Acts20.com

Jack Hayford, former senior pastor of The Church On The Way in Van Nuys, California and was the fourth President of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, was teaching a series on the Holy Spirit at Gateway Church and stated that - When Jesus became man and took on flesh, he forever limited himself to be in one place at a time, and this is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit - so that the Holy Spirit could be in every believer and everywhere all at the same time.A challenging statement to Orthodox Theology and mainstream Christianity.

It just goes to show just how much diversity of opinion there is in the trinitarian camp. Certainly the physical body of Christ is limited, but his existence goes beyond the physical. There is only one triune God according to trinitarian theology. The attributes of God include omni-presence. He is everywhere at once. When we start saying that those attributes only apply to two of God's subsistences, then we've gone from trinitarianism into tritheism. Furthermore, Paul made it clear that God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts. God in Christ, Christ in us, thus God in us

I have great respect for Jack H. I am sure there is more to this. In all my 'Bible Teachers' that I respect, he rates toward the top Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.

Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.I know that for a fact. But the statement makes no sense. Was there ever a time that the physical body of Jesus was NOT confined to one place? He clearly says it was this limitation of being in one place at a time that caused him to send the Holy Spirit. Again, it is this line of reasoning that trinitarians should reconsider. The fact that God added humanity to his deity does not mean one of his subsistences does not retain an important attribute of being God. If he lost omnipresence, then he is not all-powerful (omnipotent)

Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.I know that for a fact. But the statement makes no sense. Was there ever a time that the physical body of Jesus was NOT confined to one place? He clearly says it was this limitation of being in one place at a time that caused him to send the Holy Spirit. Again, it is this line of reasoning that trinitarians should reconsider. The fact that God added humanity to his deity does not mean one of his subsistences does not retain an important attribute of being God. If he lost omnipresence, then he is not all-powerful (omnipotent). First - as I *recall* the conversation/dialog/setting was that he was discussing the practical implications of John 14:12. Second - I do not know that we will ever be able to fully comprehend/explain the implications of kenosis or perichoresis - and certainly not the intersection of the two. But personally, as I have written here before, I am good with nature and existence of God being beyond my comprehension. As certainly as I believe we serve a God who exists beyond time, space and matter...I also belive I serve a God beyond the scope of human intellect to reduce Him to definable terms (cf. Jeremaih 2:13).Last - I am aware you enjoy the Oneness vs Trinitarian debate - and that is on a shortlist of things I don't bother debating any longer. The previous sentence was not a shot at you or a pejorative remark in any way - just simply an FYI prior to you getting it all cranked up. Seriously, no malice intended whatsoever.

Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.I know that for a fact. But the statement makes no sense. Was there ever a time that the physical body of Jesus was NOT confined to one place? He clearly says it was this limitation of being in one place at a time that caused him to send the Holy Spirit. Again, it is this line of reasoning that trinitarians should reconsider. The fact that God added humanity to his deity does not mean one of his subsistences does not retain an important attribute of being God. If he lost omnipresence, then he is not all-powerful (omnipotent). First - as I *recall* the conversation/dialog/setting was that he was discussing the practical implications of John 14:12. Second - I do not know that we will ever be able to fully comprehend/explain the implications of kenosis or perichoresis - and certainly not the intersection of the two. But personally, as I have written here before, I am good with nature and existence of God being beyond my comprehension. As certainly as I believe we serve a God who exists beyond time, space and matter...I also belive I serve a God beyond the scope of human intellect to reduce Him to definable terms (cf. Jeremaih 2:13).Last - I am aware you enjoy the Oneness vs Trinitarian debate - and that is on a shortlist of things I don't bother debating any longer. The previous sentence was not a shot at you or a pejorative remark in any way - just simply an FYI prior to you getting it all cranked up. Seriously, no malice intended whatsoever. Thanks. My brother I did not take offense, but I want to be clear that I am speaking solely from a trinitarian perspective in this discussion. I use the term subsistences to describe the persons of the trinity, borrowing that term from Dr. James White. Indeed you are correct that this is a complicated issue

Its the mystery of the Godhead ...

Its the mystery of the Godhead, in contrast to the limitation of finite man both in thought and language when it comes to defining an infinite God. Yes, God has revealed Himself in three persons - Father - Son - Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son do not have their own separate Spirits from the Holy Spirit. The resurrected body of Jesus (which is now in heaven) does not serve as a limited container for the Father and the Spirit. Jesus endured the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrect at the will of the Father to whom He prayed. Thank the Good Lord being forgive of our sins and saved from eternal hell can be found in the Name of Jesus. If our salvation depended on theological definitions, I fear we would all be lose and undone.

Yet, some of the more dogmatic say that one's eternal salvation hangs on at least mentally assenting to certain creedal wording, even if there are several different understandings of words themselves. I truly believe that the majority who supported the Nicaean Creed produced at that Council were taking a stand AGAINST Arianism and FOR the deity of Christ more than they were necessarily giving their stamp of approval the actual wording of the creed itself