contrast to the gender of the noun used for spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic.[3] The word is also feminine in Aramaic, the language commonly believed to have been spoken by Jesus. In Greek, however, the word (pneuma) is neuter.[3] Most English translations of the New Testament refer to the Holy Spirit as masculine in a number of places where the masculine Greek word “Paraclete” for “Comforter” occurs, most prominently in John chapters 14 through 16.[26] These texts were particularly significant as Christians debated whether the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit is a fully divine hypostasis as opposed to a created force.

Feminine Gender in Other Faith Traditions

Latter-day Saints[ edit ]

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gender is “regarded as an essential characteristic of eternal identity and destiny.”[27] The LDS Church believes that before human beings lived on earth, they existed spiritually, with a gendered spirit body,[28] and that the Holy Spirit had a similar body but was intended to become a member of the tripartite deity[29 ]. (Deity consisting of God or Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit).

Branch Davidians[edit]

Some small Christian groups consider the gender of the Holy Spirit to be feminine based on their understanding that the Hebrew word for spirit, ruach, can be feminine or masculine. Their views derive from skepticism about the Greek primacy of the New Testament. [clarification needed] Foremost among these groups, and the most vocal on the subject, are the Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. [citation required]

In 1977 one of their leaders, Lois Roden, officially began teaching that a female Holy Spirit is the heavenly pattern of women. In her many studies and lectures, she quoted numerous scholars and researchers from Jewish, Christian, and other sources. They see in the creation of Adam and Eve a literal image and likeness of the invisible deity, male and female, “seen clearly, understood by the things that are made.”[30]

They understand the unity of God to be the “family” unity that exists between them, and this unity is not seen in any other presentation of the Godhead by the various non-Hebrew peoples. So since they have a father and mother in heaven, they see that the Bible shows that these parents had a son, born to them before the creation of the world, through whom all things were created.[31][32] [33][34]

Unity Church[ edit ]

Unity Church co-founder Charles Fillmore viewed the Holy Spirit as a distinctly feminine aspect of God, regarding it as “the love of Jehovah” and “love is always feminine.”[35]

Messianic Jews[ edit ]

The B’nai Yashua Synagogues Worldwide,[36] a messianic group led by Rabbi Moshe Koniuchowsky, adheres to the feminine perspective of the Holy Spirit.[37][38] Messianic Judaism is viewed by most Christians and Jews as a form of Christianity.

There are also several other independent messianic groups with similar teachings. Some examples are Joy In the World;[39][40] The Torah and Testimony Revealed;[41] Messianic Judaism – The Torah and the Testimony Revealed;[42] and the Union of Nazarene Jewish Congregations/Synagogues,[43][ 44] who also regard the Gospel of the Hebrews as canonical, which has the unique feature of referring to the Holy Spirit as the mother of Jesus.[45]

Some scholars associated with the major denominations, while not necessarily referring to the denominations themselves, have written works explaining a feminine understanding of the third member of the deity.[46]

Moravian brothers[edit]

There was a firmly established place in the liturgy, prayer and teaching for the Holy Spirit as the Mother among the Moravian Brethren, particularly exemplified by Count Zinzendorf.[47]

Gnosticism[ edit ]

In the Secret Book of John, an ancient codex from the Nag Hammadi Library used in Christian Gnosticism, the divine feminine principle Barbelo is referred to as the Holy Spirit.[48]

In art[edit]

In Christian iconography, the Holy Spirit is most commonly represented as a dove. There is also a far less common tradition of depicting the Holy Spirit in human form, usually a male. Thus, Andrei Rublev’s The Trinity presents the Trinity as the “three men” who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre[49], which are often taken to be the theophany of the Trinity.[50] However, in at least one medieval fresco in St. James’ Church in Urschalling, Germany, the Holy Spirit is represented as a woman.[51]

See also[edit]

Virgin of Heaven, representation of the Holy Spirit in the Bahá’í Faith

By Paul Copan

After speaking to the Philomathean Society—a debating society—at Union College in Schenectady, New York, a student approached me and demanded, “Prove to me that God exists.”

I asked him, “What would you consider an acceptable level of evidence?”

The student paused and finally replied, “I guess I hadn’t even thought of that.” The conversation, which turned out to be quite cordial, soon died down.

When skeptics ask us Christians for “evidence,” they usually ask for “scientific evidence” of the existence of God, objective moral values, the soul, or the afterlife. We expect such challenges in the age of scientism – the belief that science, and thus “scientific proof”, alone can produce knowledge. Since the September 11 attacks, this “enlightened” modern criterion for knowledge has been reinforced by the “New Atheists”—Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and (the late) Christopher Hitchens. For example, Richard Dawkins writes: “Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they produce results. Myths and beliefs are not and do not.” 1

Such critics assume that Christians and other theists have a special burden of proof to show that God exists. Meanwhile, atheists may sit back and evaluate whatever the theist comes up with. And when nothing comes out, or when they don’t think it’s strong enough evidence, they typically feel justified in their rejection of God. But is this the correct protocol demanded by rationality and other reasonable considerations?

In response to such challenges, it is advisable to sort and define our terms. What do we mean by science? what is knowledge What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? We should also be clear about “the Rules of Conduct” so that we can have fair conversations about such issues.

SCIENCE, SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE

First, let’s clear up some confusion about science and knowledge. To do this, we should distinguish between science and scientism. As the Christian philosopher of science Del Ratzsch defines science, it is the attempted objective study of the natural world and natural phenomena, the theories and explanations of which do not normally differ from the natural world.2

Now some will argue with the word “usually”. This, they suggest, is “God sneaking into science”. But believing that is a mistake. To insist that everything that happens in the physical world requires a physical explanation is questioning—that is, assuming what you want to prove. But if God exists and created and designed the universe, it would be quite fitting for him to act directly in the world according to his good and wise intentions. Furthermore, God’s actions in the world would, in principle, leave detectable traces of such activity on or in the physical world – be it the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe, or miracles like turning water into wine. For example, Craig Keener’s two-volume book, Miracles, is a work that comprehensively documents these bodily traces — for example, healings and revivals from death performed in the name of Jesus. Keener mentions that he had the actual x-rays from before and immediately after some of these prayers for healing. 3 Thus, while most things that happen in the physical world have physical explanations, the demand for only physical explanations for any physical phenomena actually goes beyond science and goes beyond the rigid demands of scientism, which presupposes that the physical world is all there is (i.e. naturalism). In the interest of finding the truth, shouldn’t we be looking for the best explanation for a physical event – whether natural or supernatural – and not necessarily the best natural explanation?

In the film version of Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who, the kangaroo insists that Horton the elephant is wrong about living on a tiny speck of dust. Angered by Horton’s belief in such small people, the kangaroo preaches in a naturalistic way, “If you can’t see, hear, or feel something, it doesn’t exist!” Scientism declares that we can only know through scientific observation.4 But notice : This is a philosophical assumption; it is not the result of scientific observation or research. It’s a statement of science, not a statement of science. But how do you actually know that science alone produces knowledge? Or to put it another way: How can one scientifically prove that all knowledge must be scientifically provable? The demand “always prove scientifically” is contradictory in itself.

Let’s shift things a bit to what knowledge itself is. Without much discussion we can say that knowledge has three components: it is (1) a belief that (2) is true, and (3) has justification (or, others might say, justification): justified true belief. Well, essential to knowing is that a belief is true. So I can’t really say “I know the earth is flat” or “I know circles are square”. You can believe false claims or claims, but you can’t know them. Truth is related to knowledge. Furthermore, knowledge requires that a true belief has some justification – or something that turns a true belief into knowledge. Having an accidental true belief is not knowledge. Having a fortunate hunch that turns out to be true is not knowledge. Or suppose you infer that it is 2:12 by looking at a clock in a shop window; It turns out you’re right, but just by coincidence: the clock actually doesn’t work! Believing that it is 2:12 in this case does not count as knowledge either.

Since the time of René Descartes (1596-1650), an extremely rigorous but pernicious definition of knowledge has infected the modern mind—namely, that knowledge requires 100 percent certainty.5 So if it’s “logically possible” that you could be wrong be, then you don’t really know. So many people are proving so hesitant about what can rightly be called “knowledge.” But following such a strict, absolute standard is silly. In fact, no one but God could live up to that! But no credible epistemologist (a philosopher who specializes in the study of knowledge) accepts this myth of “100 percent knowledge.” A key reason for this is this: You can’t know with 100 percent certainty that knowledge requires 100 percent certainty. In addition, we can really know many things that do not rise to this level of absolute trust. For example, you know that there is a world independent of your mind – although it is logically possible that it is just an illusion – Maya, as Advaita-Vedanta-Hindu would call it. So let’s say this logical possibility lowers the “safety level” to 97 percent. Does this mean you can’t really know that the outside world exists? Well, how does the “100 percent believer” know that we can’t really know that the world exists outside of our minds? The fact is, we know many things with confidence, albeit not with absolute certainty. In fact, there would be precious little we could know if we followed this exacting standard.

When it comes to knowing the existence of God, the theist need not conform to Descartes’ absolute standards. The believer can have many good reasons to believe in God – albeit not absolute, mathematically certain ones. A helpful way to reason the existence of God is to ask: In what context are important features of the universe and human existence best understood? For example, we are aware of the existence of consciousness, free will or a presumed personal responsibility, personality, rationality, duties and human values ​​- not to mention the beginnings, fine tuning and beauties of the universe. These are hardly surprising when a good, personal, conscious, rational, creative, powerful, and wise God exists. However, these phenomena are quite frightening or shocking when they are the result of deterministic, worthless, unconscious, unguided, irrational material processes. We have every reason to believe that a naturalistic world would not produce these phenomena—although theism does not—and many naturalists themselves express surprise and even amazement that such features should occur in a materialistic, deterministic universe. 6

THEISM, ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM

A few years ago I spoke at an open forum at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (Massachusetts). After I finished my talk, one student stood up and confidently announced, “The reason I’m an atheist is because there are no good reasons to believe in God.” I told him, “Then you should be an agnostic . After all, it is possible for God to exist even when we have no valid reasons for his existence.” I then went on to ask what kind of agnostic he was.

This brings us to our second set of terms for clarification – theism, atheism and agnosticism – and we should also address the question of who bears the burden of proof given these conflicting views.

No doubt the theist makes a truth claim by claiming that God exists – a maximally great, worshipable being. So the theist who claims to know something should have a burden of proof. How is this belief justified? But does that mean that atheists and agnostics make no claims? This would be a wrong assumption.

Let’s consider the atheist for a moment. Michael Scriven, a self-proclaimed atheist philosopher, actually mislabeled himself. He insists: “We don’t need proof that God doesn’t exist to justify atheism. Atheism is obligatory in the absence of any evidence for the existence of God.”7 He adds that the concept of God and the concept of Santa Claus both have the status of being “unreal” because there is no evidence for either.8

There are at least five problems with Scriven’s claims. First, he misdefined atheism. The late prominent philosopher Antony Flew—an atheist who believed in God toward the end of his life—defined atheism as “a rejection of belief in God.”9 Then there’s the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), which defines an “atheist.” as someone who “claims that there is no God, that is, that the statement ‘God exists’ expresses a false claim.”10 The atheist philosopher Julian Baggini defines atheism as “the belief that there is no God or gods. “11 The Fact The standard definition of atheism is the rejection of belief in God/Gods. The implication is clear: if atheism claims to know that God does not exist, that stance needs just as much justification as the theist’s claim that God exists. Both bear the burden of proof, since both assert claims.

