Mark Clarke

Mark, it appears you have the idea that speculating one's way into an ancient Jewish worldview (some of which involved rank Christ-less unbelief) is some magic decoder ring for understanding Scripture. I'm not talking about "speculating" nor am I talking about "an ancient Jewish worldview." The Bible is a Hebrew book, written by (mostly) Hebrews, and must be understood as such. The Old Testament is the foundation upon which the New Testament is built. Old Testament believers looked forward to the coming of Messiah, and the Prophets foretold a great deal of detail about it. The "rank Christ-less unbelief" was on the part of those who rejected him, but not all Jews were in that category. That also doesn't negate the importance of the Hebrew foundation of the whole Gospel message. I don't like being blunt, but I don't think you are hearing me. Ditto. I know you're not hearing me, because you have misquoted me, and still have not addressed most of my points. You are right, I don't really care to look into these paticular beliefs. That's your choice. But how can you argue against something you don't even understand? If you think you understand my perspective because you were in TWI, then you missed my point. But, how blithely and conveniently you discount the verses and theology I have posted for you thus far. . . . as if your weak exegisis has somehow disposed of it. But I notice that you have offered no Scriptural rebuttals to my "weak exegesis" to counter the points I made. You just keep repeating how much it bothers you that I think the Church has been wrong. But, you are absolutely right. I don't really care about what you see in the bible. Then why bother posting in the Doctrinal Forum? Your theology doesn't move me. It is yours and reveals your relationship with God. . . not mine. . . and I wouldn't care what you said EXCEPT. . . . You pass such sweeping judgement on the entire church. It amazes me. For the last time, I am not judging anybody. We are discussing differences in doctrinal views. I guess you fancy yourself some kind of modern day reformer. I didn't catch that before. I don't fancy myself anything but a student of the Bible. My reference to reformers was to try to show you that there have been great men in the past who have concluded that the "entire Church" was wrong about some things, in response to your shock and objection to my similar conclusion. I have compassion for you. I think it is dangerous waters. I would say the same to you. What I believe is. . . .our perception of issues related to the Trinity and the hypostatic union greatly influence how we read the Bible. Don't you agree? Our very understanding of scripture. It affects our interpretation of many passages and it affects the application we draw from those passages. Absolutely! That's why I think it's important to get the foundation right. You don't get "hypostatic union" from the Bible, you get it from Greek philosophy. Which brings me to my point. . . it is so often expressed on these forums...The disparity between those of the church and those in the cults. Once again, you need to be aware that disbelief in the Trinity is not limited to "cults." Here is another article for you to ignore. :) Anybody else reading this might want to check it out: Does Everybody Believe in the Trinity? by Anthony Buzzard. You see it articulated often here. "I went to church, and the people seem to really have something. . . ." "Too bad they don't know correct doctrine." I always find it ironic we don't make the connection, but still sit from a distance that is created by our aberrant understanding of scripture. By their fruit they are known. . . . . . connected to the vine. . . . by the love they have for one another. You even called it their character. . .God alive in the hearts of men and women in the church. . . again, they KNOW Him. They have an intimate and personal LOVE relationship with Him. Some DIE for Him. And again, the doctrine has nothing to do with the fruit in people's lives or their sincerity. There are both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians who love God and love people, and there are also members of both groups who are just as hypocritical and judgmental and ungodly as anybody "in the world." These are the people you judge as not knowing God. The very ones who belong to Him. Not good for you. . . . . How many times do I have to say it? I AM JUDGING NO ONE. You asked about my study and journey. Doesn't really matter. I have had some pretty lucky breaks, gone to some pretty good schools. . met some pretty smart people, but in the end. . . it is God who makes Himself known to us. . . He enlightens. I thought the Doctrinal Forum was for the purpose of discussing doctrine. You are the one that claimed I forgot that you once believed as I do but have changed. I think it is entirely relevant to ask what convinced you. But if you don't choose to discuss it, that's your prerogative. He and He alone is due the glory. . . not my study. . . not my ability. . . not my knowledge of Hebrew culture. This is not about glory. God gets the glory regardless. We were discussing doctrinal issues. And you can discount Hebrew culture all you want, but God chose them to communicate His message of salvation through. If you are depending on your own ability. . . hang it up now. It will fail you. So reading and understanding the Bible is depending on my own ability? Are we not expected to seek the truth that is in it? This is not about how necessary Bible study is. This is about the fact that we both have different opinions about what the Bible says. Come, let us reason together. . . you and God together. . . reason these things out. Love is in relationship. . . when you love Him with all your mind. . . it is in relationship. . . He is part of that. As I have said, I did in fact reason them out with Him. Relationship with God is the goal, but that does not mean you don't give careful consideration to the words that He has spoken, especially through His Son, as revealed in the Scriptures. Thanks for your time. Thanks for yours as well.

Actually, when the Bible refers to "the Word" it is not speaking of the black and white printed book (or scroll). What was written is called "the Scriptures" in the Bible. When it speaks of "the Word" it is most often speaking of the overall message of God, the mind and heart of God as He has revealed it. Jesus identified it as the Word or Gospel of the Kingdom of God. And Jesus himself is called the Word made flesh. God's plan, His mind, His message, are all embodied in the person of Jesus. So it's much bigger than just the written Scriptures. But the written Scriptures are how we know about it. You're right. He is much more than a book. But He did give us that book for a reason, and expected us to learn from it. Not to the exclusion of His many works, but along with it. I believe that His Spirit and His Word work together as a system of checks and balances. Many people focus on the Bible and forget God's personal presence and power. But many people also focus on what they think is God's power, and are deceived because they don't test the spirits as we are told. The Bible helps us to know the right spirit, and vice versa. God is not limited, but our knowledge of Him must be according to what He has revealed. Jesus said that his words are spirit and life. They are wholesome words, words of power and light, because they are God's words. I think what he did and said are the perfect blend of doctrine and practice, and a foretaste of what the new world will be like when he returns to set up his kingdom.

