Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[KevinG]

Uh, an understatement to be sure. The question becomes who would be "teaching" whom, and who would be calling 911.

Knowing Rob he would be respectful in that setting.

[LeSellers]

Knowing Rob he would be respectful in that setting.

You know Mr. Bowman?

Or do you know only what he does here?

Lehi

Edited January 20, 2012 by LeSellers

[Vance]

I find Rob Bowman to be a big improvement over the late Walter Martin, . . .

I find him to be an improvement over Walter Martin too.

[LeSellers]

A 2nd degree burn is an improvement over a 4th degree burn.

Not in all ways. A second degree burn hurts, while a third degree burn does not (all the nerves are destroyed). A fourth degree burn may destroy muscle and even bone.

(Of course, a higher degree burn usually includes surrounding burns of lesser degree, too, so maybe you're right.)

Lehi

[KevinG]

You know Mr. Bowman?

Or do you know only what he does here?

Lehi

Only what he does here and on IRR... While his approach to polemics is something I disagree with he has never acted in a way during public and a few private correspandance(s?) that would lead me to believe he would disrupt a class he was observing.

A few of our board members have "lunched" with him when he visited Utah and found him to be good company.

Edited January 20, 2012 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

I apologize that I have not responded to your post sooner. I have a family member receiving special medical treatments that are taking three full mornings a week, which has put me rather behind on other things the past few days. I do hope to respond sometime next week.

For the same reason, I am unable to take the time to comment on other posts here for the moment. I do appreciate the kind things that some of you are saying.

[Bill Hamblin]

Kevin,

I apologize that I have not responded to your post sooner. I have a family member receiving special medical treatments that are taking three full mornings a week, which has put me rather behind on other things the past few days. I do hope to respond sometime next week.

For the same reason, I am unable to take the time to comment on other posts here for the moment. I do appreciate the kind things that some of you are saying.

Best wishes for your family!

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

I apologize that I have not responded to your post sooner. I have a family member receiving special medical treatments that are taking three full mornings a week, which has put me rather behind on other things the past few days. I do hope to respond sometime next week.

For the same reason, I am unable to take the time to comment on other posts here for the moment. I do appreciate the kind things that some of you are saying.

Not to worry. Being there for family comes first by far.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bernard Gui]

That's odd. People are always telling Rob Bowman what to do.

Instructing people to leave a discussion is rude, especially if one is not

the originator of the thread or a moderator..

Bernard

Edited January 22, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Vance]

Well, you're ignoring not only Acts 5:3-4 but a whole slew of NT textual support for the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person, distinct from the Father and the Son.

It has been shown that Acts 5:3-4 doesn't show what Bowman claims.

Can we assume that it was the best Bowman had? I think we can.

"whole slew" implies that there are more, could Bowman provide any?

I'll bet you could cite some yourself.

No, because they don't exist.

[Gervin]

It has been shown that Acts 5:3-4 doesn't show what Bowman claims.

Can we assume that it was the best Bowman had? I think we can.

"whole slew" implies that there are more, could Bowman provide any?

No, because they don't exist.

Here are some verses that help in understanding the Holy Spirit.

deleted

using extensive cut and paste without attribution is a copyright violation

Edited January 24, 2012 by Minos

[Robert F. Smith]

But you know he is one of Martin's "descendents" right?

http://en.wikipedia....earch_Institute

I had no idea. Does that mean that he is a graduate of Melodyland School of Theology (adjacent to Disneyland)? If so, he appears to have repented.

You are aware that the Dean of Fuller Theological Seminary has stated publicly that he once witnessed Walter Martin deliberately and repeatedly lying to an audience back East?

[mfbukowski]

I had no idea. Does that mean that he is a graduate of Melodyland School of Theology (adjacent to Disneyland)? If so, he appears to have repented.

You are aware that the Dean of Fuller Theological Seminary has stated publicly that he once witnessed Walter Martin deliberately and repeatedly lying to an audience back East?

That is one of the most remarkable things I have heard in a long time.

Only once? Oh I see- I guess he only heard him speak once.

I find dealing with Rob to be an excellent opportunity for me to exercise my best attempts at being charitiable, because of all he stands for.

Unfortunately, I always fail.

[Gervin]

Here are some verses that help in understanding the Holy Spirit.

deleted

using extensive cut and paste without attribution is a copyright violation

The source document was the Bible; a Google search of > "Holy Spirit" verses < shows the verses (with headers) appearing on a variety of apolgetics, university, and information (about.com) sites. None of them indicate a copyright on the listed verses. There was no copyright violation.

[Vance]

The source document was the Bible; a Google search of > "Holy Spirit" verses < shows the verses (with headers) appearing on a variety of apolgetics, university, and information (about.com) sites. None of them indicate a copyright on the listed verses. There was no copyright violation.

So, basically, you can't post the supposed references?

The KJV uses "Holy Spirit" 4 times, and "Holy Ghost" 55 times.

