What biblical texts do Trinitarian scholars cite to argue the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, and how did Armstrong respond to them?
Executive summary
Trinitarian scholars commonly cite New Testament passages that portray Father, Son and Spirit acting distinctly together (Matthew 28:19; the baptism narratives; John 14–16; 2 Corinthians 13:14) and passages that ascribe personal actions to the Spirit (speaking, teaching, grieving) to argue the Holy Spirit is a distinct person [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting on Herbert W. Armstrong shows he rejected the Spirit as a distinct divine person, treating the Spirit as God’s impersonal power or extension and arguing historically that Trinitarian doctrine developed after the Bible [5] [6] [7].
1. How Trinitarians build a case from Scripture: distinct actors, personal verbs
Trinitarian expositors point first to scenes where Father, Son and Spirit are present and distinguishable: the baptism of Jesus (voice from heaven, Spirit descending, and Jesus on earth), the Great Commission’s threefold baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19), and apostolic benedictions such as 2 Corinthians 13:14; these texts are read as naming three distinct divine persons cooperating in the one Godhead [2] [1] [8]. Second, theologians stress that the New Testament attributes personal agency to the Spirit — speaking, teaching, being sent, indwelling, grieving — and notes Jesus’ use of personal pronouns (“He” and “another Helper”) in John 14 and 16 as evidence the Spirit is not merely an impersonal force [4] [3] [8].
2. Key verses Trinitarians cite and why they matter
Matthew 28:19 is treated as a locution that places Father, Son, and Spirit in a single salvific formula, implying distinct centers of personhood within one divine name [1]. The baptism accounts (e.g., Mark/Matthew/John synoptic parallels) provide a concrete tableau where three apparently distinct realities are simultaneously present and acting [2] [4]. John 14–16 is used to show the Spirit’s mission, teaching role, and relation to the Father and Son — language trinitarians say points to personhood and interpersonal relations [3] [8]. Scholars also point to Pauline and Petrine texts (e.g., 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4–6; 1 Peter 1:2) where threefold language frames the economy of salvation [9] [10].
3. The theological move from biblical data to “personhood”
Academic and popular Trinitarian writing argues that attributing will, speech, teaching, and relational sending to the Spirit entails personhood; the Spirit’s actions that only a person can perform (comforting, teaching, being grieved) are taken as decisive [11] [4]. Philosophical overviews show the move from descriptive biblical patterns to the technical claim “three persons, one essence” developed in the Patristic era and later theological reflection [10] [12].
4. How Herbert W. Armstrong answered those Trinitarian texts
Available sources show Armstrong rejected the classical Trinitarian conclusion. He and later “Armstrongist” writers denied that the Holy Spirit is a co‑equal divine person, instead describing the Spirit as God’s impersonal power or extension and asserting that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine was largely a post‑biblical development adopted centuries after the New Testament [5] [7]. Critics of Armstrong say he relied on polemical history and conspiratorial rhetoric while misrepresenting the scholarly development of the doctrine [6].
5. Points of contention and where sources disagree
Mainline and conservative Trinitarian sources present the same set of biblical passages as coherent evidence for a distinct Spirit-person and emphasize the Spirit’s personal actions and the threefold New Testament patterns [3] [8]. Armstrongist and nontrinitarian accounts stress discontinuity: they argue the tri‑personal doctrine crystallized later and that some biblical language can be read non‑personally [7] [13]. Scholarly overviews (Stanford, IEP) acknowledge interpretive openness — that the NT contains patterns Trinitarians find decisive but that the formal doctrine is a theological development [10] [14].
6. What to watch for when weighing the arguments
Assessors should separate two moves: the empirical claim about what specific NT texts say (presence, actions, pronouns, benedictions) — material well documented by Trinitarian writers [2] [4]; and the theological synthesis that labels the Spirit “a distinct divine person” within a one‑essence God — a development traced in patristic history and debated by historians and philosophers [10] [15]. Critics of Armstrong say he downplays the continuity between NT data and later doctrinal reflection and uses ad hominem historical claims; defenders of nontrinitarian readings emphasize remaining exegetical options and theological caution [6] [7].
Limitations: this summary relies on the supplied reports and apologetic pieces; available sources do not mention specific page‑by‑page rebuttals Armstrong wrote to each NT passage cited by Trinitarians beyond his general arguments that the Spirit is impersonal and the Trinity is post‑biblical [5] [6].