Tongues and interpretation had not been done from the beginning. In fact, you can attend many fellowships and not hear tongues. Have you heard anything about interpretation of tongues being a prayer? This was a long time ago I heard about this. There is a stressing of Jesus' current functional equality with God, and while CES is dispensational, it is not nearly to the degree that Bullinger and TWI took it. Even TWI never took it as far as Bullinger did. But CES/STFI seems to embrace it as much as TWI, and it is their foundation for misinterpreting huge portions of Scripture. Overall, I have gotten the impression from their literature that they want to be The Way, Junior. They still have that "we know the truth and you need us to teach it to you" attitude. And much of their organizational structure and ways of dealing wtih people seem to reflect a failure to learn from The Way's mistakes. They may be sincere, but someone once said, "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth."

The funniest part is that it was all to advertise Nova Scotia!

They have some positive regard for Wierwille, as witnessed by John Lynn's recent letter. But from what little I've seen they seem to have done more research than he did, at least for their One God One Lord book. I think Schoenheit, Graeser and Lynn (who wrote that book) do know more about the early Church Fathers than those in TWI did, but whether a local STFI fellowship coordinator does or not is another question. And as for interpretation of tongues, they at one time taught that since SIT was perfect prayer, the interpretation should sound like a prayer, and they all started doing that way. I don't know if they still do it that way now.

Unfortunately, most of them are constipated!

Interesting analogy. Just as performance enhancing drugs have spoiled the simplicity of a good game, so the "performance enhancements" of A-cult spoiled for many the simplicity of Bible study groups. Mini wave: :jump: :jump:

Please don't be concerned or puzzled. It is just your assumption that I don't think what the bible says is more important. Your understanding constitutes your reality. I was merely going by the fact that in nearly every post you express concern that I am "pronouncing the entire church wrong" and not dealing with any of the Biblical issues. You seem to express more concern about whether the Church is mistaken than about what is really true. At least it comes across that way. I really don't know many Christians other than those like Dave Hunt (The Berean Call) who get down on Catholics too much. I went to a Mass this past summer. I really enjoyed it and the message was great. I can look past the Mary statues and saints. . . it was really kind of nice. We went with my sister-in-law. We are very close to her. . . and she is shhhhhhh (a catholic). My point wasn't about whether Catholics are right or wrong, good or bad. My point was that before the Reformation, Protestants would say that "the whole church was wrong" about a lot of things. And now, whichever half (or actually third, if you include the Eastern Orthodox) of the Mainstream Church someone is in, they would consider the other half (or third) wrong. How is that any different from what you say I do? I guess to sum up what bothers me. . . is the sweeping pronouncment and ringing judgements you make, based soley on your own understanding of scripture and limited exposure to the church. It is quite a feat. Again, I am not making any judgments, nor is it solely on my understanding. I am simply writing about what I and many others have seen from the Bible. Anybody that holds ANY position that is contrary to someone else's is going to say that somebody is wrong. That is not a character judgment. And BTW, how do you know how much exposure to the Church I have had? You might just be wrong. Remember, I have believed both ways. You seem to forget that. I haven't forgotten it. I'm wondering, what changed your mind? Did you in fact study the Bible and seek the truth after TWI, or did you decide that since TWI was wrong on so many things, that maybe Orthodox Christianity was right after all? (It's difficult to get tone across in written text, so please don't take these questions as accusations. I am actually asking.) And if you did study the Bible, have you considered any other views of Biblical Unitarianism besides TWI and its offshoots? Because they didn't do a very good job of presenting it. (That's not just my opinion either.) Hate to burst your bubble, but we have some pretty smart Christians who know Hebrew, OT, and Judaism pretty well. Sorry to tell you. . . we even have Hebrew scholars. How would that burst my bubble? BUT. . . Mark, there are Christians in this world. . . . who have PARTS of a bible. . . passed from town to town. . . tattered and worn. . . and they know more about God than you and I ever will. Christianity is a heart matter, you can think you have it ALL figured out, and God will pull that little rug right out from under you. I agree. But I don't think it's ALL heart and no mind. The two aren't mutually exclusive. God expects us to study the Scriptures if we want to really know Him and not be deceived. What I find more ironic, is that you are correcting the last group you were in that had it all right, but are now wrong on what you decide they are. I bet you used to say the bible said something different. In fact, I know you did. You changed your mind? Bet you were so sure before? No? I'm not sure what you mean by me now being "wrong on what you decide they are." Nevertheless, God has indeed "pulled the rug out from under me." Yes, I thought I knew it all when I was in the Way, but about ten years ago I found that most of what I thought I knew was wrong. I almost gave up, but God kept prodding me to look at the Bible again, without anybody telling me what I had to believe. I learned from other scholars, but not because they were charismatic cult leaders, but simply because they presented their views clearly and logically and I could not argue with it. I am astounded that from your little place in the world, you have decided the entire Church is tricked and just plain wrong about something so personal and so real and alive within them. All because you see the bible the right way now. Amazing ability. . . how many years were you in seminary? It is not just "my little place in the world." I have read the ideas of many scholars, some from hundreds of years ago. Some of them decided that the entire Church in their lifetime was "tricked and just plain wrong." Martin Luther is one; Michael Servetus is another. I am likewise astounded that you can't even accept that possibility, when Jesus and Paul both said to beware of false teachers and false doctrines. You are astounded at the suggestion that the majority of the Church could be wrong. But don't Christians say the same thing about all the Jews? Many of them hold their beliefs to be as personal and real and alive as Christians do theirs. The same goes for many Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. If there is an objective Truth, some people are going to be wrong. You seem to be implying that I am egotistical, thinking "I see the Bible the right way now." But aren't you saying a similar thing in a way? You are convinced that although you believed what TWI taught once, you "see the Bible the right way now." The only difference is that you have numbers on your side. But God gave us His Word so we could have proof of His Truth and not have to go along with the masses. The important question is not who has the truth, but what is the truth. You keep saying I could be wrong. True; so could you. So could anybody. The entire Church does not agree on very much. It comes down to what is your standard for determining what the truth is? (I could ask you how many years of seminary you've had, too. But who says the truth can only be found in seminaries?) We are finite. . . limited in explaining the infinite. Finite cannot contain infinite. When we think we have. . . . we usually are tricked. But you say that you have - how do you know you're not tricked? I'm not being facetious here. I wrestled with that for a long time. While we can't know everything about the infinite God, He did choose to reveal Himself by His Word. It is not beyond our ability to understand. It all seems very subjective - everybody has their own beliefs, it's all good - until you really look at the Bible and search for answers. I got to the place where I said I didn't care who was right, I just wanted to know the truth. I know you love God. . . that is enough for me. . . my faith is not in my own ability, but in His. . . if I couldn't even read. . . He would make a way for me to know Him. Surely you aren't suggesting that we can know God just from the heart without reading His Word? If He makes Himself known. . . . He does not lie. The church knows God. It is His church. Of course God doesn't lie. But the devil is the father of lies, and he wants nothing more than to deceive God's Church. That's why we were warned about false doctrines, and told to search the Scriptures so we could recognize the counterfeit doctrines. The devil is a master at counterfeiting. Would you be judgmental of someone who was deceived by being given a counterfeit $20 bill? Neither would I. Like I've been saying, I don't judge anyone or look down on them just because they happen to have been taught what I believe to be wrong doctrine. But at the same time, should I not present what I believe to be the truth? If you are convinced that your truth is right, why not discuss the Biblical evidence? If you're right it should stand up to my "errors." But if you don't even consider any other view because it's not what the majority believes, then how can you really be sure I'm wrong or you're right?