You guys "claim" that a "whole slew" of those support your assertion. I will be satisfied if you can just show me one that plainly and clearly supports your assertion.

[Gervin]

So, basically, you can't post the supposed references?

The KJV uses "Holy Spirit" 4 times, and "Holy Ghost" 55 times.

You guys "claim" that a "whole slew" of those support your assertion. I will be satisfied if you can just show me one that plainly and clearly supports your assertion.

To support for the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person, distinct from the Father and the Son, one verse is

John 14:26: "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

[Pahoran]

To support for the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person, distinct from the Father and the Son, one verse is

John 14:26: "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

Good verse, that. But it doesn't say anything about the Paraclete being a "divine person" or member of the Godhead. It simply says that the Father will send him, and he will teach stuff.

Well, apparently God sent Gabriel, and he taught Mary stuff, too. Does that make Gabriel a fourth "divine person?" Or do we accept that God sending somebody to teach something doesn't necessarily entail the sent one being a "divine person?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

Good verse, that. But it doesn't say anything about the Paraclete being a "divine person" or member of the Godhead. It simply says that the Father will send him, and he will teach stuff.

President Hinckley cited this verse in his March 1998, First Presidency Message, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

"The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead, the Comforter promised by the Savior who would teach His followers all things and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them (see

John 14:26

)."

[Vance]

President Hinckley cited this verse in his March 1998, First Presidency Message, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

"The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead, the Comforter promised by the Savior who would teach His followers all things and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them (see

John 14:26

)."

Ok,

So, you have to go to the Mormon Prophet to support your assertion?

Oh, right,

BECAUSE you CAN'T find it in the BIBLE!!!

I get it.

P.S.

The point isn't that the Holy Spirit isn't a divine member of the Godhead.

The point IS that the BIBLE doesn't teach it. That teaching does NOT come from the BIBLE!!!

(Sola scriptura gets thrown under the bus).

Modern Revelation (read that as MORMON PROPHETS) teach it, BUT the BIBLE doesn't.

[Pahoran]

President Hinckley cited this verse in his March 1998, First Presidency Message, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

"The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead, the Comforter promised by the Savior who would teach His followers all things and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them (see

John 14:26

)."

Yes, and?

Did President Hinckley say anything equivalent to, "John 14:26 teaches that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead?"

No.

He did not.

He said, without referring to any sources, that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He also said that the Holy Ghost was the Comforter mentioned in John 14:26.

But he did not say that the latter necessarily entails the former.

And that is the point with which I am taking issue. John 14:26 does not actually assert that the Holy Ghost is a "divine person," much less that he is the third member of the Godhead.

Keeping in mind that nobody has actually disputed the divine status of the Holy Ghost, it seems that your casual abuse of President Hinckley's statement is off-point. Did you do it merely to keep in practice?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

Ok,

So, you have to go to the Mormon Prophet to support your assertion?

Oh, right,

BECAUSE you CAN'T find it in the BIBLE!!!

I get it.

P.S.

The point isn't that the Holy Spirit isn't a divine member of the Godhead.

The point IS that the BIBLE doesn't teach it. That teaching does NOT come from the BIBLE!!!

(Sola scriptura gets thrown under the bus).

Modern Revelation (read that as MORMON PROPHETS) teach it, BUT the BIBLE doesn't.

Four points.

First, I don't see the need for your cyber-shouting but I'll ignore it if you feel it's important to your communication.

Second, Pahoran said that the verse I cited showed neither divinity nor distinctness. I simply used President Hinckley's citation to show that he used this verse to ascribe divinity and distinctness to the Holy Ghost.

Third, the blessing of the Spirit promised, the allon parakleton is the Advocate and it is distinct in name and reference. As to the divinity, I'll refer to the Matthew Henry Commentary:

Christ was expected as the consolation of Israel. One of the names of the Messiah among the Jews was

Menahem—the Comforter.

The Targum calls the days of the Messiah

the years of consolation.

Christ comforted his disciples when he was with them, and now that he was leaving them in their greatest need he promises them

another.

The giver of this blessing:

The Father

shall give him,

my Father

and

your Father;

it includes both. The same that gave the Son to be our Saviour will give his Spirit to be our comforter, pursuant to the same design. The Son is said to send the Comforter (15:26), but the Father is the prime agent. How this blessing is procured—by the intercession of the Lord Jesus:

I will pray the

Father.

He said (v. 14)

I will do it;

here he saith,

I will pray for it,

to show not only that he is both God and man, but that he is both king and priest. As priest he is ordained for men to make intercession, as king he is authorized by the Father to execute judgment. When Christ saith,

I

will pray the Father,

it does not suppose that the Father is unwilling, or must be importuned to it, but only that the gift of the Spirit is a fruit of Christ’s mediation, purchased by his merit, and taken out by his intercession. This comforter is the

Spirit of truth, whom you know, (

v. 16. 17

)

. They might think it impossible to have a comforter equivalent to him who is the Son of God: "Yea,’’ saith Christ, "you shall have the Spirit of God, who is equal in power and glory with the Son.’’