Second, Scriven’s description does not allow for a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. So what’s the difference? The agnostic does not know whether God exists or not. Suppose the agnostic believes that evidence for God is totally absent and that evidence for atheism is totally absent as well. Why not go the opposite route from Scriven here? Instead, why not say that in the absence of evidence for atheism (“God does not exist”), one should become theist?

We might add that if both the atheist and the agnostic hold that evidence for God is lacking, how does Scriven distinguish between these two positions? According to his proposal, agnosticism would turn out to be identical to atheism. Such confusion of categories does not exist, however, if we take the standard understanding of atheism as a disbelief in God – not simply disbelief, which would properly describe the agnostic. Of course, an agnostic could say—and usually does—that some evidence for God exists, but that some evidence against God of roughly equal weight keeps them from believing in God. But that’s not what it is all about here. Scriven’s understanding of atheism is both uninformative and contradictory.

Third, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As I mentioned earlier, in the absence of evidence for God, agnosticism would be the more logical conclusion. After all, it is possible for God to exist even if there were no evidence of God to be found anywhere. In this case we should abolish belief, which would amount to mere disbelief, but as we have seen, this is different from disbelief (i.e., atheism). Why do we think we are obligated to unbelief?

Fourth, what if belief in God is “really basic” even without supporting evidence? Some Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff have argued that we generally believe many things without evidence or argument – for example that other spirits exist or that the universe is older than fifteen minutes. Why can’t we say the same thing about the existence of God – that it is “actually fundamental”? In other words, if our minds are functioning properly and aligned with the truth, then simply a convincing or firm belief in the existence of God could arise from that experience. These philosophers – they are called “reformed epistemologists” – do not deny that there is evidence for the existence of God, only that evidence is not required for belief in God to be rational.12

Now we might claim that belief in other thoughts or a universe older than fifteen minutes is only part of our everyday experience and is thus evidence in itself. Such basic experiences thus serve as proof, even if this proof was not provided by rock-solid formal arguments. But if these Reformed epistemologists are right, then we can speak of justified belief in God without argument or evidence.

Fifth, claiming that God and Santa Claus are on the same level is a flawed comparison. We have strong evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. We know where Christmas gifts come from. We know humans – let alone elves – don’t live at the North Pole. We can be fairly certain that a human Santa Claus, if it existed, would be mortal rather than ageless and immortal. This is evidence against Santa Claus. In contrast, we have evidence of God’s existence – the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, rationality, beauty, human dignity and worth, and free will. The evidence for God is on a whole different level.

With these points in mind, we should introduce another important distinction. There are two types of agnostics: (1) the ordinary agnostic who says, “I’d really like to know if God exists or not, but I don’t have enough to go on” and (2) the rebellious (!) agnostic, who says, “I don’t know whether God exists or not – and neither can you.” The latter – the hardened or militant agnostic – makes the blanket claim that no one can know that God exists. Note that the militant agnostic also makes a claim to knowledge. Again, it needs just as much justification as the respective claims of the atheist or the theist. While this type of agnostic may not know that God exists, why insist that no one else can know? What if God reveals himself to someone in a powerful, if private way – say, on a burning bush or in a vision in their bedroom? Even if the evidence for such encounters is not publicly available to the hardened agnostic, the theist convinced of the existence of God by such encounters is justified in believing that, and the agnostic could not rule out such possibilities.

As already mentioned, evidence for the existence of God through creation, conscience, rationality, and human experience is widespread. In addition, the biblical faith – unlike other traditional religions – is verifiable; it is subject to public scrutiny. For example, if Christ had not been raised from the dead, the Christian faith would be wrong, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15. Indeed, the scriptures regularly emphasize the role of eyewitnesses, the importance of public signs and miracles in promoting faith (Jn 20:30-31) and other historical evidence that all should consider.

While we may have rational reasons for believing in God, we don’t forget plenty of practical or existential reasons to consider God. This means that we find the fulfillment of our deepest human longings in God. This is a theistic support that the skeptic often overlooks. Our longings for identity, security, and meaning, our desire for immortality and hope beyond the grave, our quest for forgiveness of our guilt and the removal of shame, or our longing for cosmic justice—all these longings are fulfilled by God in Christ, who is the put eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11). If we were created for a childlike relationship with God, why should such longings be neglected? What’s wrong with meaning and safety or overcoming the fear of death? In fact, it would be wise to consider these reasons – in addition to rational reasons – since we carry the image of God, which goes beyond mere human rational experience and encompasses a wide range of perfectly reasonable considerations.

Belief and evidence, knowledge and ignorance

Where is the ordinary agnostic then? Here we have to differentiate further. “Is the ordinary agnostic innocent of his ignorance of God, or is it culpable ignorance?” When I was in Moscow in 2002, I photographed the “changing of the guard” at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier by the Kremlin wall. To do this, I stepped on the grass, and since I knew Russian well enough, I didn’t see any signs forbidding me to do so. But a security guard pulled me from the scene, insisting I had done something terribly wrong — and probably hoping for a bribe. After asking me about my formal education, he exclaimed, “You are a philosopher and you don’t know you shouldn’t step on the lawn?” This was really a case of innocent ignorance on my part.

Now what if I’m driving at high speed on the Autobahn but I’m not paying attention to the signs? If the highway patrol pulls me over, I wouldn’t be able to say, “I’m innocent; I’m innocent.” I didn’t see the sign.” My ignorance would be at fault as I am required to look out for speed limit signs. I’m afraid many people who claim not to know the existence of God are more likely to be apatheists who don’t care if God exists. Unfortunately, they devote their lives to all sorts of pursuits—Facebook, watching movies, luxury cruises, golfing—but they don’t use their intellectual faculties to ponder seriously the most important question of all, the existence of God. Why should God reveal himself to the morally and spiritually lazy and apathetic?

And why should it be revealed to the proud and arrogant who demand that God “prove himself” (Matthew 16:4) through divine pyrotechnics? Would that really produce genuine conversion and deep love for God? After all, the Israelites had many signs – the ten plagues, the divided Red Sea, manna every morning, the constant presence of a pillar of cloud by day, and fire by night. Yet most of the Israelites died in unbelief after showing idolatry, rebellion, and murmuring (1 Corinthians 10:1-13). Evidence – even a person’s resurrection from the dead – does not guarantee trust in God (Luke 16:31). God is interested in more than our justifiable true belief that he exists. Even the demons are solid monotheists (James 2:19). The more pressing question is: are we willing to know and be known by God, to submit to God as the cosmic authority?

Seeking God with all our hearts is fundamental for God to reveal himself to us (Jeremiah 29:13). As the philosopher Blaise Pascal put it:

ready to appear open to those who seek him with all their hearts and to remain hidden to those who flee from him with all their hearts, he so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given signs of himself visible to those who seek him seek, and not to those who do not seek Him. There is enough light for those who wish only to see, and enough darkness for those with an opposite inclination.13

Furthermore, God may have specific reasons for covering Himself – to encourage greater faith and perseverance, a deeper character, and so on. He reveals himself on his own terms.

SUMMARY THOUGHTS

In theistic, atheistic, and agnostic matters, we should be careful to define our terms. This includes an awareness of what counts for knowledge and ignorance. We have seen that atheism – the belief that God does not exist – is not the default position. The atheist, theist, and die-hard agnostic each make a claim, and that claim must be justified, not accepted. Everyone bears the burden of proof – not just the theist. And even the ordinary agnostic may simply be an “apatheist” and thus would be culpably ignorant. Evidence is available and God is willing to reveal Himself, but evidence – without humility of heart – will not bring the genuine trust and devotion that God desires.

1Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: BasicBooks,

1995), 33.

2Del Ratzsch, Philosophy of Science (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 15.

3 Craig Keener, Miracles, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011). For further

documented reports of miracles, see Chapter 7 in J.P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 2007)

4The weaker version of Scientism holds that science is the best way to know, but it is usually articulated in the stronger version.

5Descartes’ criteria for a belief are “self-evident”, “incorrigible” and “sensibly discernible”. Of course, these criteria are not self-evident, incorrigible or sensually perceptible.

6For more, see Paul Copan, “The Naturalists Are Declaring the Glory of God:

Discovering Natural Theology in the Most Unlikely Places,” in Philosophy and the Christian Worldview: Analysis, Assessment and Development, eds. David Werther & Mark D. Linville (New York: Continuum, 2012), 50-70; Paul Copan and Paul K. Moser, The Rationality of Belief (London: Routledge, 2003); Paul Copan, Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2007); William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, ed., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012).

7Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 102.

8 ibid., 103.

9 Antony Flew, Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1979), 28.

10Paul Edwards, ed., “Atheism,” Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1967),

1:175.

11 Julian Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2003), 3.

12 For a discussion, see Alvin Plantinga, “Reason and Belief in God,” in Alvin Plantinga and

Nicholas Wolterstorff, ed., Faith and Rationality (Notre Dame: University Press, 1983), 27.

13 Pensées, No. 430.

[Editor’s note: Atheism image from Jan Matejkos Stańczyk, 1862, found at Wikipedia Commons.]

After decades of resistance, the Southern Baptist Convention will allow missionary candidates speaking in tongues, a practice associated with Pentecostal and charismatic churches.

The new policy, approved Wednesday (May 13) by the Denomination’s International Missionary Council, reverses a policy that was instituted 10 years ago.

Speaking in tongues is an ancient Christian practice recorded in the New Testament in which people pray in a language they do not know, understand, or control. The practice died out until Pentecostalism emerged around the turn of the 20th century. In Pentecostal churches, it is considered one of many “gifts” of the Holy Spirit, including healing and the ability to prophesy.

Allowing Southern Baptist missionaries to speak in tongues or have what some SBC leaders call a “private prayer language” speaks to the growing strength of Pentecostal churches in Africa, Asia and South America, where Southern Baptists are competing for converts and new ones Refueling Christians enthusiastically embrace the practice.

“In so many parts of the world, these charismatic experiences are normative,” said Bill Leonard, professor of church history at Wake Forest Divinity School. “Religious groups that oppose them are left behind evangelistically.”

The change does not mean that Southern Baptists will commission missionaries who speak in tongues. But Wendy Norvelle, an IMF spokeswoman, said an affirmative answer to the practice would no longer automatically result in disqualification.

Southern Baptists have long prided themselves on being among the world’s most ambitious missionaries—reaching countries and regions few have dared to travel—but they are finding increasing competition from fast-growing Pentecostalism, which today numbers an estimated 300 million worldwide has followers.

In 2005, the International Mission Board issued guidelines that specifically disqualified any candidate missionary who spoke in tongues. For Southern Baptists, the practice, also known as glossolalia, ended after the death of Jesus’ apostles. The ban on speaking in tongues became a way of distinguishing the denomination from others.

She can no longer afford to make this distinction today.

“Southern Baptists are experiencing such demographic trauma from membership and baptism that they need new constituencies among the non-white population,” Leonard said.

In fact, the issue became such a lightning rod for the Southern Baptists that it was best accounted for on the application form.

“If anyone said they prayed in tongues, they were automatically disqualified, essentially because they were honest,” said Wade Burleson, an Enid, Oklahoma pastor who opposed the ban.

The policy changes, approved this week during an IMF Trustees’ meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, will leave the tongues issue in the motion.

And the IMF said it would still terminate employment for any missionary who “persistently places emphasis on a particular gift of the Spirit as normative for all, or to the extent that such emphasis becomes disruptive,” explained an FAQ at the IMF -site.

Other policy changes this week would allow divorced missionaries to serve in more positions, including long-term mission assignments.