Geisha, It puzzles and concerns me that you seem to be bothered more by my suggestion that most Christians are wrong than by the actual evidence one way or the other in the Bible. Are you Roman Catholic or Protestant? Half of the Christian Church considers the other half to be "wrong." Why is it not more important to consider what the Bible says?

He has, thanks! :) I am not passing judgment on anyone. The fact that people believe doctrine that I believe is contrary to the Bible has no bearing on their Christian character. I have met both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians that love God and exhibit fruit in their lives, and I have met members of both groups who do not, as well. What if I'm right? How would we know? I think the Bible has to be our standard for truth, and I demonstrated what I believe the Bible teaches. As I said, I'm not passing judgment on anyone. And while you haven't done so, many Trinitarians have passed judgment, claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in the Trinity is not truly Christian and destined for hell. I make no such judgment. Don't feel sorry for me. I don't carry any such burden. I couldn't correct the whole Christian Church if I wanted to. Those who hunger for the truth and search the Scriptures like the Bereans did will find it. I just post what I believe the Bible teaches. If people want to look into it and see for themselves "whether these things are so" they have that option. If they don't, that's their choice too. Jesus did in fact carry that burden. He spoke the words that we are supposed to believe and follow. And he is the one who confirmed the Shema and called his Father "the only true God." Jesus was not a Trinitarian. If you choose to pass on any more articles, that's your choice. Godspeed.

Geisha, I think you may need to reread my posts. First, what you claim I have said is NOT what I have been saying, and you have misunderstood and/or misquoted me more than once. You said: You say the Holy Spirit is that PART of God, expressed to us. You believe He reveals Himself in parts. He doesn't have more than one being? This is NOT what I believe. I have said many times that I believe the holy spirit is God's operational presence and power. Not a PART of God. The Way taught it was part of God but I have demonstrated in detail why I don't believe that to be true. In another post you said I believed that it was God in a different mode. It seems like you can't get past the first step, that it isn't a person, and haven't really grasped what I'm saying it is. Secondly, I have heard your argument before... Here is what Tertullian articulated. God is one in essence three in person. Faithful to the clear teaching of scripture. The problem is, it is NOT faithful to clear teaching of Scripture. There is NOTHING in the Scriptures that refers to God as an "essence." He is always addressed as a person, and declared to be ONE person. That one person is declared to be the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is differentiated in many places from GOD - not just from the Father. If you haven't read my article about it, I recommend you do. You will find that it is a bit different from TWI or ex-TWI handling of the issue, although there are a number of points in common. Tertullian and others had to invent language in order to explain how Jesus could be God but not contradict the strict belief in ONE God. But let me repeat what I said about that in my previous post: Many Trinitarians hold that the word "Trinity" as well as other Trinitarian language (such as "three persons in one God," "one substance," "eternally begotten," etc.) was coined to describe concepts that are in the Bible. This should send up a red flag for any Bible student. It suggests that God didn't do a good enough job communicating His nature in the Scriptures inspired by Him. If God was indeed "one essence existing in three persons" surely in His infinite wisdom He could have come up with words to describe it. But there is nothing that suggests such a concept in the Bible. Why would He leave it up to people writing over 100 years after the NT was completed? You are correct when you say Tertullian used words in a different sense than we would. They were also a different sense than the Bible used them. And more importantly, they were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. The resulting doctrine is extremely confusing, and theologians have wrestled with it for hundreds of years, and have never successfully explained it, falling back on "we can't explain it, it's a mystery." In contrast, the Bible speaks of God, who created the world by Himself, and who had a Son, named Jesus. Simple. No need for convoluted theories and twisting meanings of words and inventing new ones. As I said before, if the Trinity were true, God could have come up with the right words much better than any man, and would have used them in His revelation of Himself to us. The only reason anybody ever started to think a new explanation was needed was because they lost sight of the simple understanding of the Bible from a Hebrew perspective. You asked, "Why is it so difficult to believe God is one essence three persona?" It wouldn't be difficult at all, if it had been stated in the Bible, but it isn't. I would ask you, "Why is it so difficult to believe that God is one person, the father of Jesus, whom Jesus called the only true God (John 17:1-3)?" The Trinity would be a paradox rather than a contradiction if the Bible clearly stated any of the major points of it. But it doesn't. It's more than just the word Trinity that is not in the Bible. You cannot show me any Scripture where God is presented as an essence, or as multiple persons. All any Trinitarian can offer as proof is that the Bible seems to call Jesus and the Holy Spirit God. But when you understand that in light of the Hebrew understanding of those things, there is no contradiction, and no need to coin new words and terms in order to explain it. And since there are also MANY things about the Trinity that contradict clear Scriptures, it is not just a paradox. (See my article for the clear contradictions.) As for trying to understand what is beyond our understanding, I addressed that point in my article, which I will quote here: Trinitarians often make the claim that it doesn’t matter if the doctrine is illogical by our standard of reason, because it is based on God’s higher standard of reason, which we can’t understand. If that were the case, then somewhere in His written revelation to us it would have to be explicitly stated. If it is not based on human reason, then it cannot be reasoned out from any of the supposed "implications" in the Scriptures, as Trinitarians claim it is. God would have to make a specific, though seemingly illogical, statement that he was "three persons, yet one God." He would have to make such a statement, and perhaps include the statement that it does not fit with our reason, so we must simply accept it on faith. But of course He made no such statement anywhere in Scripture. This is not to make the claim that we understand everthing about God. Certainly there are things mentioned in the Scriptures that are mysterious to us. But how many God is, is not one of those things, since He repeatedly tells us that he is one. We are told that the Scriptures give us knowledge of "everything that pertains to life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). Yet they make no explicit statement regarding the Trinity, or the two natures of Jesus which supposedly explain the very clear distinctions between God and His Son.

