Skip to content

podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2

Play

Holy Spirit DoveIn this episode Sean and I continue our discussion of “the Holy Spirit” in the New Testament, covering such topics as how “the Spirit” relates to worship and prayer in the New Testament, the eternal trinitarian “dance” discussed in recent trinitarian literature, the threefold baptismal formula, and “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”

Some relevant links:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 thoughts on “podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2”

  1. The fact is that we don’t have papyri of gospel of Matthew that contained chapter 28 dating prior to 4th century CE. So if any change which occurred before that, we will not know from the currently available manuscripts. On the other hand, we have documents of Eusebius of Caesarea who lived in 4th century quoting Matthew 28:19 multiple times as “Therefore go and make disciple of all nations, baptizing in my name’. This makes perfect sense with rest of passage and corresponds well with similar readings in Acts where apostles ask to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

    The earliest document of Didache available is dated only to 11th century and was found in Christian monasteries. I agree that content of the material for the most part seems Jewish material with no semblance to early or later Christian theology. Hence there is always a possibility that it was originally a Jewish work used by some Jewish sects in first century which later came into the hands of Christians who modified and interpolated it to their daily use.

  2. Douglas
    Surely God judges us by what is on our hearts – not by our unwitting blunders?

    Is it possible that your approach here is too ‘literal’ ?

    In John Chapter 16,25 Christ himself admitted that he had been talking figuratively – and that he would soon speak to them in clear language

    Fear not!

    John

  3. Douglas,

    Dale and I have different theological perspectives, but there are a great many issues with which I agree with him on; issues that seem to me to benefit from the preponderance of evidence, as well as a natural and philosophically unencumbered reading of Scripture.

    If I may, I’d like to briefly comment on your concerns about the blasphemy against the spirit – especially since this is a worry that many folk have had due to lingering doubts about their past or a pervasive present anxiety over not feeling as though they can voluntarily conform to established church traditions or creedal confessions.

    In keeping with what Sean and Dale both mentioned concerning Christ’s opponents, the sin against the spirit appears to result from a bedarkened heart and a beknighted mind; a tenaciously held corrupt attitude concerning God and his goodness that culminates in a pattern of open and wilful vilification. Therefore, let me just say up front that if you’re genuinely worried about displeasing God and fearful of the consequences then you’re disposition is exactly the opposite to that of most of the religious leaders in Jesus’ day. We have good reason to think that if anyone is disposed to the former then they aren’t judged as to the latter.

    I sincerely hope that you will keep searching, only without the unnecessary trepidation of thinking that a vengeful and maddened God might have erected a tent for you in the Valley of Hinnom simply for asking questions and wanting to get to know him better.

    Take care,

    Nathan

  4. Thanks for the reply. The blasphmey thing really bothers me, precisely because it’s so vague, and if the New Testament is to be believed, so final. It’s terrifying to think that one could commit an unpardonable sin… and thus be damned… without knowing for sure just what qualifes as an unpardonable sin. And while I understand your argument that still doesn’t really clear it up for me. Some people say it’s blaspheming the Spirit as an indivdual person. And I still don’t understand how you could blaspheme God as a person and be forgiven, but not be forgiven for blaspheming his works. Guess I’ll just have to ponder this one some more. But as I said, nothing else truly scares me about theology other than this. The thought that I could be forgiven for murder, but not this kind blasphemy (whater that is, to add further anxiety) is disturbing to say the least.

  5. Douglas – thanks for the comments. Glad to have you listening!

    About Mt 28, I was persuaded by Sean’s arguments, which we didn’t really get into much in our little talk: http://www.livingfaithri.org/docs/baptismmatthew28.pdf

    “how could you possibly blaspheme it in the first place” The idea is that that to blaspheme it is to blaspheme God himself. You’re directly slandering him, attributing his acts to demons.

    I do think the Didache is early, though not literally by the 12 apostles. Ehrman says 100-120. Holmes says 150 or later, at least for the final edit. All I can say is that its content seems prior to the logos theology of the 2nd half of the 100s. I’m not aware of variant versions of the Didache… perhaps you mean in some patristic quotation? There is only one full text, finally discovered in 1873.

    As Sean mentions, the document seems to mix very primitive stuff with more developed concerns, like the mandated fasting on Wed and Fri, the overall concern with ritual, the command to pray the Lord’s prayer (with the extra bits at the end) three times a day. These things make me think: not first century, despite the concern with apostles and prophets. It is just not clear how late those operated.

    Here’s a theory: in late 2nd or early 3rd c., someone is concerned to re-assert apostolic Christianity as against some rivals, or creeping moral corruption. So, using what he knows are some older materials, and affecting an older style, he writes an “apostolic” church manual, which he thinks captures the spirit of apostolic Christianity, but which in fact anachronistically contains rules from the catholic mainstream of his own day.

  6. Oh, and as an addendum, concerning the Didache, from what I’ve read, it’s always had its controversy too. I know I lose points for citing Wikipedia here, but the article on the Didache notes that many early church fathers didn’t consider it authentic, and while some wanted it as canon, obviously it didn’t make it into our modern Bible. He must have had doubts too. The article also notes that the earliest versions had “In the name of the Lord”, with Trinitarian language added later. Thoughts?

  7. These are my first comments, but I’ve been listening to the podcast since the beginning. A bit of background: I’ve also been on a years-long theology quest to try and figure just what doctrines to believe. I’ve tried to look at both Unitarian and Trinitarian sides, but of late, the Unitarian seems to make more sense. But not always (as I’ll illustrate).Sean and Sir Anthony’s podcasts and writings have been invaluable. I listed to all of Sean’s Truth Matters podcasts many of the sessions from some of the Biblical Unitarian gatherings from past years as well. I would describe my current state of belief as Arian (not Socinian), but I’m still open to be swayed.

    There’s a lot of cover and talk about, but to keep it short and sweet for now, I’ll just address two subjects from this podcast.

    1 – The Trinitarian formula from Matthew 28:19. Sean states flat out that it’s solid scripture. What of Eusebias’ account of a different, Jesus-only version in his church histories (“Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my name”… no mention of a Trinity)? The man did, after all, have his own, much more recent copy of Matthew in his own library and was reading from it, as well as from libraries current to his time. Since we have definitive proof that the some New Testament books have been changed over the years, I’d be a little hesitant to say 28:19 is the real deal. Is there a reason Eusebias would lie about what was in his copy of Matthew? Consider also that in every other instance of a New Testament baptismal formula, the formula is always in the name of Jesus alone, not the Trinitarian formula. Would the Apostles intentionally disobey their risen Lord in this matter? Seems like too much of a coincidence to ignore. This isn’t conspiracy mongering. This is good reason for doubt.

    2 – In the pro-Trinitarian side of the argument, as much as evidence for the Trinity is circumstantial at best going by the text, one thing that bothers me is the Holy Spirt blasphemy aspect that you mentioned. If the Holy Spirit is indeed just God’s power in action, and not a person, how could you possibly blaspheme it in the first place? How could you be forgiven for blaspheming God, but not be forgiven for blaspheming his power or an aspect of him? That really doesn’t make much sense unless the Holy Spirit is indeed a person. This is one of the few really stout arguments for Holy Spirit personhood that have occurred to me.

Comments are closed.