A poster on the BGreek Forum wrote:
...A very clear intimation of the personality of the Holy Spirit is in 1 Cor 12:11: "all these works the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will." You cannot say this of an influence, because it is said he works and he is willing...
Look also at:
Acts 8:29 And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit
said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have
called them." ... 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to
Seleucia...
Acts 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having
been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they
had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit
of Jesus did not allow them;
Acts 20:23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that
imprisonment and afflictions await me.
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy
Spirit has made you overseers ...
IMHO it's a very poor thought to deny that the Holy Spirit is seen as a
person (that is: something acting with own will and energy) in this
scripture references. I dont deny that it MIGHT be possible to interpret
these scriptures in another way. But in Germany we call such an exegesis
"gezwungen" (forced). It's not probable.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-12/22018.html
Let's take a closer look at some of the passages he cited.
And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot" (Acts 8:29.)
If this passage doesn't imply the personality of The Spirit, the writer chose to personify an indirect reference to God Himself.
Why not simply say "And God said to Philip"?
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2.)
Again, an indirect reference to God Himself is personified, when it would have been just as accurate (and far more natural) to say "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, He said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them"
(As Darroll Evans pointed out, "the call here does not come from the Father or the Son. Instead, it comes from the Holy Spirit. If we consider the source of that call, the Holy Spirit must, of necessity, be part of the Godhead.")
And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. (Acts 16:6.)
Again, an indirect reference to God Himself is personified, when it would have been just as accurate to say "having been forbidden by God."
I could go on, but is it not strange that a distinction should be made between God Himself (whom we're told "IS SPIRIT," and of whom it's said "no man has ever seen, or can see") and some invisible quality?
If only the Father is God absolute, and He Himself is invisible, why is this invisible force repeatedly spoken of as distinct from Him (and why is it then personified)?
Is not such an interpretation (at the very least) forced and improbable?
Can any Modelist, or Arian really answer these questions?
As to the Spirit's relationship to the other Persons of the Trinity, He proceeds from Father and the Son.
Notice John 15 verse 26:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me (King James.)
The future tense is not used here, and the K.J.V. got the tense right!
The Greek is in the present, middle indicative, 3rd person singular (and this was spoken before Pentecost!)
As Gregory of Nyssa wrote:
While we confess the invariableness of the [Divine] Nature we do not deny the distinction of cause and of caused, by which alone we perceive that one Person is distinguished from another, in our belief that it is one thing to be the cause and another to be from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction. It is one thing to be directly from the First Cause, and another to be through Him who is directly from the First, so the distinction of being Only-begotten abides undoubtedly in the Son, nor is it doubted that the Spirit is from the Father; for the middle position of the Son is protective of His distinction as Only-begotten, but does not exclude the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father.
And St. Athanasius:
Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son.
Some point to the fact that Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and say that if the Spirit were a person, He would be Christ's only Father. This argument is as old as it is fallacious. In answer, Gregory of Nyssa said that what God does, He does through the Word and the Spirit.
God The Father willed the incarnation, The Holy Spirit (proceeding from the Father, and doing His will) created a zygote from the genetic meterial provided by Mary, and God the Son somehow joined Himself to that tiny zygote (growing to become an embryo, and then a fetus, and finally being born as our Savior--fully God and fully man.)
That's called the miracle of the incarnation, and it involved all three members of the Godhead.
As Paul said:
...without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. (1 Tim. 3:16.)
Return Home