True, Jews reject Jesus. But since the Bible is written from a Jewish mindset, it's vital to understand Jewish thinking in order to understand the Bible. I think the loss of that understanding is the root of the biggest doctrinal errors that crept into the Church, including conscious existence after death, and replacement of God's Kingdom on earth with a spiritual kingdom of the heart, in addition to the Trinity. (See this article for more on this.) You said in an earlier post (as do many Trinitarians) that the Trinity was "defined" not "developed." Many Trinitarians hold that the word "Trinity" as well as other Trinitarian language (such as "three persons in one God," "one substance," "eternally begotten," etc.) was coined to describe concepts that are in the Bible. This should send up a red flag for any Bible student. It suggests that God didn't do a good enough job communicating His nature in the Scriptures inspired by Him. If God was indeed "one essence existing in three persons" surely in His infinite wisdom He could have come up with words to describe it. But there is nothing that suggest such a concept in the Bible. Why would He leave it up to people writing over 100 years after the NT was completed? The historical facts are, that Trinitarian language and concepts were developed to explain an apparent contradiction that would have been easily understood if they had understood the Scriptures from a Hebrew point of view. That apparent contradiction was that they saw a few verses where Jesus was called God, and a few that seemed to say the Holy Spirit was God. So now they had a dilemma. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. But taken literally, that would make three Gods. (Gnostic Christians in fact did suggest that Jesus was a "lesser deity".) But rather than adopt a form of polytheism, they came up with the explanation that God and Jesus were of "one substance" but distinct persons. Later the Holy Spirit was declared to be also of the same substance, and that they were in fact "three persons, yet one God." None of this language is in the Bible, and in fact would be completely unnecessary if they had understood the Hebrew mindset. I explained in this thread how the Hebrews understood God's Holy Spirit. I deal with in what sense Jesus is called God (for sure in only two verses) in my article on Who Is Messiah. So with Jewish understanding there would have been no apparent contradiction that they would need to explain. But they invented language which is illogical, self contradictory, and not found in the Bible. Then they took the concepts and read them back into the Bible (forcing it in most cases) and thus claimed that the concepts were there. As if that weren't bad enough, those who disagreed were left out of the proceedings at the counsels where the official doctrine was voted on. And after it became official, anyone who disagreed was threatened with excommunication, torture, or death. This is how "most" Christians came to believe in the Trinity hundreds of years ago, and was an unquestioned tradition for hundreds of years. But it didn't remain unquestioned. Radical Reformationists questioned it but were persecuted for it. And since the 1800s there have been many individuals and even whole denominations who have written about it, as well as about death being unconsciousness, and about the literal nature of God's future Kingdom on earth. These great truths, that were lost when the Church rejected all things Jewish, have been observed in the Bible by scattered minorities for over a hundred years now. But to see them one has to be willing to test one's traditional beliefs against the Scriptures and not accept anything just because most Christians have believed it for hundreds of years.

Cman indeed makes a strong case for the loss of the Hebrew understanding and thinking that is absolutely essential to understanding the Scriptures. It was from that loss and the replacement with Greek and Pagan ideas that many unscriptural doctrines crept into the Church. But I still contend that the grammatical gender of words in Hebrew, as with other languages, does not imply that inanimate objects themselves have masculine or feminine characteristics.

