top of page

De Moor V:27: Defense of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, Part 6

Our AUTHOR advises that there are hardly any unresolved Objections remaining: only we desire here to consider the ἡττήματα/blots on the divine Perfections apparently ascribed to the Spirit, but only apparently. Thus, for example:

They Object, α. That the Spirit is not Eternal, John 7:39, οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, for the Holy Spirit was not yet; and 1 Thessalonians 5:19, τὸ Πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε, quench not the Spirit. Thus the Catechesis Racoviana, de Prophetico Christi munere, chapter VI, question 12, page 213, has it: “That the Holy Spirit is not a Person in the Deity, you are able to learn from this in the first place, that those things that are attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures are suited to a Person in absolutely no manner: …which sometimes is, sometimes is not, and which finally is extinguished, John 7:39; 1 Thessalonians 5:19; etc.” Responses: α. With respect to the former passage, that saying, the Spirit was not yet, 1. is not to be understood simply, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, according to essence, nor according to all operations: with the experience of the ancient Prophets and believers witnessing to the contrary, 1 Peter 1:11; Nehemiah 9:20; Psalm 51:11; 143:10: 2. but with respect to the visible and copious Effusion of the Holy Spirit and His Gifts. b. Now, in the second passage, Paul dehorts them from extinguishing the Spirit, not with repsect to His Person, but His Operations in us and others and the sense of the same: see the Most Illustrious VAN ALPHEN, Commentario on this passage: and compare § 23, the Response to Objection 2.

Johannes a Marck

They Object, β. That the Spirit is not Independent, John 16:14, 15. I Respond with our AUTHOR, that this passage only had regard to the Order of Persons and Internal Operations: while the peculiar Mode of having the Essence through Procession, even from the Son, does not remove His Independence of Essence; compare § 10 above.

They Object, γ. That the Spirit is not Omniscient, Matthew 11:27. I Respond again with our AUTHOR, that the Spirit is not excluded here in this passage, but Creatures only: otherwise, if, on account of the Spirit not being named in this passage, you wish to exclude the same from the Knowledge of the Father and the Son; you could also by the same right elicit from this passage that neither the Father nor the Son know themselves. While the internal Knowledge of God and of those things belonging to God is expressly ascribed to the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11: see § 26.

If you yet suppose that the Holy Spirit is not Omnipresent, on account of those things that are had from Matthew 3:16, I Respond that this Descent is only Emblematic; since elsewhere Descent is ascribed to the Triune God, Genesis 11:7: on the other hand, we have give proof of the Omnipresence of the Spirit above out of Psalm 139:7.

To the many Objections of the Pneumatomachi respond ZANCHI, de Tribus Elohim, second part, book IV, chapter III, columns 509-511; BISTERFELD, de Uno Deo contra Crellium, book I, section III, page 358-492, book II, section III, pages 594-610; LAMPE, chapter V de Spiritu Sancto, § 15-22, 27, 28, Dissertationum philologico-theologicarum, volume II, Disputation V, pages 186-190, 193, 194; PETAVIUS, Dogmatibus theologicis, tome 2, book II, chapter VI, book III, chapters VII, VIII.

1 Comment

Dr. Dilday
Dr. Dilday
Dec 14, 2021

Study the Doctrine of the Trinity in detail with De Moor!

bottom of page