My response is No! It is not explicitly taught in scripture. It is implied.
I want to make this very clear. I fully believe that the Holy Spirit is God. But I believe this because the Catholic Church teaches so, and I believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. But without the Church, I can understand a reasonable person looking at the Bible and not seeing the Holy Spirit as God. So my issue is not with this doctrine, but how my fellow Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ arrive at this doctrine – through the Bible alone.
I recently had a debate on this issue. Unfortunately, my opponent only chose to use the first passage. But I was prepared to argue for the other passage. Below are passages that are usually presented to prove that the scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is God. I respond by showing an alternative interpretation.
The first thing that I notice, is that this passage is not actually teaching that the Holy Spirit is God. It may be implied, and it may even be strongly implied, but that is not what this passage assertively teaches. But it is still only an implication. This passage does not actually assert that the Holy Spirit. This has to be arrived by deduction. But am I sure we will cover more later on the difference between an explicit assertion and an implication in the next round.
But even if an implication was valid, I am not so sure it can even be said that the passage strongly implies that the Holy Spirit is God. I can see how a reasonable person can disagree with the premise that since Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and that he lied to God in verse 4, that the Holy Spirit must be God. That seems to me to be a non sequitur.
In the previous verses, it says that Ananias and Sapphira deceived the apostles. Also in verse 8, it shows Sapphira lying to the Peter. They had the intention of lying to the apostles. So from this chapter, we see that Ananias and Sapphira to three persons – they lied to the apostles, they lied to the Holy Spirit, and they lied to God.
Now, if we use the logic that since they lied to the Holy Spirit and they lied to God, then the Holy Spirit must be God, then we would have to be consistent and say that since they lied to the apostles and they lied to God, then the apostles must be God as well! I don’t think that anyone here wants to make the conclusion that the apostles are God! So the logic does not hold.
There is an alternative interpretation that is just as reasonable, if not more reasonable, that avoids the conclusion that the apostles and the Holy Spirit must be God. It could be, just based on this text, that the Holy Spirit serves as a messenger of God, and to lie to God’s messenger is to lie to God, since the Holy Spirit would be a representative of God. The same could then also be said of the apostles. Since the apostles are ultimately representatives of God, to lie to the apostles is to lie to the One they represented. In the same way, Holy Spirit was sent by God (“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” John 14:16; “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things John 14:26). And then the Holy Spirit sends out (“And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” Acts 13:2). So to lie to the apostles is to lie to the Holy Spirit. And to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God. To say this proves that the Holy Spirit is God makes as much sense as saying that this prove that the apostles are the Holy Spirit, and God as well.
There is another example from the very same writer to show what I am arguing.
The passage is about the conversion of Saul (later know as Paul). In verse three, it says “Saul was breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord”. But in verse 4, the Lord says “why are your persecuting ME”. So in one verse it says that Saul was persecuting the disciples. In another verse it says that Saul is persecuting Christ. Should we conclude from this then, that the disciples are Christ in the same way that the Holy Spirit is God! I hope that no one here would hold to that type of New Age thinking – that we are Christ!
It is true that when we become Christians we are united to Christ. We are in Christ and Christ is in us. But we still remain beings distinct from Christ. Christ may identify with us strongly, so that he who persecutes us persecutes Christ. But we never ARE Christ. In the same way, the most that Acts 5 can say it that there is a strong union between the Holy Spirit and God, so that what we do to the Holy Spirit we do to God. But it does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is equated with God.
Here is another verse:
"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Luke 10:16
Here, our Lord Jesus says to His disciples that he who hears them hears the Lord, and he who rejects the disciples rejects the Lord. So hearing and rejecting the disciples is equal to hearing and rejecting the Lord. Should we conclude then that the disciples of Christ are the same as Christ? If not, why should we then conclude that lying to the Holy Spirit and lying to God means that the Holy Spirit is God?
This fits in to what I wrote earlier – what you do to one’s representative is the same as doing that to the person who sent him. To illustrate this suppose country A insults an ambassador from country B. Country B would get upset, because Country A is insulting Country B by insulting its ambassador. This is because the ambassador is a representative of the country that sent him. The ambassador is not the same as Country B, but since he was sent from Country B, he presents Country B.
What we do to one who is a representative of God is the same as doing it to God. To reject the apostles is to reject the One who sent them. To lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to the One who sent him.
Acts 5 does not prove that the Holy Spirit is God. It only shows that lying to the apostles and to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God. It could very well be because the apostles and the Holy Spirit have been sent by God, and so they represent God.
In my humble opinion, your quoting of Protestant scholar does not bear much weight to this debate. Of course Protestant who believe in sola scriptura would see this verse as supporting a dogma believed by most Christians. I would not expect anything other than that.
They must find this dogma in the scriptures or else either sola scripture of this dogma is discredited.
So my argument is first twofold:
1. This passage at its best only implies that the Holy Spirit is God. It does not pass the muster of being a passage that explicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God.
2. Even as an implication, it can just as easily imply that lying to the apostles is the same as lying to the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is the one who sent them, and lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God since God is the One who sent the Holy Spirit. In fact, I think this is a better interpretation.
I hope my opponent is not resting his whole argument on this passage alone. There are other passages as well, some of them I think are even better than this passage. I noticed in the peanut gallery some other scripture verses were cited that I think would be interesting to look at. It would be unfortunate to pin a dogma embraced by so many Christians on just one passage
To Be Continued ...