Mark, this actually IS argument, but fine. From my perspective, it is a weak argument. What can I say. From the perspective of orthodox theology. . . . it is rejected. We actually SEE something different. Why do you hold "orthodox theology" in such high esteem? Many of the tenets of the Protestant Reformation were considered "heresy" because they challenged what was considered "orthodox theology" by the Roman Catholic Church at the time. No, you are espousing some form of modalism. Not a new heresy. Modalism is defined as "the view that God variously manifested Himself as the Father (primarily in the Old Testament), other times as the Son (primarily from Jesus’ conception to His ascension), and other times as the Holy Spirit (primarily after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven)." Also, "Yet another aspect of Modalistic Monarchianism / Modalism / Sabellianism is Patripassianism, which is the view that it was God the Father who became incarnate, suffered, died, and was resurrected. Patripassianism essentially teaches that God the Father became His own Son." (These definitions are from the Got Questions? website.) In contrast, I am saying that God is one person, and does not change. The phrases "Spirit of God" and "Holy Spirit" are simply ways of referring to the presence and power of God in operation. It is a figurative way of speaking about God in relation to His creation. It is closer to the understanding of holy spirit under Judaism in Cman's post. Which makes sense since the OT revealed God's nature, and the NT reflects that same understanding. Mark, weak argument. They can be understood anyway you choose, but what are they actually revealing? A person with distinct identity. They can't be understood any way that I choose. It has to fit with the Scriptures. I know you think that the Trinity does, but we disagree there, so we probably are wasting our time debating. I never said He was seperate from God. . . He is God. . . One God. Seperate from the Father, and the Son. . . not from God. Jesus called God his Father, and many Scriptures refer to God the Father. But the point I was making is that none of the verses you had quoted prove that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God the Father. There is no "God the Holy Spirit" in the Bible, nor is there a "God the Son." Of course we can speak of ourselves the same way. . . . we are made in His image. We are a trinity. This idea comes from Greek philosophy, not from Hebrew thinking. The Scriptures present man as a single entity, a soul, with no separation between body and spirit. And before you say, "Says who?" I will answer, any Bible dictionary will demonstrate how those words are used in the Bible. But I've been over this too. Mark, I didn't use these verses because they do not reveal the distinct and separate entity of the Holy Spirit. Just because one does and the other doesn't . . . . doesn't mean they cancel each other out. They don't negate the reality of the Holy Spirit revealed as having mind, will, and self-identity.. . . I didn't say they did. I was using it as an illustration of how Hebrew idiomatic language refers to "my soul" doing something, when it literally means "I do it." The same idiomatic language is used to describe God doing something by saying "His Spirit." And it is even more specific in the NT, where "the Spirit" refers to the spirit of the risen Christ in addition to the Holy Spirit of God. I Cor. 2:11 - "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." It isn't even a good reasoned argument. It is superfical, do you think Christians don't understand language and lit? I think in many cases they don't understand the Hebrew way of thinking and speaking. That is one of the roots of the problem. Is your body the same as your spirit, is your mind the same as your body? They are distinct yet make up the one who you are. . . no? Do they interact in concert with each other to make up one Mark. . . in theory in perfect unity? Diverse yet in unity. Are they all you? One Mark? When you die Mark, will your body remain but your spirit depart? Will your mind be with your body in death? Do your body and mind have the same will? Mine sure don't. . . my mind tells me I am 21. . . my body says "ahhhh, hang on a minute". This illustrates my point. Yes, my body and my mind work together. But I do not say that my body is a separate person that is "self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity" from my mind. My mind may want to think I'm 21, but my body includes senses which relay information that tells me otherwise. The center of my consciousness is still one, my will is still one, I am still one person. This is all very simple. And when I use figurative language saying "my mouth" speaks to you when I mean that "I am speaking to you" there is no misunderstanding that my mouth is a separate person from me with a distinct will and/or consciousness. Why can it not be that straight forward with God? You just gave Him a voice. You just made Him distinct. Those two statements are contradictory. Giving Him a voice does not make Him a distinct person any more than my voice is a distinct person from me. The Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit. Not the finger of God. NOT the finger of God? Was Luke wrong to use that term? The interaction of God within Himself. . . it is stunning. God is a trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Distinct, yet within each other in perfect community and love as ONE God. The problem is that God is not presented in the Scripture as a community, a family, or anything else plural. He is constantly referred to in thousands of verses as a single person, a single entity, using singular verbs, pronouns, and adjectives (except for the four verses where he is probably talking to His angels when He says "us"). Can't get around it. Unity with diversity, it is everywhere in creation if you have eyes to see. You are a family . . . one family. . . distinct members. The church. . . many members, each with their own office or duty or talent or gift. . . one body. It is all there. A family is more than one person. But God is presented as a singular person in the thousands of references to Him in the Bible. He is shown as three in one. The Lord is ONE. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about three-in-one. The ONLY verse that uses that phrase (I John5:7) is a known addition to the text which has been corrected in newer versions. ...It is an empty faith. I know many Biblical Unitarians who would disagree with that. Mark, are you kidding me? I was in a Christ denying cult for a very good part of my adult life. No, I'm not. There have been groups of people who have rejected the Trinity ever since it was first articulated. We were in a cult who happened to share that belief, but that doesn't mean that only cults have that belief. Unless of course you choose to define a cult as "anyone who doesn't agree with the majority's doctrine." By that definition, Jesus' followers were a cult, as are all Protestants. There are no Christian theologians who deny the scriptures in favor of heresy. There are no Christian theologians who deny THE SCRIPTURES. But there are quite a few who deny that the Trinity is Scriptural. BTW, do you know that the Trinity was considered "heresy" when it was first propounded? Mark, the word bible is not in the bible. . . Trinity is just a word to describe what is revealed about God in scripture. It is there which is why we can see and understand it. . . I'm not just saying the WORD Trinity isn't in the Bible. The concept of "three persons existing in one God" is not there. I pointed out above that the only verse that has the phrase "these three are one" is a known addition. God is always presented as one person, and His Son is just that - His Son. . . . you discount 100's of years of great Christian thinkers and you discount the many of us EX-TWI who have come to this position once opposed, by simply praying and reading. Then you are likewise discounting the 100's of years of Christian thinkers who have seen that the Trinity is not Scriptural (albeit in the minority), as well as many ex-TWI who have studied it for themselves both in and out of TWI and independently reached the same conclusion. ...carry on telling us how God is not known or understood by 2000 years of Christianity and VP was wrong, but now you have it right. . . . sorry for the disrupt. Just remember, we are finite trying to define infinite. . . . doesn't wrap up in a neat little package... . I am not saying "now I have it right." I am relating what others have seen as well. Again, just because people have believed something for 2000 years doesn't make it right. And I don't consider it "trying to define infinite." I consider it to be a simple matter of understanding that which God has revealed to us about Himself. He may be infinite, but He chose to reveal His nature to us with words - words which make sense. The single simplest, easiest relationship we humans can understand, that of a parent and a child, is how the Father and His Son are revealed to us. My father is not me, and I am not my father. My father and I are not "two persons yet one essence." God the Father and Jesus the Son are presented as two separate entities, with separate thoughts and wills, one having begotten the other. John 17:3 - "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." I Corinthians 8:6 - "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Geisha, I won't get into an argument; as you say, it is pointless. But I wanted to point out that I already dealt with those issues in the article which I have presented in my previous posts. First of all, the long section you quoted from Come Let Us Reason was arguing against the holy spirit being an impersonal force as the JW's believe, or a mode as the Oneness Pentecostals believe. Neither of these is the position I am presenting. Secondly, every one of those verses can be understood as God speaking, moving, acting, guiding, giving revelation, etc., by way of His Spirit. Not one of them proves that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God. As I pointed out in the article, a person can speak of his spirit or his soul in the same way: Job 6:4 For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me. Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul. Ps 77:3 I remembered God, and was troubled: I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah. Ps 77:6 I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search. Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. Da 2:3 And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Ro 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; Ge 27:4 And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die. Ge 27:25 And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank. Jud 5:21 The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength. Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul Ps 3:2 Many there be which say of my soul, There is no help for him in God. Selah. Ps 11:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. In the LORD put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain? Ps 16:2 O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee; Ps 34:2 My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. Lu 12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. Would anyone say that these verses prove that "Me" and "My Spirit" are two different people? Or "Me" and "My Soul"? Of course not. Consider this verse: Gen. 45:12 - "And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you." Is Benjamin's mouth a separate person from Benjamin? Obviously not. "My mouth speaks to you" is simply another way of saying, "I speak to you." Nor is the Lord's mouth a separate person from the Lord: Jos 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD. 1Ki 13:21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, To disobey the mouth of the Lord is to disobey the commandments that the Lord spoke. Nobody would argue that the Lord's mouth is a separate person. The spirit of the Lord is no different. In fact in two different parallel passages, the power of God is described as both the spirit and the finger of the Lord. Matt. 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Luke 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is a way of speaking about the means by which God interacts with the world. The "finger of God" is another way of saying the same thing. You certainly wouldn't consider the Finger of God to be a person. Just as I can speak of my soul longing, or my heart desiring (and it means that I long and desire), so referring to God's Spirit saying and doing things is a way of speaking about God saying and doing them. You asked, "is the devil a person, or a force or power?" He is a person. Again, I am not claiming that God is not a person. I am saying that the person of God communicates and interacts with the universe, and with people specifically, by way of what is called His Holy Spirit. But it is not a separate person from God Himself. If it were, "he" would have sent greetings to the church, and as a co-equal and co-eternal person, would have been included in those verses I quoted that refer to the Father and the Son. You said, "He is Spirit. . . but a person is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity." That is exactly the problem. When you speak of the Holy Spirit as a person that "is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity," and then you say that this person is God, you now have two "persons" who are God. And Jesus makes three. And the whole idea of three persons, but still one God, just doesn't fit with logic or the Scriptures. God is always presented as ONE person. Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is ONE. Jesus quoted and corroborated the Shema, and nowhere in the Bible can "one" ever be shown to mean "three in one." Still, I don't expect you to change your mind. If I could get you to understand just one thing, it would be that this belief is not the product of a few cult-influenced teachers. All throughout history, there have been many respected Bible scholars who have understood these things. They may be in the minority, but they are not just in cults like TWI. Remember the quote I had in the article? Alan Richardson, in his Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 120), desribes the holy spirit like this: To ask whether in the New Testament the spirit is a person in the modern sense of the word would be like asking whether the spirit of Elijah is a person. The Spirit of God is of course personal; it is God's dunamis [power] in action. But the Holy Spirit is not a person, existing independently of God; it is a way of speaking about God's personally acting in history, or of the Risen Christ's personally acting in the life and witness of the Church. The New Testament (and indeed patristic thought generally) nowhere represents the Spirit, any more than the wisdom of God, as having independent personality. You said, "When I look at things now. . . no preconceived bias. . . I read history and see the trinity was already known. . ." But looking at the Scriptures to explain the Trinity IS preconceived bias. It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, and the only way ANYONE has even heard of the Trinity is because somebody taught them about it. But still, as you said, it's pointless to argue. I just wanted to point out that I'd already dealt with those arguments, and to clarify what I believe to be the Biblical understanding of God's Holy Spirit. I also wanted to point out that the belief in God as One Person is held by more and more Bible scholars, and not the wild idea of a cult.