And the IMF recognizes baptisms performed by other Christian denominations as long as they involve full-body immersion. Previously, a Southern Baptist pastor had to baptize missionary candidates who had converted from another denomination.

Copyright: For copyright information, please contact the distributor of this article, Religion News Service LLC.

Phenomenon in which people seem to speak words in languages ​​they do not know

“Glossolalia” redirects here. For the Steve Walsh album, see Glossolalia (album)

[1]” above their heads. Icon depicting the Theotokos together with the Holy Spirit-filled Apostles, indicated by “forked tongues as of fire” above their heads.

Speaking in tongues, also known as glossolalia, is a practice in which people utter words or speech-like sounds that believers often mistake for languages ​​unfamiliar to the speaker. One definition used by linguists is the fluid vocalization of speech-like syllables lacking any easily understood meaning, in some cases as part of religious practice, which some believe is a divine language unknown to the speaker.[ 2] Glossolalia is practiced in Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity[3][4] as well as other religions.[5][6]

A distinction is sometimes made between “Glossolalia” and “Xenolalia” or “Xenoglossy”, which refers specifically to the belief that the spoken language is a natural language previously unknown to the speaker.

Etymology[ edit ]

Glossolalia derives from the Greek word γλωσσολαλία, which itself is a composite of the words γλῶσσα (glossa), meaning “tongue” or “speech”[8], and λαλέω (laleō), “to speak, talk, chat, chatter, or do something.” Ton”.[9] The Greek term (in various forms) appears in the New Testament in Acts and in 1 Corinthians. In Acts 2, Christ’s followers receive the Holy Spirit and speak the languages ​​of at least fifteen countries or ethnic groups.

The exact phrase “speaking in tongues” has been in use since at least the 14th-century translation of the New Testament into Middle English in the Wycliffe Bible.[10] Frederic Farrar first used the word glossolalia in 1879.[11]

linguistics [edit]

In 1972, William J. Samarin, a University of Toronto linguist, published a thorough assessment of the Pentecostal glossolalia, which became a classic work on their linguistic features.[12] His assessment was based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded over a five-year period at public and private Christian meetings in Italy, the Netherlands, Jamaica, Canada, and the United States. His wide range of subjects included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake traders of the Appalachian Mountains, and the spiritual Christians of Russia in Los Angeles (Pryguny, Dukh-i-zhizniki).

Samarin found that the glossolic language resembles human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation, and pauses to divide speech into different units. Each unit is itself composed of syllables, with the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels occurring in a language known to the speaker:

It is verbal behavior consisting of using a certain number of consonants and vowels… in a limited number of syllables, which in turn are organized into larger units which are taken apart and pseudogrammatically rearranged… with variations in pitch, volume, speed, and intensity.[13] [Glossolalia] consists of chains of syllables composed of sounds known to the speaker, more or less arbitrarily composed, but nevertheless emerging as word- and sentence-like units through realistic, linguistic rhythm and melody.[14]

Others confirm that the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the speech patterns of the speaker’s native language.[15] These findings were confirmed by Kavan (2004).[16]

Noting that the resemblance to human language was only superficial, Samarin therefore concluded that Glossolalia is “only a facade of language”. He came to this conclusion because the syllable sequence did not form words, the flow of speech was not internally organized and, most importantly, there was no systematic relationship between speech units and concepts. Humans use language to communicate, but not glossolalia. Hence, he concluded that glossolalia is not “a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world that man perceives”.[17] Based on his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as “a meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance that is taken by the speaker to be a real language but bears no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead”.[18]

Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal churches in the United States, the Caribbean and Mexico; these included English, Spanish, and Maya-speaking groups. She compared her finds with records of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She considered both segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and suprasegmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation) and concluded that there was no difference between what was being practiced by Pentecostal Protestants and followers of others religions.[19]

history [edit]

Classical Antiquity[ edit ]

It was a common notion in the Graeco-Roman world that divine beings spoke languages ​​distinct from human languages, and historians of religion have identified references to esoteric language in Graeco-Roman literature resembling glossolalia, sometimes described as angelic or divine language [citation needed] An example is the account in the Testament of Job, a non-canonical elaboration of the Book of Job, where it is described that Job’s daughters were given sashes that enabled them to speak in angelic tongues and to sing.

According to Dale B. Martin, glossolalia was valued in antiquity because of its association with the divine. Alexander of Abonoteichus may have displayed glossolalia during his episodes of prophetic ecstasy. The Neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus associated glossolalia with prophecy, writing that prophecy is divine spirit possession that “sends forth words not understood by those who utter them; for they say them, as it is said, with a mad mouth (mainomenό stomatia) and are totally submissive and surrender themselves totally to the energy of the ruling God”.

The Greek philosopher Celsus gives an account of Christian glossolalia in his Writings on Early Christianity. Celsus describes prophecies of several Christians in Palestine and Phoenicia, about which he writes: “After they have uttered these threats, they add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent man could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give any fool or magician the opportunity to understand the words as he pleases”.

References to tongues of the Church Fathers are rare. Except for the second-century reference by Irenaeus to many in the church speaking all sorts of tongues “by the Spirit,” and Tertullian’s reference in AD 207 to the spiritual gift of tongues interpretation encountered in his day , no other known first-hand accounts of glossolalia and very few second-hand accounts among their writings.[23]

1100 to 1900[edit]

20th Century[ edit ]

Headline about the “strange tongue-chatter” and other behavior on Azusa Street from a 1906 Los Angeles Times newspaper.

During the 20th century, Glossolalia was primarily associated with Pentecostalism and later the Charismatic movement. Preachers in the Holiness Movement Preachers Charles Parham and William Seymour are considered co-founders of the movement. Parham and Seymour taught that “the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not the blessing of sanctification, but rather a third work of grace accompanied by the experience of speaking in tongues.”[4] It was Parham who formulated the “first evidence” doctrine. After studying the Bible, Parham concluded that speaking in tongues was scriptural evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

In 1900, Parham opened Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, America, where he taught early evidence, a charismatic belief in how to initiate the practice. During a service on January 1, 1901, a student named Agnes Ozman asked for prayer and the laying on of hands, specifically asking God to fill her with the Holy Spirit. She was the first of many students to experience glossolalia in the early hours of the 20th century. Parham followed in the next few days. Parham called his new movement the Apostolic Faith. In 1905 he moved to Houston and opened a Bible school there. One of his students was William Seymour, an African-American preacher. In 1906, Seymour traveled to Los Angeles, where his preaching sparked the Azusa Street Revival. This revival is considered the birth of the worldwide Pentecostal movement. According to the first edition of William Seymour’s 1906 newsletter The Apostolic Faith:

A Mohammedan, a native of Sudanese, a man who is an interpreter and speaks sixteen languages, came to the meetings on Azusa Street and the Lord gave him messages that no one but himself could understand. He identified, interpreted, and wrote a number of languages.[37]

Parham and his early followers believed that speaking in tongues was xenoglossia, and some followers traveled to foreign lands trying to use the gift to share the gospel with non-English speakers. Since the Azusa Street revival and among early Pentecostalists, there have been many accounts of individuals hearing their own language spoken “in tongues.” The majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics regard speaking in tongues primarily as divine or “language of angels” rather than human language.[38] In the years following the Azusa Street revival, Pentecostals going to the mission field found that when speaking in tongues in foreign lands, they were unable to speak at will in the language of the natives.[39 ]

The Azusa Street revival lasted until about 1915. Many new Pentecostal churches grew out of this as people attended services in Los Angeles and took their newfound faith to churches in the United States and abroad. During the 20th century, Glossolalia became an important part of the identity of these religious groups. In the 1960s, the charismatic movement within the major Protestant churches and among charismatic Catholics adopted some Pentecostal beliefs, and the practice of glossolalia spread to other Christian denominations. Tongues has permeated many branches of Protestantism, particularly since the widespread Charismatic movement of the 1960s. Many books have been published either defending[40] or attacking[41] the practice.

Christianity [edit]

Theological explanations[ edit ]

In Christianity, a supernatural explanation for glossolalia is advocated by some and opposed by others. Proponents of either view use the scriptures and historical arguments to support their positions.

Glossolalists could include those who practice glossolalia as well as all those Christians who believe that the Pentecostal Charismatic glossolalia practiced today is the “speaking in tongues” described in the New Testament. They believe it is a wonderful charism or spiritual gift. Glossolalists claim that these languages ​​can be real, unlearned languages ​​(i.e. xenoglossia)[42][43] as well as a “language of the spirit”, a “heavenly language” or perhaps the language of angels. [44]

could mean not only the glossolalia practitioners but also all those Christians who believe that the Pentecostal-charismatic glossolalia practiced today is the “speaking in tongues” described in the New Testament. They believe it is a wonderful charism or spiritual gift. Glossolalists claim that these languages ​​can be genuine, unlearned languages ​​(i.e., xenoglossia) as well as a “language of the spirit,” a “heavenly language,” or perhaps the language of angels. Cessationists believe that all the wondrous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased to occur early in Christian history, and therefore speaking in tongues, as practiced by charismatic Christians, is the learned utterance of non-linguistic syllables. According to this belief, it is neither xenoglossia nor miracles, but learned, possibly self-induced behavior. These believe that what the New Testament described as “speaking in tongues” was xenoglossia, a miraculous spiritual gift that allowed the speaker to communicate in natural languages ​​not previously studied.

believe that all the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased early in Christian history and that therefore speaking in tongues as practiced by charismatic Christians is the learned utterance of non-verbal syllables. According to this belief, it is neither xenoglossia nor miracles, but learned, possibly self-induced behavior. These believe that what the New Testament described as “speaking in tongues” was xenoglossia, a miraculous spiritual gift that allowed the speaker to communicate in natural languages ​​not previously studied. It is conceivable that a third position exists which believes that the practice of “Glossolalia” is a folk practice and distinct from the legitimate New Testament spiritual gift of speaking/interpreting real languages. It is not, therefore, the belief that “miracles have ceased” (i.e., abolitionism) that causes this group to discredit the supernatural origins of certain modern expressions of “Glossolalia,” but rather the belief that glossolalists have misunderstood Scripture, and erroneously the supernatural attributed to something that can be explained naturalistically[45] to the Holy Spirit.

Biblical Practice[edit]

There are five places in the New Testament where speaking in tongues is specifically mentioned:

Other verses may refer to “speaking in tongues,” such as Isaiah 28:11, Romans 8:26, and Jude 20.

The biblical account of Pentecost in the second chapter of Acts describes the sound of a mighty rushing wind and “forked tongues like fire” settling upon the apostles. The text goes on to describe that “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues”. It goes on to say in verses 5-11 that when the apostles spoke, each person present “heard their own tongue being spoken.” Therefore, the gift of tongues refers to the tongues of the apostles, which the hearers heard as “they who relate in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” Glossolalists and quitters both recognize this as xenoglossia, a miraculous ability that marked their baptism in the Holy Spirit. Something similar (although perhaps not xenoglossia) took place in Caesarea and Ephesus on at least two consecutive occasions.

Glossolalists and cessionists generally agree that the primary purpose of the gift of tongues was to mark the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost, the apostle Peter explained that this gift, which caused some in the audience to mock the disciples as drunk, was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, which described God pouring out his Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17 ). .[43]

Despite these similarities, there are significant differences in interpretation.