I want to make this very clear. I fully believe that the Holy Spirit is God. But I believe this because the Catholic Church teaches so, and I believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. But without the Church, I can understand a reasonable person looking at the Bible and not seeing the Holy Spirit as God. So my issue is not with this doctrine, but how my fellow Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ arrive at this doctrine – through the Bible alone.
I recently had a debate on this issue. Unfortunately, my opponent only chose to use the first passage. But I was prepared to argue for the other passage. Below are passages that are usually presented to prove that the scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is God. I respond by showing an alternative interpretation.
The first thing that I notice, is that this passage is not actually teaching that the Holy Spirit is God. It may be implied, and it may even be strongly implied, but that is not what this passage assertively teaches. But it is still only an implication. This passage does not actually assert that the Holy Spirit. This has to be arrived by deduction. But am I sure we will cover more later on the difference between an explicit assertion and an implication in the next round.
But even if an implication was valid, I am not so sure it can even be said that the passage strongly implies that the Holy Spirit is God. I can see how a reasonable person can disagree with the premise that since Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and that he lied to God in verse 4, that the Holy Spirit must be God. That seems to me to be a non sequitur.
In the previous verses, it says that Ananias and Sapphira deceived the apostles. Also in verse 8, it shows Sapphira lying to the Peter. They had the intention of lying to the apostles. So from this chapter, we see that Ananias and Sapphira to three persons – they lied to the apostles, they lied to the Holy Spirit, and they lied to God.
Now, if we use the logic that since they lied to the Holy Spirit and they lied to God, then the Holy Spirit must be God, then we would have to be consistent and say that since they lied to the apostles and they lied to God, then the apostles must be God as well! I don’t think that anyone here wants to make the conclusion that the apostles are God! So the logic does not hold.
There is an alternative interpretation that is just as reasonable, if not more reasonable, that avoids the conclusion that the apostles and the Holy Spirit must be God. It could be, just based on this text, that the Holy Spirit serves as a messenger of God, and to lie to God’s messenger is to lie to God, since the Holy Spirit would be a representative of God. The same could then also be said of the apostles. Since the apostles are ultimately representatives of God, to lie to the apostles is to lie to the One they represented. In the same way, Holy Spirit was sent by God (“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” John 14:16; “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things John 14:26). And then the Holy Spirit sends out (“And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” Acts 13:2). So to lie to the apostles is to lie to the Holy Spirit. And to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God. To say this proves that the Holy Spirit is God makes as much sense as saying that this prove that the apostles are the Holy Spirit, and God as well.
There is another example from the very same writer to show what I am arguing.
The passage is about the conversion of Saul (later know as Paul). In verse three, it says “Saul was breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord”. But in verse 4, the Lord says “why are your persecuting ME”. So in one verse it says that Saul was persecuting the disciples. In another verse it says that Saul is persecuting Christ. Should we conclude from this then, that the disciples are Christ in the same way that the Holy Spirit is God! I hope that no one here would hold to that type of New Age thinking – that we are Christ!
It is true that when we become Christians we are united to Christ. We are in Christ and Christ is in us. But we still remain beings distinct from Christ. Christ may identify with us strongly, so that he who persecutes us persecutes Christ. But we never ARE Christ. In the same way, the most that Acts 5 can say it that there is a strong union between the Holy Spirit and God, so that what we do to the Holy Spirit we do to God. But it does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is equated with God.
Here is another verse:
"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Luke 10:16
Here, our Lord Jesus says to His disciples that he who hears them hears the Lord, and he who rejects the disciples rejects the Lord. So hearing and rejecting the disciples is equal to hearing and rejecting the Lord. Should we conclude then that the disciples of Christ are the same as Christ? If not, why should we then conclude that lying to the Holy Spirit and lying to God means that the Holy Spirit is God?
This fits in to what I wrote earlier – what you do to one’s representative is the same as doing that to the person who sent him. To illustrate this suppose country A insults an ambassador from country B. Country B would get upset, because Country A is insulting Country B by insulting its ambassador. This is because the ambassador is a representative of the country that sent him. The ambassador is not the same as Country B, but since he was sent from Country B, he presents Country B.
What we do to one who is a representative of God is the same as doing it to God. To reject the apostles is to reject the One who sent them. To lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to the One who sent him.
Acts 5 does not prove that the Holy Spirit is God. It only shows that lying to the apostles and to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God. It could very well be because the apostles and the Holy Spirit have been sent by God, and so they represent God.
In my humble opinion, your quoting of Protestant scholar does not bear much weight to this debate. Of course Protestant who believe in sola scriptura would see this verse as supporting a dogma believed by most Christians. I would not expect anything other than that.
They must find this dogma in the scriptures or else either sola scripture of this dogma is discredited.
So my argument is first twofold:
1. This passage at its best only implies that the Holy Spirit is God. It does not pass the muster of being a passage that explicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God.
2. Even as an implication, it can just as easily imply that lying to the apostles is the same as lying to the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is the one who sent them, and lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God since God is the One who sent the Holy Spirit. In fact, I think this is a better interpretation.
I hope my opponent is not resting his whole argument on this passage alone. There are other passages as well, some of them I think are even better than this passage. I noticed in the peanut gallery some other scripture verses were cited that I think would be interesting to look at. It would be unfortunate to pin a dogma embraced by so many Christians on just one passage
To Be Continued ...