One of my all time favorite verses! (Psalm 94:19) The first thing I noticed about that article is that it has a lot of sweeping generalities, with very little in the way of actual references. Secondly, most of its quotes are from gnostic writings. While gnosticism did exist and did represent a view that was held by some, it was refuted by the writers of the New Testament and does not reflect the orthodox view. And thirdly, I have to wonder why some of the roles of the Holy Spirit are considered feminine in the first place. There's nothing particularly masculine or feminine about acting in Creation, imparting wisdom, or inspiring Old Testament prophets. And as for being a power in the birth of Jesus, the Bible declares that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Not that God had intercourse with Mary, as some skeptics think we believe, but God by His Spirit conceived the life of the child within the body of the mother (Mary), which is typically the father's part in the process. Notice, it became a person, a partner in the Trinity. The gnostic idea of a lesser divine being was thoroughly pagan, and had no place in the Scriptures. Correct. This is the view presented in the Bible. Not a person but the active power and presence of God. Considered by whom? It isn't described that way in the Hebrew Scriptures. Power is neither masculine or feminine. Hebrew, as with many languages, assigns grammatical gender to nouns, but it does not necessarily mean that the things are masculine or feminine themselves. But since English normally only uses personal pronouns when referring to persons, there is no "linguistic justification" for referring to the Holy Spirit as "she" just because ruach is feminine grammatically. Perhaps it makes sense when you start with the assumption that it is a separate person. But not when you see it as the presence and power of God. Besides, the Son coming from the Father and the Spirit is not what the official doctrine of the Trinity says. The following is from the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." This is misleading. The pronouns match the gender of their antecedents in Greek. But in English, when a pronoun refers to an inanimate object, it is translated "it" regardless of whether the Greek word is masculine or feminine grammatically. When pronouns refer to people, they are generally masculine or feminine. So, when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the pronouns being translated "he" and "him" is because of the belief that it is a person. There is nothing that grammatically requires it be translated this way. And yet even in the KJV, Romans 8:16 refers to "the spirit itself." BTW, Church doctrine regards the spirit as a person, but the Scriptures do not. But neither do they regard it as "a force like magnetism." It's the presence and power of God. I find it interesting that the article refers to so many gnostic writings (albeit without reference) but makes relatively few citations of the Scriptures. This seems to reflect a mindset that is more and more common these days, that the canon of New Testament Scriptures was arranged to deliberately leave out what they didn't like. But the fact is that none of the gnostic writings was ever considered authoritative by the usual criteria, and the doctrines presented in them were contrary to those presented in the authoritative writings. I think St. Augustine was right when he claimed that the acceptance of the Holy Spirit as the "mother of the Son of God and wife-consort of the Father" was merely a pagan outlook. The article says that "Mayr contends that Augustine 'skipped over the social and maternal aspect of God,' which Mayr thinks is best seen in the Holy Spirit." But I have to wonder whether the role of the Holy Spirit as presented in the Scriptures can really be described as either masculine or feminine. It was no secret that Christ had female disciples. The Bible tells us of them. They were the first to see the empty tomb, for one thing. And several women are mentioned in Acts as having prominent roles in the Church. There seems to be a hunger to find anything new and sensational, with little regard for what is already established. The testimony that the apostles and other eyewitnesses have already provided is more reliable than some scholars would have us believe. But not all scholars. There are some who believe in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, and have offered sound rebuttals for anything the opponents of that view might offer. "Profound and revelatory discoveries" have so far not proven anything except that there were some people with different views.