Pentecostal and Charismatic Practices[edit]

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is considered by Holiness Pentecostals (the oldest branch of Pentecostalism) to be the third work of grace, after regeneration (first work of grace) and complete sanctification (second work of grace).[56][56] 4] Holiness Pentecostals teach that this third work of grace is accompanied by glossolalia.[56][4]

Because Pentecostal and Charismatic beliefs are not monolithic, there is no complete theological agreement on speaking in tongues. [citation needed] In general, devotees believe that speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift that can manifest as either human speech or celestial supernatural speech in three ways:[57]

The “sign of tongues” refers to xenoglossia, where adherents believe someone is speaking a language they never learned.

The “gift of tongues” refers to a glossolic utterance spoken by an individual and addressed to a congregation of typically other believers.

“Praying in the Spirit” is typically used to refer to glossolalia as part of personal prayer.[58]

Many Pentecostals and Charismatics cite the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 which set guidelines for the public use of glossolalia in the Corinthian church, although the exegesis of this passage and the extent to which these instructions are followed are a matter of academic debate .[59]

The gift of tongues is often referred to as “speaking in tongues.”[60] Practitioners believe that this use of glossolalia requires interpretation so that the assembled congregation can understand the message, which is accomplished through the interpretation of tongues. [citation needed] There are two schools of thought regarding the nature of a message in tongues:

One school of thought believes that it is always addressed to God as prayer, praise, or thanksgiving, but is spoken for the hearing and edification of the congregation. [citation required]

God as prayer, praise or thanksgiving, but for the hearing and edification of the church. The other school of thought believes that a message in tongues can be a Holy Spirit inspired prophetic utterance.[61] In this case, the spokesman for the church conveys a message in the name of God.

In addition to praying in the Spirit, many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches practice what is known as singing in the Spirit.[62][63][64]

Interpretation of tongues[ edit ]

In Christian theology, the interpretation of tongues is one of the spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12. This gift is used in conjunction with the gift of tongues – the supernatural ability to speak in a language (tongue) unknown to the speaker. The gift of interpretation is the supernatural ability to express an utterance spoken in an unknown language in a language that can be understood. This is not learned but imparted by the Holy Spirit; hence it should not be confused with the acquired skill of language interpreting. While ceasing Christians believe this miraculous charism has ceased, charismatic and Pentecostal Christians believe this gift continues to operate within the church.[65] Much of what is known about this gift was recorded by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14. In this passage guidelines were given for the proper use of the gift of tongues. In order that the gift of tongues might be conducive to the edification of the church, such supernatural utterances should be interpreted into the language of the assembled Christians. If none of the assembled Christians possessed the gift of interpretation, then speaking in tongues was not to be practiced openly. Those who had the gift of tongues were encouraged to pray for the ability to interpret.[65]

Non-Christian practice[edit]

Other religious groups have been observed to practice a form of theopneustic glossolalia. It is perhaps most common in paganism, shamanism, and other mediumistic religious practices.[5] In Japan, the God Light Association believed that glossolalia could cause devotees to remember past lives.[6]

Glossolalia has been postulated as an explanation for the Voynich manuscript.[66]

In the 19th century Spiritism was developed through the work of Allan Kardec and the practice was seen as one of the natural manifestations of spirits. Spiritualists argued that some cases were actually cases of xenoglossia.

Medical research[edit]

Glossolalia is classified as a non-neurogenic language disorder.[67] Most people with glossolalia do not have a neuropsychiatric disorder.[68]

Neuroimaging of brain activity during glossolalia shows no activity in the language areas of the brain.[68][69] In other words, it can be characterized by a specific brain activity[70][71] and it can be a learned behavior.[72][70]

An experimental study from 1973 highlighted the existence of two basic types of glossolalia: a static form that tends to have some interaction with repetitions, and a more dynamic one that tends to a free association of language-like elements.

A study conducted by the American Journal of Human Biology found that speaking in tongues is associated with both a reduction in circulating cortisol and an increase in alpha-amylase enzyme activity — two common biomarkers of stress relief that can be measured in saliva. [74] Several sociological studies report various social benefits of engaging in Pentecostal glossolalia,[75][76] such as: B. an increase in self-confidence.[76]

As of April 2021, further studies are needed to corroborate the 1980s view of glossolalia with more sensitive outcome measures, using the newer techniques of neuroimaging. [70] [better source needed]

criticism [edit]

Speakers of glossolalia are able to speak in tongues on cue, contrary to claims that it is a spontaneous event.[77]

Analysis of glossolalics reveals a pseudo-language lacking in consistent syntax and semantic meaning, usually rhythmic or poetic in nature and similar to the speaker’s native language. Examples of glossolalia show a lack of consistency needed for a meaningful comparison or translation. It is also not used to communicate between other Glossolalia speakers, although the meaning is usually translated by the leader involved, consistent with and supportive of the message or teaching being given that day and lending in some way to what is said divine legitimacy. [78]

See also[edit]

References[ edit ]

Bibliography[edit]

While scholars generally agree that Jesus was a genuine historical figure, there has long been debate about the events and circumstances of his life as presented in the Bible.

In particular, there was some confusion in the past as to what language Jesus spoke as a man living in the first century AD in the kingdom of Judea, located in what is now southern Palestine.

WATCH: Jesus: His Life in the HISTORY Vault

The question of Jesus’ preferred language memorably came up in 2014 during a public meeting in Jerusalem between Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and Pope Francis during the Pope’s tour of the Holy Land. Netanyahu spoke to the Pope through an interpreter: “Jesus was here, in this country. He spoke Hebrew.”

Francis intervened and corrected him. “Aramaic,” he said, referring to the ancient Semitic language, now largely extinct, originating with a people known as the Arameans around the late 11th century B.C. was known. As the Washington Post reports, a version of this is still spoken today by communities of Chaldean Christians in Iraq and Syria.

A first-century AD burial box with an Aramaic inscription reading “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Archaeologists say this box may have contained the remains of James, brother of Jesus of Nazareth, dating back to AD 63. Biblical Archeology Society of Washington, D.C./Getty Images

“He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew,” Netanyahu replied quickly.

News of the language disagreement made headlines, but it turns out that both the Prime Minister and the Pope were probably right.

READ MORE: What Did Jesus Look Like?

Jesus was probably multilingual

Most religious scholars and historians agree with Pope Francis that the historical Jesus spoke primarily a Galilean dialect of Aramaic. By the 7th century BC, the Aramaic language had spread through trade, invasions and conquests. and became the lingua franca in much of the Middle East.

In the first century AD it would have been the language most commonly used among ordinary Jews, as opposed to the religious elite, and most likely used among Jesus and his disciples in their daily lives.

But Netanyahu was also technically correct. Hebrew, which comes from the same family of languages ​​as Aramaic, was also in use in Jesus’ day. Much like Latin today, Hebrew was the language of choice for religious scholars and the scriptures, including the Bible (although part of the Old Testament was written in Aramaic).

Jesus probably understood Hebrew, although his everyday life would have been conducted in Aramaic. Of the first four books of the New Testament, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark record Jesus using Aramaic terms and phrases while reading the Bible in Hebrew in a synagogue at Luke 4:16.

Alexander the Great brought Greek to Mesopotamia

Alexander the Great. CM Dixon/Print Collector/Getty Images

In addition to Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek and Latin were also spoken at the time of Jesus. After the conquest of Mesopotamia and the rest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C. Greek supplanted other languages ​​as the official language in large parts of the region. In the first century AD, Judea was part of the Eastern Roman Empire, which adopted Greek as the lingua franca and reserved Latin for legal and military matters.

As Jonathan Katz, a lecturer in classical subjects at Oxford University, told BBC News, Jesus probably knew no more than a few words of Latin. He probably knew more Greek, but it wasn’t a common language among the people he spoke to regularly and he probably wasn’t very good. He definitely did not speak Arabic, another Semitic language that did not reach Palestine until after the first century AD.

Although Jesus’ most commonly spoken language was Aramaic, he was conversant—though not fluent or even proficient—in three or four different languages. As with many multilingual people, the question he spoke to probably depended on the context of his words as well as the audience he was addressing.

READ MORE: The Bible says Jesus was real. What other evidence is there?

“Many people cry when they feel the Spirit, but I don’t. Is something wrong with me?” New era, July 2013, 27

Crying is not the only—or even the most common—manifestation of the spirit feeling. President Howard W. Hunter (1907–1995) said: “I worry when strong emotions or free-flowing tears seem to be equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can produce strong emotional feelings, including tears, but this outward manifestation should not be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself” (in Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service [2004], p. 99).

The Spirit of God brings peace and clarity to your heart and mind, as well as other positive emotions such as love, joy, gentleness, and patience (see D&C 6:15, 23; 11:12–14; Galatians 5:22–23). When you experience such things, you can be sure to feel the Spirit whether your feelings make you cry or not.

You’ve probably heard people say, “I’m feeling the Spirit strongly right now.”

Maybe you feel something at this moment too. But is there something wrong with you if you don’t?

Short answer: not at all.

Because people experience the influence of the Holy Spirit differently. That’s the wonderful thing about the messages of the Holy Spirit: They are made just for you.

For some people, the Holy Ghost can cause them to feel overwhelmed with emotion and moved to tears. For others, tears rarely or never come. And that’s okay. For them, the Holy Ghost can inspire a subtle sense of gratitude, peace, awe, or love (see Galatians 5:22–23).

The scriptures also describe the Holy Ghost as a “burning” in the bosom (see Doctrine and Covenants 9:8–9). But the intensity or degree of this “burn” can be different for everyone. Sometimes it’s like a small glowing ember instead of a raging bonfire.

Or perhaps you have heard the Holy Ghost described as “a still, still voice” (see Doctrine and Covenants 85:6). And you immediately thought, “But I didn’t HEAR a voice. Is something wrong with me?”

Again not at all. This biblical description does not necessarily mean that we all hear a literal voice. Elder Ronald A. Rasband of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “The Spirit speaks words that we feel. These feelings are gentle, a nudge to act, to do something, to say something, to react in a certain way.”1

The point is, each of us will experience the Holy Spirit differently. And to varying degrees. What matters is that we live worthy of receiving it and knowing it when it comes. As we do so, we will begin to notice that His influence in our lives is far greater than we expected.

Remarks

1. Ronald A. Rasband, “Let the Holy Spirit Guide,” Apr. 2017 general conference.

Brandon Wenzel

fuel for the soul

For the past two weeks, Quest Church writers have been speaking on the subject of Infinitely More and how God wants to do infinitely more in your life than you can ask or imagine! This week I want to talk about two things that the Holy Spirit wants to do in you.

The first thing he wants to do is bring POWER into your life. Power to do and be more than you can imagine! Acts 1:8 says, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you will be my witnesses and tell people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” This power, which comes from the Holy Spirit, enables you to be strong for the things of God to admit We find in the Bible that immediately after receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter, who had denied Jesus three times two months earlier, stands before a crowd and over 3,000 people come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The second thing the Holy Spirit wants to do in us is to give us SPIRITUAL GIFTS. The gifts of the Spirit are set forth at 1 Corinthians 12:8-11 and relate to such things as miraculous healing, wisdom, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and discernment. These gifts were manifested 2,000 years ago, but they can be alive and well in our own lives today! Through personal experience and the testimonies of others, I have seen these gifts in action. Each time they have shown themselves, they have blessed the individual recipient of the gift, glorifying God in the process.

Now is the time for our culture to take a stand with the power of the Holy Spirit for the things that grieve God. We are called to be the audible voice of God to the world around us. And by doing so, we can have a voice to speak out against the injustices of this world. As things calm down with civil unrest and COVID-19, we must never hide our God who lives within us.