... as a Spirit of wisdom and revelation Christ was a teacher to his disciples; if he leave them now that they have made so little proficiency, what will become of them? Why, the Spirit shall teach them, shall be their standing tutor. He shall teach them all things necessary for them either to learn themselves, or to teach others. For those that would teach the things of God must first themselves be taught of God; this is the Spirit’s work. See

Isa. 59:21

.

Last, I don't have a high comfort level regarding a "debate" about the Holy Ghost, a result of my interpretation of how the subject matter is to be treated. I probably won't participate if the discussion gets snippy or snide.

[Gervin]

Yes, and?

Did President Hinckley say anything equivalent to, "John 14:26 teaches that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead?"

No.

He did not.

He said, without referring to any sources, that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He also said that the Holy Ghost was the Comforter mentioned in John 14:26.

But he did not say that the latter necessarily entails the former.

And that is the point with which I am taking issue. John 14:26 does not actually assert that the Holy Ghost is a "divine person," much less that he is the third member of the Godhead.

Keeping in mind that nobody has actually disputed the divine status of the Holy Ghost, it seems that your casual abuse of President Hinckley's statement is off-point. Did you do it merely to keep in practice?

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks.

[Vance]

Four points.

First, I don't see the need for your cyber-shouting but I'll ignore it if you feel it's important to your communication.

Just adding emphasis.

Second, Pahoran said that the verse I cited showed neither divinity nor distinctness. I simply used President Hinckley's citation to show that he used this verse to ascribe divinity and distinctness to the Holy Ghost.

Pahoran addressed this. Your assertion "that he used this verse to ascribe divinity . . . to the Holy Ghost" is not supported by his statement at all, as Pahoran pointed out.

Third, the blessing of the Spirit promised, the allon parakleton is the Advocate and it is distinct in name and reference. As to the divinity, I'll refer to the Matthew Henry Commentary:

<SNIP irrelevant material>

I have been, and am still, waiting for a Biblical scripture. Your doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" dictates that ALL of your doctrine MUST be sourced from the BIBLE.

This is just one example where it can be shown that some of your doctrine does NOT come from the Bible, but rather MUST BE read INTO the text. Fortunately for us, we have more than the Bible to clarify and expand correct doctrine.

So, back to the main point. The Bible does NOT teach that the Holy Ghost is a divine being, so it is an EXTRA Biblical doctrine.

Last, I don't have a high comfort level regarding a "debate" about the Holy Ghost, a result of my interpretation of how the subject matter is to be treated.

I can understand that, considering the fact that you have no Biblical basis for believing such doctrine. I think the discomfort you feel is cognitive dissonance.

I probably won't participate if the discussion gets snippy or snide.

Coming from you I find that ironic. But I will be on my best behavior.

[Gervin]

Pahoran addressed this. Your assertion "that he used this verse to ascribe divinity . . . to the Holy Ghost" is not supported by his statement at all, as Pahoran pointed out.

Pres. Hinckley said, "The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead."

Do you believe he meant that the third member of the Godhead is distinct and divine? If not, please explain. His reference verse for his statement was John 14:26.

I have been, and am still, waiting for a Biblical scripture.

I'd like to understand how you believe Pres. Hinckley used the verse I gave you.

Your doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" dictates that ALL of your doctrine MUST be sourced from the BIBLE.

I'm fairly sure I've never shared with you "my doctrine" but I think a better understanding of the verse at hand is more beneficial.

So, back to the main point. The Bible does NOT teach that the Holy Ghost is a divine being, so it is an EXTRA Biblical doctrine.

President Hinckley used the verse I provided in defense of his statement that "The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead .." If you don't believe the Holy Ghost is divine, then why did he say what he said?

I can understand that, considering the fact that you have no Biblical basis for believing such doctrine. I think the discomfort you feel is cognitive dissonance.

The source of my discomfort was actually these verses:

Matthew 12:31-32

31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32 "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the {age} to come.

Mark 3:28-30

28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--

30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."

Luke 12:10

10 "And everyone who will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him.

Coming from you I find that ironic.

I tend to agree ... I'm a work in progress

But I will be on my best behavior.

thanks

Edited January 26, 2012 by Gervin

[Pahoran]

Pres. Hinckley said, "The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead."

Do you believe he meant that the third member of the Godhead is distinct and divine? If not, please explain. His reference verse for his statement was John 14:26.

No. It was not.

John 14:26 was his reference for a different (but related) point, namely that the Holy Ghost was the Comforter Jesus promised to send.

LDS Church leaders giving talks are not systematic theologians making closely reasoned arguments. To use them as if they were is to abuse them.

I'd like to understand how you believe Pres. Hinckley used the verse I gave you.

See above. You were asked for an actual biblical scripture that supported an actual position. Appealing to an authority you do not accept -- even if you had done so correctly -- to support an interpretation that the passage itself does not support is a fundamentally dishonest tactic.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited January 26, 2012 by Pahoran