RottieGrrrl, I'm sure there are some people who "refuse" to change, but I suspect more of them don't change because they don't think they can, or they don't know how. And instead of teaching "how" - especially how God works in their lives to enable them - too many religious types (in TWI and elsewhere) just lay the guilt trip on them. They say, "You 'refuse' to change so it's your own fault." (Not that you're doing that.) I really think such teaching has done more harm than good, and discouraged people to the point where they gave up trying.

As discussed in the Guard Your Thought Life thread, the power of God is what's needed in order for us to live a Christlike life. This works whether one believes the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity or the operational presence and power of God. The focus is still on God in either case. What does NOT work is the TWI belief that the holy spirit is just a "power-pack" implanted within me that is now part of me and I must use it and control it. Then the focus is all on me and my use of my power by renewing my mind to "operate al nine all the time." This results in spinning one's wheels and getting nowhere.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power... Renewed Mind light!

The "few" I was thinking of was like, Paul or the other apostles. Also, "close" is a relative term. How close is "close"? And I did say "perhaps," too. The upshot of it is that few have come anywhere near his perfect self control, which is why we need the spirit. And everything else you said in your post, I agree with. So we are on the same page as far as that is concerned. We need God's power in our lives, no matter what we call it. Like you said, we can try to transform on our own, but we know what happens then.

WordWolf, I agree with everything you say here as far as where sin starts, etc. But still, if that's all there is to the question, we are all just as doomed to failure as mankind has been from the beginning. Nobody but Jesus had the will power to control themselves that much. A few have come close, perhaps, and have demonstrated commendable discipline in these areas. Most of us, however, have not. But eternal life is not based on our ability to control ourselves. Don't you agree that God's power is what is absolutely necessary for us? We will never completely manifest a Christlike nature in this life. What makes the difference is our heart of trusting God - first of all believing His Gospel that a better world is coming, second accepting His grace and the payment for our sins by His Son's sacrifice, and third just doing our best knowing we are going to muck it up royally sometimes. I've heard it said that Christians aren't sinless, but they sin less. And His Holy Spirit working in us is what will enable us to sin less. "Self control" is a fruit of the Spirit, not of our "renewed mind effort" or whatever you might call it. That's the down side of the kind of thinking in that linked article. As we saw in the Way, those who thought they were "together spiritually" looked down on the other poor slobs who didn't renew their minds. And that attitude was not limited to The Way. Christians have been accused of being self-righteous and judgmental for hundreds of years, and there is something to it, in many cases. It's a balance, like everything else.

Here we go again!