We are to have compassion in our lives. To have pity means to “suffer with.” That means when racism happens, we suffer with that community. When a disease breaks out, we suffer with those families. When our teachers have to rearrange their classrooms to accommodate and they are tired, lost and confused, we suffer with them. This is something we are commanded to do. Colossians 3:12 says, “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.”

Can you imagine what our world would look like if all humans did this? What if we all suffered with those who suffer? Have we had patience when those who are hurt take action, or have we had humility and realized that what we know is not always true? These things are only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit. So ask the Holy Spirit today to enter your life and give you that extra strength you may need to stand up in Jesus name!

The third person of the Trinity in Trinitarian Christianity.

This article is about the Christian perspective of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit in other religions, see Holy Spirit

For the majority of Christian denominations, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Spirit, is believed to be the third person of the Trinity,[1] a triune God manifested as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each entity himself is God.[2][3][4] Non-Trinitarian Christians who reject the doctrine of the Trinity differ significantly from mainstream Christianity in their belief in the Holy Spirit. In Christian theology, pneumatology is the study of the Holy Spirit. Because of Christianity’s historical relationship with Judaism, theologians often identify the Holy Spirit with the concept of Ruach Hakodesh in Jewish Scripture, on the theory that Jesus (who was a Jew) expanded upon these Jewish concepts. Similar names and ideas are Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God), Ruach YHWH (Spirit of Yahweh), and Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit).[5][6] In the New Testament it is identified with the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Truth, the Paraclete, and the Holy Spirit.[7][8][9]

The New Testament describes a close relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus during His mortal life and ministry.[10] The Gospels of Matthew and Luke and the Nicene Creed state that Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.”[11] The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus like a dove during his baptism, and in his farewell speech after the Last Supper, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples after his departure.[12][13]

The Holy Spirit is referred to as “the Lord, the giver of life” in the Nicene Creed, which encapsulates several key beliefs of many Christian denominations. The Holy Spirit’s involvement in the tripartite nature of conversion is evident in Jesus’ final post-Resurrection instruction to His disciples at the end of Matthew:[14] “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of Holy Spirit.”[15] Since the first century, Christians have also called on God with the trinitarian formula “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in prayer, absolution and blessing.[16] [17] In Acts, the advent of the Holy Spirit takes place fifty days after Christ’s resurrection and is celebrated in Christendom with the feast of Pentecost.[18]

Etymology and usage[edit]

The Greek Koine word pneûma (πνεῦμα, pneuma) occurs about 385 times in the New Testament, with some scholars distinguishing between three and nine occurrences.[19] Pneuma appears 105 times in the four canonical gospels, 69 times in Acts, 161 times in Paul’s epistles, and 50 times elsewhere.[19] These usages vary: in 133 cases it refers to “spirit” and in 153 cases it refers to “spiritual”. The Holy Spirit is referred to about 93 times,[19] sometimes under the name pneuma and sometimes explicitly as pneûma tò Hagion (Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον). (In some cases it is also used simply generically to mean wind or life.[19]) It was commonly translated in the Vulgate as Spiritus and Spiritus Sanctus.

The English terms “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” are complete synonyms: one derives from the Old English gast and the other from the Latin loanword spiritus. Like Pneuma, they both refer to the breath, to its animating power, and to the soul. The Old English term is shared by all other Germanic languages ​​(compare e.g. the German spirit) and is older; The King James Bible typically uses “Holy Spirit”. From the 20th century, translations overwhelmingly favor “Holy Spirit”, partly because the common English term “ghost” increasingly refers only to the spirit of a dead person.[20][21][22]

names [edit]

Hebrew Bible[ edit ]

Source:[5]

וְר֣וּחַ קָדְשׁ֑וֹ ( Ruah qadesov ) – His Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:10) [23]

) – His Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:10) וְר֣וּחַ קָ֝דְשְׁךָ֗ ( Ruah qadseḵa ) – Your Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:11) [24]

) – Your Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:11) וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים ( Ruah Elohim ) – Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2) [25]

) – Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2) נִשְׁמַת־ר֨וּחַ חַיִּ֜ים ( Nismat Ruah hayyim ) – The breath of the life spirit (Genesis 7:22) [26]

) – The breath of the spirit of life (Genesis 7:22) ר֣וּחַ יְהוָ֑ה ( Ruah YHWH ) – Spirit of YHWH (Isaiah 11:2) [27]

) – Spirit of YHWH (Isaiah 11:2) ר֧וּחַ חָכְמָ֣ה וּבִינָ֗ה ( Ruach hakmah ubinah ) – Spirit of wisdom and understanding (Isaiah 11:2) [27]

) – Spirit of wisdom and understanding (Isaiah 11:2) ר֤וּחַ עֵצָה֙ וּגְבוּרָ֔ה ( Ruah esah ugeburah ) – Spirit of counsel and power (Isaiah 11:2) [27]

) – Spirit of counsel and power (Isaiah 11:2) ר֥וּחַ דַּ֖עַת וְיִרְאַ֥ת יְהוָֽה (Ruah daat weyirat YHWH) – Spirit of knowledge[28] and fear of YHWH (Isaiah 11:2)[27]

New Testament[edit]

πνεύματος ἁγίου ( Pneumatos Hagiou ) – Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18) [29]

) – Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18) πνεύματι θεοῦ ( Pneumati Theou ) – Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28) [30]

) – Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28) ὁ παράκλητος ( Ho Paraclētos ) – The Comforter, cf. Paraclete John 14:26 (John 16:7) [31]

) – The Comforter, cf. Paraclete John 14:26 (John 16:7) πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ( Pneuma tēs Alētheias ) – Spirit of truth (John 16:13) [32]

) – Spirit of truth (John 16:13) Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (Pneuma Christou) – Spirit of Christ (1 Peter 1:11)[33]

Depending on the context:

πνεῦμα ( pneuma ) – spirit (John 3:8) [34]

) – Spirit (John 3:8) Πνεύματος (Pneumatos) – Spirit (John 3:8)

Biblical account[ edit ]

Old Testament[edit]

What the Hebrew Bible calls “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Elohim” is called “Holy Spirit” (ruacḥ ha-kodesh) in the Talmud and Midrash. Although the phrase “Holy Spirit” in Ps. 51:11 and in Isa. 63:10-11 it had not quite acquired the meaning given to it in rabbinic literature, where it is synonymous with the expression “Spirit of the Lord”. In Gen.1:2, God’s Spirit hovered over the form of inanimate matter, thereby making creation possible.[35][36] Although the Ruach Ha-Kodesh can be named in place of God, it was designed as something special; and like all earthly things that come from heaven, the Ruach Ha-Kodesh is composed of light and fire.[36] The most characteristic sign of the presence of the Ruach Ha-Kodesh is the gift of prophecy. The use of the word “ruach” (Hebrew: “breath” or “wind”) in the phrase ruach ha-kodesh seems to indicate that Jewish authorities believed that the Holy Spirit was some kind of medium of communication, like the wind. The spirit sometimes speaks in a male voice and sometimes in a female voice; the word ruacḥ is both masculine and feminine.[36]

New Testament[edit]

The term “Holy Spirit” appears at least 90 times in the New Testament.[7] The holiness of the Holy Spirit for Christians is affirmed in all three Synoptic Gospels[37] which proclaim that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin.[38] The Holy Spirit’s participation in the Trinity is suggested in Jesus’ final post-Resurrection instruction to His disciples at the end of Matthew 28:19:[39] “Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.[15]

Synoptic Gospels[ edit ]

The Annunciation, by the Holy Spirit as a Dove, by Philippe de Champaigne, 1644.

The Holy Spirit is mentioned by all three authors of the Synoptic Gospels. Most references are from the author of Luke’s Gospel; this emphasis is continued by the same author in Acts.

The Holy Spirit does not simply appear for the first time at Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection, but is present in the Gospel of Luke (in 1-2) before Jesus was born.[7] In Luke 1:15, John the Baptist is said to have been “filled with the Holy Spirit” before birth,[40] and the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary in Luke 1:35.[41][7] In Luke 3:16[42] John the Baptist explains that Jesus did not baptize with water but with the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus during his baptism in the Jordan.[7] In Luke 11:13[43] Jesus assured that God the Father “would give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.”[7]

Mark 13:11 specifically refers to the power of the Holy Spirit to work through Jesus’ disciples in times of need, saying: “Do not worry beforehand what you will speak, but what will be given you in the hour that you talks for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.”[44] Matthew 10:20[45] refers to the same act of speaking by the disciples, but uses the term “the Spirit of your Father.”[46]

Acts of the Apostles[edit]

Acts has sometimes been called the “Book of the Holy Spirit” or the “Acts of the Apostles.”[47][48] Of the approximately seventy occurrences of the word pneuma in Acts, fifty-five refer to the Holy Spirit.[48]

From the beginning, in Acts 1:2,[49] the reader is reminded that the ministry of Jesus while on earth was accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit and that the “deeds of the apostles” continue to be the deeds of Jesus and are also facilitated by the Holy Spirit.[48] Acts presents the Holy Spirit as the “principle of life” of the early church and gives five separate and dramatic examples of His outpouring upon the believers in Acts 2:1-4,[50] 4:28-31,[51] 8:15 before -17,[52] 10:44,[53] and 19:6.[54][47]

References to the Holy Spirit appear throughout Acts, for example in Acts 1:5 and 8[55], where it says at the beginning: “For it is true that John baptized with water; but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. …You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you”, which points to the fulfillment of John the Baptist’s prophecy in Luke 3:16,[42] “he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”.[56]

Johannine literature[ edit ]

Three different terms are used in the Johannine Scriptures, namely, Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth, and Paraclete.[9] The “Spirit of truth” is used in John 14:17,[57] 15:26,[58] and 16:13.[59][7] First John then contrasts this with the “spirit of error” in 1 John 4:6.[60][7] 1 John 4:1-6 provides for the division between spirits “professing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” and those who erroneously deny it—an indication that they are evil spirits.[ 61]

In John 14:26[62] Jesus says: “But the Comforter, [also] the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything”. The identity of the “Comforter” has been the subject of debate among theologians, who have put forward several theories on the subject.[63]

Pauline Epistles[edit]

The Holy Spirit plays a key role in Paul’s epistles; and the pneumatology of the apostle Paul is so closely related to his theology and christology as to be almost inseparable from them.[8]

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was probably the first of Paul’s letters, introduces a characterization of the Holy Spirit in 1 Thessalonians 1:6[64] and 1 Thessalonians 4:8[65] which is reflected throughout his [66 ] In 1 Thessalonians 1:6, Paul refers to the imitation of Christ (and himself) and says: “And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, speaking the word in great tribulation with the joy of the Holy One Spirit” whose source is identified at 1 Thessalonians 4:8 as “God giving you His Holy Spirit.”[66][67][68]

These two themes of receiving the Spirit “like Christ” and God as the source of the Spirit persist in the Pauline epistles as characterizing Christians’ relationship with God.[66] For Paul, following Christ includes being willing to be formed by the Holy Spirit, as in Romans 8:4 and 8:11: “But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, who raises Christ Jesus hath raised from the dead shall also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit which dwells in you.”[69][67]

First Thessalonians also refers to the power of the Holy Spirit in 1 Thessalonians 1:5,[70] a theme found in other Pauline letters as well.[71]

In the Apocrypha[ edit ]

The view that the Holy Spirit is responsible for Mary’s pregnancy as found in the Synoptic Gospels[72] differs from that in the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, accepted as canonical by the fourth-century Nazarenes, and in which Jesus of the saint Spirit speaks of as his mother and thus as feminine.[73] Some held femininity incompatible with the idea that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit; according to the apocryphal Gospel of Philip, for example

Some say, “Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit.” You are wrong. They don’t know what they’re saying. When did a woman ever get pregnant by a woman?[74]

Jesus and the Holy Spirit[edit] [13] Illustration from the Maesta of In the farewell speech Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples after his departure, Illustration from the Maesta by Duccio, 1308–1311.