Continuing the Holy Spirit article: Jesus Christ is called "the Word made flesh" in John 1:14. His very existance is due to the holy spirit begetting him in Mary's womb (Luke 1:35). This is why he is the ultimate communication of God and His Word. (For more on this idea, see the Closer Look article on Who is Messiah.) Because of this, the words that he spoke were God's words, spoken by the influence of God's spirit (John 3:34). It was foretold by Moses that God would raise up a prophet and put His words in that prophet's mouth (Deuteronomy 18:18). Jesus said his words were not his own but His Father's (John 14:10-24). "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). This is why his words are the key to eternal life as we saw in the article on the New Birth. When Jesus ascended into heaven he did not leave his followers without comfort and guidance. In John chapters 14-16 Jesus gave his most comprehensive teaching about the holy spirit. He said it would be a substitute for him, and would be their helper and comforter, and would be with them forever. It would bring to their remembrance everything that he had said to them, and teach them things that they were not yet able to bear at the time he was speaking. It would testify about Christ and convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. It would succor and strengthen them, and enable them to live a Christlike life. I was once taught that Old Testament believers had the holy spirit "upon" them, while believers after Pentecost had holy spirit "in" them. But this does not hold true upon closer examination. Joseph was called "a man in whom the spirit of God is" in Genesis 41:38, and Joshua was called that in Numbers 27:18. God's ministers were said to be filled with God's spirit in Exodus 28:3; 31:3; and 35:31. Isaiah 63:11 reads, "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" On the other hand, we saw that the outpouring of the holy spirit in Acts was a partial fulfilling of God's promise to "pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). And Peter specifically states in I Peter 4:14 that, "the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." Therefore the distinction between "spirit in" and "spirit upon" has no Biblical basis. But does this mean the holy spirit after Pentecost was no different than it was before? It can't be true that there was no holy spirit before Pentecost, since Jesus and the apostles worked many mighty miracles. Jesus specifically said that he cast out demons by the power of the holy spirit (Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20). Yet in John 7:38-39 Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" So there is a distinction between the spirit of God before Pentecost and what came after. Before Christ the spirit of God was God's presence and power at work in people and situations. It is the same afterward, but with an added dimension. The spirit as concentrated and focused in the person of the risen Christ is now made to dwell in the believer. Jesus said that God would give them "another" comforter, namely the spirit of truth. It is "another" comforter because it would comfort them the way he had done when he was with them. It is through the spirit that Jesus said he would come to them and abide with them. John 14: 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Notice again the close association with the holy spirit and the words of Jesus. "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Remember we saw that the Word of God, as communicated through the words of Jesus, was the key to eternal life, and was the seed which provides the new birth. Here we see that the spirit indwells a person when they have the words of Jesus abiding in their heart. The spirit, besides being called the holy spirit and the spirit of God, is also called the spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9; I Peter 1:11) and the spirit of Jesus (Philippians 1:19). There is no difference since Jesus made God known and always did the Father's will. In fact II Corinthians 3:17 says that "the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." God's holy spirit is His personal power and presence, and Jesus said, "my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." It is by way of the holy spirit that God and His Son dwell in a person who believes the words Jesus spoke. This is how Jesus would be with them until the end of the age, as he promised in Matthew 28:20. While Jesus is physically in heaven, seated at the right hand of God, his spirit, which is also the spirit of God, is within each believer, and thus the Church is the Body of Christ with Jesus himself as the head. In this way Jesus can strengthen and encourage each member in a way that he could not do when he was physically present on earth. The spirit of God, as communicated by the Word of God is what makes Jesus who he is. When a person accepts him as their Lord, that spirit of God in Christ dwells in them, and thus Colossians 1:27 refers to "Christ in you, the hope of glory." It is the hope of glory because the Word is the Gospel of the coming kingdom of God, when Jesus will be glorified and rule the earth, with believers being glorified and ruling with him. The words that a person speaks are an indicator of what sort of "spirit" he has. If he has the spirit of Christ, his words will sound like those of Christ. This is one way to tell whether a person who seems to be "spiritual" and manifests supernatural power is really showing forth God's holy spirit or a counterfeit. Jesus warned us that there would be many counterfeit signs and wonders which we should watch out for (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22). He specifically said that there would be people who seem to be Christians, and even consider themselves to be Christians, but in fact are not. Matthew 7: 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. I used to think these verses referred to people who just talked about Jesus but didn't follow through in their actions. But it is even more than that. The people he refers to will also include ones who even did mighty works in Jesus' name - prophesied, cast out devils, etc. - but were not in fact doing the will of God. This tells us that doing these mighty works is not an indication that one is "saved" or even in a right relationship with the Lord. How does one determine if he is doing God's will then? The next verse tells us. "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..." (Matthew 7:24). In order to have a right relationship with God and His Son, you must hear and do his sayings. Doing mighty works without the right foundation of the words of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of the Kingdom, is building your house on the sand. It will not stand. In TWI, the "manifestations" were extremely overemphasized, but I don't believe they are the primary or normal activity of the holy spirit. The normal working involves growth and change of heart, which God is more interested in accomplishing in a believer. And this was hardly, if ever, mentioned in the Way. I even asked a limb leader once if the holy spirit might be a power that helps us live more Christian lives. He said he'd never thought of that. It is this growth and "regeneration of the holy spirit" (Titus 3:5), not "operating manifestations," which produces the fruit of the spirit. As the Word of God, which is the heart of God, grows in a believer, the attributes of God become more and more evident in his life. Then a person realizes love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, which are called the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5:22. This is another way to tell if someone demonstrating power is genuine or not. Jesus said that we shall know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16,20).

It seems to me that the basic premise of his article is OK - sin starts with thoughts and as much as we can we need to guard our thoughts. But it is one sided and oversimplified, as was the whole "renewed mind" concept in The Way. It's fine if you have no difficulties in that area to begin with. But to tell someone that has trouble controlling their thoughts in a given area to "just renew your mind and you'll be fine" is like the old W.C. Fields joke that the best cure for insomnia is to get plenty of sleep. Pond mentioned people who "refuse" to deal with issues and "refuse" to change life styles or habits. Sometimes it's not a refusal but an inability. Or at least an extreme difficulty. And trying to "renew your mind" with your own will power is just spinning your wheels. Socks and others mentioned the power of the new birth and I think that is the key. The change has to come from God's power in you. And whether the Holy Spirit is a person or God's presence and power in action, what Geisha said is still true: "Without being filled with something else, where loving your neighbor becomes a desire and is a result of loving God. . . . and being filled with the Holy Spirit. . . . trying to control your mind and thoughts can become a pathology. An obsession or an anxiety." Love, joy, peace, etc. are FRUIT of the spirit. They grow as long as we don't squelch them. And it's fruit of the SPIRIT, not fruit of my renewed mind. The "peace that passes understanding" is not the result of our getting our lives together or thinking the right Word thoughts. It's from Philippians 4:7, and it follows as a result of verse 6: "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God."

I remember a variation of that saying, probably not in the RM class: You can't stop a dog from walking on your lawn but you can stop it from taking a dump there!