The New Testament describes a close relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus during His mortal life and ministry.[10] The Apostles’ Creed repeats what is said in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and states that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.[11]

Specific New Testament references to the interaction of Jesus and the Holy Spirit during His mortal life and the enabling power of the Holy Spirit during His ministry include:[10][11][75]

“Spirit without measure” was given to Jesus at John 3:34, referring to the Word (Rhema) spoken by Jesus being the Word of God.[76]

In his farewell speech to his disciples, Jesus promised that after he left he would “send the Holy Spirit” to them, in John 15:26, which says: “Whom I will send to you of the Father, the Spirit of truth .. . shall testify of me”.[58][12][13]

Mainstream Doctrines[ edit ]

Veni Creator Spiritus Problems playing this file? See media help.

The theology of spirits is called pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is referred to in the Nicene Creed as the Lord and Giver of Life.[84] He is the Creator Spirit who was present before the creation of the universe, and by His power all things in Jesus Christ were created by God the Father.[84] Christian hymns such as “Veni Creator Spiritus” (“Come, Creator Spirit”) reflect this belief.[84]

In early Christianity, the concept of salvation was closely associated with the invocation of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”,[16][17] and since the first century Christians have called God “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in prayer, baptism , communion, exorcism, hymn singing, sermon, confession, absolution and blessing.[16][17] This is reflected in the saying: “Before there was a ‘doctrine’ of the Trinity, Christian prayer invoked the Holy Trinity. “[16]

For the majority of Christian denominations, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and is God Almighty.[2][3][85] As such he is personally and also fully God, equal in status and coeternal with God, the Father and Son of God.[2][3][85] It differs from the Father and the Son in that it proceeds from the Father (and, according to Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant accounts, from the Father and the Son) as described in the Nicene Creed.[3] The triune God thus manifests as three Persons (Greek hypostases),[86] in one divine being (Greek: Ousia),[4] called the Deity (from Old English: Deity), the divine essence of God.[87]

In the New Testament, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary while she retained her virginity.[88] The Holy Spirit descended bodily on Jesus as a dove at the time of His baptism, and a voice was heard from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[89][90] He is the Holy One who Helper,[91] the Comforter,[92] the Giver of Grace, He who leads men to the Father and the Son.[84]

The Holy Spirit is credited with inspiring believers and allowing them to interpret all Scripture and leading prophets in both the Old and New Testaments.[93] Christians receive the fruits of the Holy Spirit through His mercy and grace.[94]

God the Holy Spirit[edit]

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity includes the concept of God the Holy Spirit along with God the Son and God the Father.[95][96] Theologian Vladimir Lossky has argued that while God the Son manifested Himself in the act of incarnation as the Son of God, the same did not take place for God the Holy Spirit, who was not revealed.[97] [failed verification] as in 1 Corinthians 6:19,[98] God the Spirit continues to dwell in believers.[96]

Similarly, the Latin treatise De Trinitate (On the Trinity) by St. Augustine of Hippo affirms: “For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, what no one doubts as to substance, however, we say not that the supreme trinity is itself three gods, but one god… But position and state and places and times are not actually said to be in God, but metaphorically and by similes… And in relation to action (or creation) can it is perhaps best to say of God alone, for God alone creates, and He Himself is not created, nor is He subject to passions, so far as it pertains to that substance whereby He is God… Thus the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty, but not three almighty ones, but one almighty… So whatever is spoken of God in relation to himself is both individually spoken of spoken to each person, that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as well as together of the Trinity itself, nr not in the plural but in the singular.”[99]

In Christian theology, the Holy Spirit is believed to exercise certain divine functions in the life of the Christian or the church. The work of the Holy Spirit is seen as an essential part of introducing man to the Christian faith.[100] The new believer is “born again of the Spirit.”[101] The Holy Spirit makes the Christian life possible by indwelling individual believers and empowering them to live righteously and faithfully.[100] The Holy Spirit also functions as a comforter or paraclete, someone who intercedes or supports or acts as an intercessor, especially in times of trial. And he acts to convince the unsaved person both of the sinfulness of his actions and of his moral standing as a sinner before God.[102] Another ability of the Holy Spirit is the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture. The Holy Spirit both inspires the writing of the scriptures and interprets them for Christians and the church.[103]

Procession of the Holy Spirit[edit]

In John 15:26, Jesus says of the Holy Spirit: “But when the Helper comes that I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.”[ 104] 325 ended the First Council of Nicaea, as the first ecumenical council, proclaimed its creed with the words “and in the Holy Spirit”. In 381, the First Council of Constantinople, as the second ecumenical council, expanded the creed and stated that the Holy Spirit “goes forth from the Father” (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον). This sentence is based on John 15:26 (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται). In 451, the Council of Chalcedon, the fourth ecumenical council, reaffirmed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. At the same time, the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was raised by various Christian theologians with different views and different terminology, thus initiating the debate centered on the filioque clause.

In 589, the Third Council of Toledo officially adopted the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (a Patre et Filio procedere) in its third canon. Over the next few centuries, two distinct schools of thought gradually emerged, Eastern and Western. Eastern theologians taught that the Holy Spirit emanates only from the Father (term referred to as Monoprocessionism), while Western theologians taught that the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father and the Son (term referred to as Filioquism). Debate and controversy between two sides became a major point of difference within Christian pneumatology, including its historical role in setting the stage for the Great Schism of 1054.

Fruit and Gifts of the Spirit[ edit ]

The “fruit of the Holy Spirit”[109] consists of “permanent dispositions”[109] (similar in this respect to the enduring character of the sacraments), virtuous qualities brought forth in the Christian by the work of the Holy Spirit.[110] Galatians 5:22-23 lists nine aspects and says:[110]

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.[111]

In the Epistle to the Galatians, these nine characteristics contrast with the “works of the flesh” and emphasize the positive manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s work in believers.[110]

The “gifts of the Holy Spirit”[109] are distinct from the fruitage of the Spirit and consist of specific abilities bestowed upon the individual Christian.[100] They are often known by the Greek word for gift, charisma, from which the term charismatic is derived. There is no universally agreed exhaustive list of gifts, and different Christian denominations use different lists, often referring to 1 Corinthians,[112] Romans 12,[113] and Ephesians 4.[114][115] Pentecostal churches and the charismatic movement teach that the lack of supernatural gifts is due to the neglect of the Holy Spirit and His work by the major denominations.[115] Believers who believe in the relevance of the supernatural gifts sometimes speak of a baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit that the Christian must experience in order to receive these gifts.[116] However, many Christian denominations hold that baptism in the Holy Spirit is identical with conversion and that all Christians are, by definition, baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The “seven gifts of the Holy Spirit”[109] poured out upon a believer at baptism and are traditionally derived from Isaiah 11:1-2,[117] although the New Testament does not refer to Isaiah 11:1-2 for reference of these gifts.[115][118] These 7 gifts are: Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude (Fortitude), Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of God.[115][118] This is the view of the Catholic Church[109][118] and many other mainstream Christian groups.[115]

Denomination variations[ edit ]

Christian denominations have doctrinal differences in their beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit. A well-known example is the Filioque controversy over the Holy Spirit – one of the main differences between the teachings of the main Western Churches and various Eastern Christian denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East).[119][120]

The Filioque debate revolves around whether the Nicene Creed should say that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” and then come to an end, as the Creed was originally adopted in Greek (and thereafter followed by the Eastern Church), or whether it should say “of the Father and the Son,” as later translated into Latin and adopted by the Western Church, filioque being Latin for “and of the Son.”[121]

Towards the end of the 20th century there were discussions about removing Filioque in the Nicene Creed from Anglican prayer books in line with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox approaches, but these have not yet reached a definitive conclusion.[122]

The majority of mainstream Protestantism holds similar views on the theology of the Holy Spirit as the Roman Catholic Church, but there are significant belief differences between Pentecostalism and the rest of Protestantism.[2][123] Pentecostalism focuses on “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” and draws on Acts 1:5, which refers to “now ye shall baptize with the Holy Spirit.”[124] The more recent charismatic movements focus on the “gifts of the Spirit” (such as healing, prophecy, etc.) and take 1 Corinthians 12 as their scriptural basis, but often differ from Pentecostal movements.[125]

Non-Trinitarian views of the Holy Spirit differ significantly from mainstream Christian doctrine.

Catholicism[ edit ]

The Holy Spirit was a theme in at least two papal encyclicals:

The subject of the Holy Spirit is dealt with extensively in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as “I believe in the Holy Spirit” in sections 683 to 747.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians [ edit ]

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians do not view the Holy Spirit as an actual person separate from God the Father, but as God’s eternal “energy” or “active force” used to accomplish His will in creation and redemption. [126][127]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[ edit ]

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) believe that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead. He is a personality of spirit without a body of flesh and bones.[128] He is often referred to as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Comforter.[129] Latter-day Saints believe in a kind of social trinitarianism and subordinationism, meaning that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are understood as united in will and purpose, but not in substance.[130] The Holy Spirit is believed to be subordinate to the Father and the Son and to work under their direction. The Holy Spirit, like all intelligent beings, is believed to be fundamentally eternal, uncreated, and self-existent.[131]

The LDS Church teaches that the influence of the Holy Ghost can be received before baptism, but the gift or constant companionship of the Holy Ghost—which occurs through the laying on of hands of a duly ordained priesthood holder with a line of authority traced back to Christ by Peter—is only after of baptism when a person is confirmed.[132] Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, taught: “One can baptize a sandbag just as well as one,” he said, “if it is not done with a view to having sins forgiven and receiving the Holy Ghost. Baptism with water is only half a baptism and is useless without the other half, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”[133]

Symbolism and art[ edit ]

Symbolism [edit]

The Holy Spirit as a dove on a postage stamp from the Faroe Islands

The Holy Spirit is often referred to with metaphors and symbols, both in doctrine and in the Bible. Theologically, these symbols are a key to understanding the Holy Spirit and His actions, and not just artistic representations.[85][134]

Water – signifies the working of the Holy Spirit at baptism so that they are “drenched with one Spirit” such that “by one Spirit [believers] were all baptized.” [135] So the Spirit is also personally the living water that wells up from the crucified Christ [136] as its source and wells up in Christians to eternal life. [134] [137] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, pos. 1137, regards the water of life in the Book of Revelation [138] as “one of the most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit”. [139]

In the same way, the Spirit is also personally the living water that wells up from the crucified Christ as its source and wells up in Christians to eternal life. The , article 1137, considers the reference to the water of life in the book of Revelation to be “one of the most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit.” Anointing – The symbolism of the blessing with oil also means the Holy Spirit, even to the point of being synonymous with the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit is referred to as his “anointing.” [140] In some denominations, anointing is practiced at Confirmation; (“Chrismation” in the Eastern Churches). Its full power can only be grasped in relation to the primary anointing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, that of Jesus. The title “Christ” (Hebrew “Messiah”) means the “anointed one” by God’s Spirit. [134] [137]

In some denominations, anointing is practiced at Confirmation; (“Chrismation” in the Eastern Churches). Its full power can only be grasped in relation to the primary anointing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, that of Jesus. The title “Christ” (in Hebrew) means “the anointed one” by God’s Spirit. Fire – symbolizes the transformative energy of the actions of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit rested on the disciples on the morning of Pentecost in the form of tongues of fire. [134] [137]

Cloud and Light – The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and “overshadows” her so that she may conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the Mount of Transfiguration the Spirit came in the “cloud and overshadowed” Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and “a voice came out of the cloud and said: ‘This is my Son, my chosen one; listen to him!’” [137] [141]

The Dove – When Christ ascends from the waters of his baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove and dwells with him. [134] [137] [142]

Wind – The spirit is likened to “the wind blowing where it will”[143] and described as “a sound from heaven like the rushing of a mighty wind.”[144][134]

Art and architecture[edit]

Stained glass in Ascension Church (Johnstown, Ohio) depicting fire, a symbol of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit as a dove in The Annunciation by Rubens, 1628.

The Holy Spirit has been represented in Christian art in both the Eastern and Western Churches through a variety of depictions.[145][146][147] The depictions range from almost identical figures representing the three persons of the Holy Trinity to a dove and a flame.

The Holy Spirit is often represented as a dove, based on the account that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove when he was baptized in the Jordan.[148] In many paintings of the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit is represented in the form of a dove descending on Mary on rays of light while the Archangel Gabriel announces the coming of Jesus Christ to Mary. A dove can also be seen on the ear of Saint Gregory the Great – as recorded by his secretary – or other authors of Church Fathers dictating their works to them. The dove also parallels the one that brought the olive branch to Noah after the Flood as a symbol of peace.[148]

The book of Acts describes the Holy Spirit descending upon the apostles at Pentecost in the form of wind and tongues of fire resting over the heads of the apostles. Based on the imagery in this account, the Holy Spirit is sometimes symbolized by a flame of fire.[149]

Ancient Celtic Christians represented the Holy Spirit as a goose named Ah Geadh-Glas, meaning wild goose.[150] A goose was chosen rather than the traditional pigeon because geese were perceived as freer than their pigeon counterparts.

Fine arts[edit]

Cathedrals of the Holy Spirit[ edit ]

See also[edit]

References[ edit ]

Sources[edit]

While many Christians believe that God is only a spirit, Latter-day Saints believe that the Father and the Son each have glorified bodies and that the Holy Spirit is a spirit. Latter-day Saint doctrine, like the Bible, teaches that the Holy Spirit is the only non-corporeal member of the Godhead. Here are just a few of the Bible’s teachings about the Holy Spirit.

Like other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Bible’s teachings about God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. However, Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity—that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. Instead, Latter-day Saints believe the Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work in complete unity but are separate individuals (see Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2007, pp. 40–42). Latter-day Saints refer to these individuals collectively as the Deity.

1 Matthew 3:11: The Holy Spirit sanctifies us

Latter-day Saints believe that receiving the Holy Ghost, or baptism of fire, is as important as baptism of water in order that we may be cleansed from our sins. Matthew 3:11 records that Jesus Christ would baptize those who were first baptized with water “with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” Likewise, Boyd K. Packer, a general leader of the Church from 1961 until his death in 2015, taught that “baptism consists of two parts—baptism of water and baptism of fire or the Holy Ghost” (“The Gift of the Holy Ghost: What Every Member Should Know,” Liahona, Aug. 2006, 20).

Receiving the Holy Spirit is compared to a baptism of fire because the Holy Spirit has a cleansing influence on our lives. The doctrine of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost, like a fire consuming dross, cleanses our hearts until we have no desire to sin (see David A. Bednar, “Clean Hands and a Pure Heart,” Liahona 2007 Nov, 80-83). This cleansing influence helps us one day become worthy to walk with God (see Gospel Principles, 2009, pp. 120–124).

2 John 3:5 We must receive the Holy Spirit to enter God’s Kingdom

Latter-day Saints believe what the Bible teaches about the importance of baptism: “Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that we must be baptized to return to God’s kingdom after we die, and that we must also receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for the ordinance of baptism to be complete. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “A sandbag might as well be baptized as a man, if it is not done with a view to having sins forgiven and receiving the Holy Ghost. Water baptism is only half a baptism, and is useless without the other half—baptism of the Holy Ghost” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 95).

3. John 14:26: The Holy Spirit can comfort us and teach us everything

Latter-day Saints believe in the teaching of Jesus Christ: “The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, and shall remind you all things that I have spoken unto you” (John 14:26 ). The Holy Ghost is a teacher of truth, and if we are willing to listen, He can teach us anything. Latter-day Saints also believe in the Bible’s teaching that the Holy Ghost can comfort us when we are sad or lonely and remind us of God’s love for us.

4. John 15:26 The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus Christ

Jesus taught, “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father shall testify of me” (John 15:26). Latter-day Saints believe that one of the primary functions of the Holy Spirit is to testify of the truth, especially of Jesus Christ and His divinity! It is only through the Holy Ghost that we can receive a testimony that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world (see Testimony, Gospel Topics, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics?lang=eng).

5. Galatians 5:22–23 When we have the Holy Spirit, we feel love, joy, and peace

The Holy Spirit is also often called the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of the Lord. Galatians 5:22–23 teaches that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness [and] temperance.” Latter-day Saints believe that when we have the Holy Ghost with us, we can experience all of the positive feelings and qualities listed above, no matter what challenges we face in our lives. The Holy Ghost not only empowers us personally, but also enables us to uplift others and help them with their challenges.

Learn more about the Holy Spirit

Curious about what else Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches? To learn more about what Latter-day Saints believe, the Bible teaches God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost at comeuntochrist.org.

Christian Counselors and Pentecost

This week we celebrated Pentecost Sunday. What does it mean for Christian ministers?

For Christian ministers, counsel is one of the most important gifts of the Spirit. The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture are individual charisms or gifts given to a baptized person. These gifts are most clearly manifested when the person is born again, or confirmed in Catholic terminology.

The apostles were the first to receive this gift on Pentecost Sunday. They awaited the coming of the Spirit as Christ had promised them. After admission, they became soldiers of Christ and truly began to continue the work of Christ in the early church.

evangelical theology

In Protestant theology, the gifts of the Spirit are particularly emphasized in worship. Each person has a special gift to contribute to the life of the Church. While some branches take this to the extreme in cases of tongue and serpent handling, most mainstream Protestant churches view these gifts in a less charasmatic way. In Protestant theology, the reception of the Spirit is not limited to a ceremony, but is based on belief in Christ as Savior and continues to manifest throughout the person’s life.

Catholic theology

Pentecost is the birthday of the Church and the institution of the Sacrament of Confirmation. The sacrament is the vehicle for formally receiving this grace. Through the sacramental grace of the Holy Spirit, the soul becomes a soldier for Christ. Catholicism also believes that the Spirit is manifest throughout the Christian’s life. A small note is that Catholicism believes Mary was present during Pentecost, while Protestants differ in that there is no biblical reference to her presence. Catholics tend to focus on the tradition of the apostles and early church fathers, who state that it was there. This is a minor point and should not be a point of argument.

Despite minor differences, both theologies have common features regarding the inward workings of the Spirit with the soul. While Protestantism has no sacramental formula, it does believe in the coming of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially the same ideal found in Catholicism.

Let us pray that all Christians will continue to manifest their gifts through the Holy Spirit as the apostles did at Pentecost.

If you are interested in Christian Counseling, please view the program. Our program in Christian Counseling is a comprehensive program with multiple courses required for certification. If you are interested in learning more about our Christian Counseling program, please let us know.

Mark Moran, MA

Religious concept with multiple meanings

In Judaism, the Holy Spirit, also known as the Holy Spirit, is the divine power, quality, and influence of God on the universe or on its creatures. In Nicaea Christianity, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. In Islam, the Holy Spirit acts as a means of divine action or communication. In the Baha’i faith, the Holy Spirit is viewed as the mediator between God and man and “the outpouring grace of God and the luminous rays emanating from His manifestation.”[1]

Comparative Religion[edit]

The Hebrew Bible contains the term “Spirit of God” (ruach hakodesh) in the sense of the power of a unified God. [citation needed] This meaning differs from the Christian conception of the Holy Spirit as a Trinity Person.[2]

The Christian concept tends to place more emphasis on the moral aspect of the Holy Spirit than Judaism, as evidenced by the epithet Holy Spirit, which appears relatively late in Jewish religious writings but was a common expression in the Christian New Testament.[3 ] Based on the Old Testament, Acts emphasizes the power aspect of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.[4]

According to theologian Rudolf Bultmann, there are two ways of thinking about the Holy Spirit: “animistic” and “dynamistic”. In animistic thought it is “an independent actor, a personal power, capable of demonically descending upon and possessing a human being, enabling or compelling him to perform manifestations of power,” while in dynamistic thought it is “considered an impersonal Appearance appears power that fills a man like a liquid”. Both ways of thinking occur in Jewish and Christian scriptures, but animistic is more typical of the Old Testament, while dynamistic is more typical of the New Testament. The distinction falls with the Holy Spirit as either In the Old Testament and in Jewish thought it is primarily temporary in relation to a particular situation or task, while in the Christian conception the gift is permanent in persons.

Superficially, the Holy Spirit appears to have an equivalent in the non-Abrahamic Hellenistic mystery religions. These religions contained a distinction between spirit and psyche, which can also be seen in the Pauline epistles. According to representatives of the School of History of Religions, the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit cannot be explained solely from Jewish ideas without reference to the Hellenistic religions. And according to theologian Erik Konsmo, the views “are so diverse that the only legitimate connection one can make is with the Greek term πνεῦμα [pneuma, spirit] itself”.

Another connection to ancient Greek thought is the Stoic conception of the spirit as the anima mundi – or world soul – uniting all human beings. Some believe this is seen in Paul’s formulation of the concept of the Holy Spirit uniting Christians in Jesus Christ and in love for one another, but again Konsmo thinks this position is difficult to sustain. In his 1964 introduction to the book Meditations, Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth wrote:

Another Stoic concept that provided inspiration for the church was that of “divine spirit.” Cleanthes, wishing to give a more explicit meaning to Zeno’s “creative fire,” was the first to come across the term pneuma, or “spirit,” to describe it. Like fire, this intelligent “spirit” was imagined as a thin substance, resembling a current of air or a breath, but possessing essentially the quality of heat; it was immanent in the universe as God and in man as soul and life-giving principle. Obviously, it is not a long way from here to the “Holy Spirit” of Christian theology, the “Lord and Giver of Life”, who manifested himself visibly as tongues of fire at Pentecost and has been connected ever since – in Christian as well as in Stoic thinking. with the ideas of vital fire and soothing warmth.[11]

Abrahamic religions[edit]

Judaism [edit]

The Hebrew term ruach ha-kodesh (Hebrew: רוח הקודש, “holy spirit”; also transliterated ruacḥ ha-qodesh) is used in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish scriptures to refer to the spirit of YHWH (רוח יהוה).[ 12] The Hebrew terms ruacḥ qodshəka, “your holy spirit” (רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ) and ruacḥ qodshō, “his holy spirit” (רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ), also occur (if a possessive suffix is ​​added, the definite article ha is omitted).

The Holy Spirit in Judaism generally refers to the divine aspect of prophecy and wisdom. It also refers to the divine power, quality, and influence of the Most High God over the universe or over His creatures in certain contexts.[13]

Christianity [edit]

For the vast majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit (or Holy Spirit, from Old English gast, “Spirit”) is the third[14] Person of the Trinity: The “Triune God” manifesting as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; every person is God.[15][16][17] Two symbols from the New Testament canon are associated with the Holy Spirit in Christian iconography: a winged dove and tongues of fire.[18][19] Each presentation of the Holy Spirit arose from different accounts in the Gospel narratives; the first was at the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, where the Holy Spirit is about to descend in the form of a dove, when the voice of God the Father spoke, as described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke;[18] the second was from the day of Pentecost, fifty days after Easter, when the descent of the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and other followers of Jesus Christ as tongues of fire as described in Acts,[20] as promised by Jesus in his farewell discourse.[21][22] The Holy Spirit, called “the unveiled epiphany of God,”[23] is the one who empowers Jesus’ followers with spiritual gifts[24][25] and power[26][27] that make possible the proclamation of Jesus Christ , and the power that conviction of faith brings.[28]

Islam [edit]

The Holy Spirit (Arabic: روح القدس‎ Ruh al-Qudus, “the spirit of holiness”) is mentioned four times in the Qur’an[29] where it functions as a means of divine action or communication. The Muslim interpretation of the Holy Spirit is generally consistent with other interpretations based on the Old and New Testaments. Due to traditions in certain hadiths, some Muslims equate it with the angel Gabriel (Arabic Jibrāʾīl).[30] The Spirit (الروح al-Ruh, without the adjective “holy” or “exalted”) is described, among other things, as the creative spirit of God, through which God quickened Adam and who variously inspired God’s messengers and prophets, including Jesus and Abraham. The belief in a “Holy Trinity” is forbidden according to the Koran and is considered blasphemy. The same prohibition applies to any idea of ​​the duality of God (Allah).[31][32]

Baháʼí Faith [ edit ]

The Bahá’í Faith has the concept of the Supreme Spirit, viewed as a gift from God.[33] It is commonly used to describe the descent of the Spirit of God upon the messengers/prophets of God, which include Jesus, Muhammad and Bahá’u’lláh, among others.[34]

In the Baháʼí Faith, the Holy Spirit is the conduit through which the wisdom of God is directly related to His Messenger and has been described differently in different religions, such as B. the burning bush for Moses, the holy fire for Zoroaster, the dove for Jesus, the angel Gabriel for Muhammad and the Virgin of Heaven for Bahá’u’lláh (founder of the Baháʼí Faith).[35] The Bahá’í view rejects the idea that the Holy Spirit is a partner with God in Deity, but rather the pure essence of God’s attributes.[36]

Other religions[edit]

Hinduism [edit]

The Hindu concept of Advaita is related to the Trinity and was briefly explained by Raimon Panikkar. He states that the Holy Spirit as one of the three Persons of the Trinity “Father, Logos and Holy Spirit” is a bridge builder between Christianity and Hinduism. He explains: “The spiritual encounter can take place in the spirit. No new “system” need arise from this encounter, but a new yet ancient spirit must arise.”[37] Atman is a Vedic terminology elaborated in Hinduism. Scriptures such as the Upanishads and Vedanta signify the ultimate reality and the absolute.[38]

Zoroastrianism[ edit ]

In Zoroastrianism, the Holy Spirit, also known as Spenta Mainyu, is a hypostasis of Ahura Mazda, the supreme creator god of Zoroastrianism; The Holy Spirit is seen as the source of all good in the universe, the spark of all life in mankind, and is mankind’s ultimate guide to righteousness and communion with God. The Holy Spirit is in direct contrast to his eternal counterpart, Angra Mainyu, who is the source of all wickedness and misleads mankind.[39]

Gnosticism[ edit ]

The ancient Gnostic text known as the Secret Book of John refers to the supreme feminine principle Barbelo as the Holy Spirit.[40]

See also[edit]

Further reading[edit]

References[ edit ]

Works Cited[ edit ]

The Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead. He is a spirit personality without a body of flesh and bones. He is often referred to as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Comforter.

roles of the Holy Spirit

Working in perfect unity with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost performs multiple functions to help us live righteously and receive the blessings of the gospel.

He “testifies of the Father and of the Son” (2 Nephi 31:18) and reveals and teaches “the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). Only through the power of the Holy Ghost can we have a sure testimony of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Its communication with our spirit carries far more certainty than any communication we can receive through our natural senses.

As we strive to stay on the path that leads to eternal life, the Holy Ghost can guide our decisions and protect us from physical and spiritual dangers.

Through him we can receive the gifts of the Spirit for our benefit and for the benefit of those we love and serve (see Doctrine and Covenants 46:9–11).

He is the Comforter (John 14:26). Just as the soothing voice of a loving parent can soothe a crying child, the whispers of the Spirit can calm our fears, soothe the nagging worries of our lives, and comfort us when we grieve. The Holy Ghost can fill us “with hope and perfect love” and “teach [us] the peaceful things of the kingdom” (Moroni 8:26; Doctrine and Covenants 36:2).

Through His power we are sanctified as we repent, receive the ordinances of baptism and confirmation, and remain true to our covenants (see Mosiah 5:1–6; 3 Nephi 27:20; Moses 6:64–68).

He is the Holy Spirit of promise (see Ephesians 1:13; Doctrine and Covenants 132:7–18–19–26). In that capacity, he affirms that the priesthood ordinances we have received and the covenants we have made are acceptable to God. This approval depends on our continued loyalty.

When it comes to the Trinity, most Christians probably say “Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

But leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) suggest some additional designations: “Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child, and Life-giving Womb” or perhaps “Overflowing Spring, Living Water, Flowing River.”

Then there’s Rock, Cornerstone and Temple and Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace.

The phrases are among 12 suggested but non-mandatory phrases approved in substance by delegates to the church’s policymaking body this month to describe a “Triune God,” the Christian doctrine of God in three persons.

Rev. Mark Brewer, senior pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, is among those in the denomination of 2.3 million members who are unhappy with the additions.

advertisement

“You might as well put in Huey, Dewey, and Louie,” he said.

“Any time you bring representatives from 2 1/2 million people together, some really solid people and some really crazy people come together,” he said, referring to delegates attending the 217th General Assembly in Birmingham, Alabama . Other congregational actions drew more notoriety, such as the approval of medical marijuana and the ability of local authorities to ordain gays and lesbians who openly live with same-sex partners.

But now, through blogs and discussions during and after services, word is spreading about the additions to the traditional Trinity.

Others are “Sun, Light and Burning Ray” and “Speaker, Word and Breath”. The phrasing is meant to reflect certain aspects of worship, so a prayer mentioning God’s “wrath at the sight of evil” might use “fire that consumes, sword that divides, and storm that melts mountains.” Some of the propositions are familiar, such as “Creator, Savior, Saint” and “Rock, Redeemer, Friend,” that other denominations already use.

Although delegates did not officially adopt a report recommending the new designations, after lengthy debate, they voted 282 to 212 to “accept” the document. By not opposing the report, delegates essentially left it up to individual churches to decide how to use the new terminology.

The report, written by a diverse panel of working pastors and theologians, found that the traditional language of the Trinity portrays God as masculine and implies that men are superior to women.

“For these and other distortions of the doctrine of the Trinity we repent,” the report said.

Daniel L. Migliore, a member of the committee who spent five years compiling the report, said critics miss the point.

“What we’re talking about are complementary ways of relating to the Triune God — not substitutes, not substitutes,” said Migliore, professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary.

And Rev. Rebecca Button Prichard, pastor of Tustin Presbyterian Church, who chaired the panel that wrote “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” strongly defended it as theologically sound.

“What people fear is that they think we’re going to take away ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit,'” she said. “Were not. What we want to say is that no words can fully describe God. And that’s why we want people to search for different ways of expressing ourselves, so that we can do justice to the greatness of God.”

The concept that the omniscience of God is beyond comprehension – and therefore beyond human language – dates back to antiquity. In ancient Israel, the Jews dared not call on the name of God – Yahweh – who declared in the Decalogue: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

However, critics of the new designations say the wording is confusing and reflects a concession to sensitive modern sensibilities.

“You’re trying to be politically correct, and you’re doing it unnecessarily,” said Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

Hanegraaff claims the account is based on a false premise that Christianity is patriarchal, an assumption he calls an “urban legend” that is becoming more common.

“Jesus Christ comes into a culture where women are viewed as at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder … and makes disciples of women,” he said.

“Women are the first to bear witness to the empty tomb central to Christianity. The Bible says that in Christ there is neither male nor female. We are one in Christ.”

Like many longtime Presbyterians, Sherie Zander, a Brentwood psychotherapist, has been following the actions of the General Assembly. She fears the Trinity account will further divide her denomination, which is already polarized over issues such as gay ordination.

“It’s very strange and bizarre,” she said. When she first heard about the report last week from a friend who called her from Birmingham and said: “You need to hear this,” she burst out laughing.

“It is very clear that God calls himself Father,” she said. “Jesus, when he walked the earth, called himself the Son. Throughout Scripture the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit. What would give any of us the right to change that?”

This is the 300th anniversary of American Presbyterianism. Presbyterians are typically well-educated, middle- or upper-middle-class, and value the study of Scripture.

The Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest of the three Presbyterian groups, has traditionally been part of mainstream Protestantism, although in recent years it has adopted more liberal positions.

The church, which like other major denominations is losing thousands of members each year, encourages its 11,000 congregations to use the Trinity denominations except at baptism, which will continue to use “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

The report will be made publicly available “for study and reflection,” and study materials will be prepared for distribution in the congregations.

Rev. Jonathan Lovelady, senior pastor at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Waynesboro, Virginia, said the panel turned an uncontroversial matter into a controversy, adding that decisions like these encourage some churches to leave the denomination.

“The report creates confusion about the name of God by equating a name with analogies and/or metaphors for God,” said Lovelady, a member of the General Assembly’s Theological Affairs Committee. He attempted to submit a minority report against the recommendations, but was rejected.

“Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interchangeable with rainbow, ark, and dove, or compassionate mother, beloved child, and life-giving womb?” asked Lovelady.

Bishop Steven Charleston, president and dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which has used inclusive language for three decades, said he respects what the Presbyterian Church is trying to do.

“When I saw the language proposed here, I really understood it as a quest that many Christian communities are now going through to find more inclusive ways of relating to God,” he said.

Rev. David M. Scholer, New Testament professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, said it was a difficult task.

“We don’t want to do things that uphold patriarchy,” said Scholer, an ordained American Baptist minister who advocates for inclusive language. “On the other hand, we do not want to use terms that distract from the awe and transcendence of God and what was accomplished in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.”

Bel Air’s Brewer also cautioned against overly familiar language.

A child who calls their parents “Dad” and “Mother” is very different from calling them “Billy and Betty.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF THE INFO BOX)

The ideas come in threes

The Presbyterian Church (USA) encourages its members to use new phrases in addition to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” to reflect the Trinity. One church record suggests wording prayers such as “The triune God is known to us as ‘Speaker, Word, and Breath.'”

The specific references to the Trinity in the report:

Sun, Light and Burning Ray

* Compassionate mother, beloved child and life-giving womb

* Giver, gift and giving

* Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace.

* Lover, beloved and love, and connects lover and beloved

* Overflowing spring, living water, flowing river

* One by whom, the One by whom, and the One in which we offer our praise

* Rock, Foundation Stone and Temple

* Fire that consumes, sword that divides, and storm that melts mountains

* Creator, Savior, Saint

* Rock, Redeemer, friend

* King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love

* One that was, one that is, and one that is to come

Source: “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” a report by a committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

Los Angeles Times