Trinity

[Maureen]

This is really strange because this is what I actually used to think 'Trinity' was all about. I remember long ago a Pentecostal friend of mine asking me if LDS believed in the Trinity. This was long before I joined the church and my reply was in the affirmative because I had learned of the LDS belief in 3 separate beings which was what I believed and thought was meant by Trinity (like trio) but the Catholic priest told me that belief was heresy.

The problem can be the words that are used that set a different picture. As Jason_J has pointed out there is a difference in the Trinity explanation between the words "being" and "person". For example if you said "3 separate persons" than there's a better chance the priest would have agreed with you. But in choosing the word "being" it can give it a whole different meaning. "Being" equates to "nature" which always means "divine" when referring to God. Since there is only one God, and since only God is divine, it is established that the "3 persons" are also divine, which means, since there is only one who is divine, these "3 persons" are one God.

I've probably made the understanding of the Trinity worse but it really is quite simple once when you've established that there is only one God, it all falls into place - IMO.

M.

[Faded]

The problem can be the words that are used that set a different picture. As Jason_J has pointed out there is a difference in the Trinity explanation between the words "being" and "person". For example if you said "3 separate persons" than there's a better chance the priest would have agreed with you. But in choosing the word "being" it can give it a whole different meaning. "Being" equates to "nature" which always means "divine" when referring to God. Since there is only one God, and since only God is divine, it is established that the "3 persons" are also divine, which means, since there is only one who is divine, these "3 persons" are one God.

I've probably made the understanding of the Trinity worse but it really is quite simple once when you've established that there is only one God, it all falls into place - IMO.

M.

I think perhaps it is simple as long as you say, "There is one being that is God. There are three persons contained in God." and then don't ask any questions nor try to think too much about it beyond that.

But the whole model gets awfully complicated when you start asking questions like, "How does that work exactly?"

Comes back to the point I made before: Teaching the Trinity in such a manner that it is well understood is an extremely difficult task. People inevitably try to comprehend and understand it better. They ask questions. "It's all a big mystery," doesn't necessarily placate natural human curiosity.

One obvious trouble is that everyday people have never encountered anything like what the Trinity is described to be: One thing that is three things, but one thing at the same time. Everyday people out there have never actually met somebody who was interlinked into a three-person singular entity. So it's quite natural that they're going to struggle.

[pyxiwulf]

The Trinity: The belief that there are three distinct, Divine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are of the same divine nature, making them one God (since they are of the same one divine nature).

Now you know what the Trinity is.

heh, nope, still don't, but don't worry about me, I long ago lost interest in understanding it

[bytebear]

I think perhaps it is simple as long as you say, "There is one being that is God. There are three persons contained in God." and then don't ask any questions nor try to think too much about it beyond that.

I think that fits with both Trintiarian and LDS belief, although LDS may say God is a state of being, rather than an actual being. but again that term "being" really seems to be the mystery that I can't grasp. How can a being contain 3 persons?

[prisonchaplain]

Jewish scholars in turn tend to view the Trinity as thinly veiled polytheism. I do find it interesting that in conversation with Jewish thinkers and other Unitarianists, defenders of the Trinity sound a lot like Latter Day Saints defending the Godhead. It's one of many aspects of the debate that makes me feel that at the most basic level, we're not all that different after all.

No doubt. Trinitarianism is rejected as polytheism by both Jews and Muslims. Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians and Modalists too, I'd imagine. From their perspective, it makes sense. I'd even admit we certainly do stretch the boundaries of monotheism. And, from the trinitarian perspective, it is the LDS willingness to say the Godhead is compromised of multiple Gods, or God-substances, that crosses the line. Some LDS scholars admit this. I believe it's Stephen Robinson (BYU), in his book co-written with an evangelical professor, who says LDS theology is best described as henotheism (the belief that there are multiple Gods, but that only one gets our particular adoration).

[bytebear]

I disagree with the polytheism and henotheism labels(in all the cases you mentioned, LDS, Catholic, protestant, etc.) for the simple fact that in all the concepts above, the "gods" are not competing, warring, and worshiped separately. It is not like you are choosing Hera over Zeus or Odin vs. Thor. They are one, and they are God. So if their unity makes them a being, and makes the worship of that being monotheistic, then I am good with it.

[Faded]

I think it's worth including (since various forms and opinions on monotheism keep coming up):

Wikipedia Article on Monotheism:

Some argue that there are various forms of monotheism, including:

* Henotheism involves devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of other gods. Similarly, monolatrism is the worship of a single deity independent of the ontological claims regarding that deity.

* Deism posits the existence of a single god, or the Designer of the designs in Nature. Some Deists believe in an impersonal god that does not intervene in the world while other Deists believe in intervention through Providence.

* Monistic Theism is the type of monotheism found in Hinduism, encompassing pantheistic and panentheistic monism, and at the same time the concept of a personal god.

* Pantheism holds that the universe itself is God. The existence of a transcendent supreme extraneous to nature is denied.

* Panentheism, is a form of monistic monotheism which holds that God is all of existence, containing, but not identical to, the Universe. The 'one God' is omnipotent and all-pervading, the universe is part of God, and God is both immanent and transcendent.

* Substance monotheism, found in some indigenous African religions, holds that the many gods are different forms of a single underlying substance.

* Trinitarian monotheism is the belief in one God who is three distinct persons; God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit.

Obviously there are many versions of monotheism, depending on one's own opinion of what the word truly means. If you were to make the claim that Henotheism is not also Monotheism, then there are going to be those who will disagree with that supposition.

[prisonchaplain]

I disagree with the polytheism and henotheism labels(in all the cases you mentioned, LDS, Catholic, protestant, etc.) for the simple fact that in all the concepts above, the "gods" are not competing, warring, and worshiped separately. It is not like you are choosing Hera over Zeus or Odin vs. Thor. They are one, and they are God. So if their unity makes them a being, and makes the worship of that being monotheistic, then I am good with it.

But henotheism doesn't imply competing gods. That's the whole point. In the LDS understanding, the gods do not compete with each other at all, apparently. However, even the belief that there are other gods...that itself is an apparent renunciation of monotheism. Monotheism means a belief that there is only one God. Henotheism is the worship of only one God, in spite of others existing. So why doesn't that apply?

[Faded]

But henotheism doesn't imply competing gods. That's the whole point. In the LDS understanding, the gods do not compete with each other at all, apparently. However, even the belief that there are other gods...that itself is an apparent renunciation of monotheism. Monotheism means a belief that there is only one God. Henotheism is the worship of only one God, in spite of others existing. So why doesn't that apply?

"Henotheism -- the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods"

"Henotheism involves devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of other gods. Similarly, monolatrism is the worship of a single deity independent of the ontological claims regarding that deity."

Yeah it fits. It's also considered a form of monotheism. I guess it just depends upon how you define monotheism. Opinions vary greatly on the matter, as I already pointed out.

Hindus have 30,000+ gods, but many are technically monotheists because they believe all 30,000+ to all be part of Brahmam. Most Christians would say Hinduism is highly polytheistic.

[Jason_J]

This is really strange because this is what I actually used to think 'Trinity' was all about. I remember long ago a Pentecostal friend of mine asking me if LDS believed in the Trinity. This was long before I joined the church and my reply was in the affirmative because I had learned of the LDS belief in 3 separate beings which was what I believed and thought was meant by Trinity (like trio) but the Catholic priest told me that belief was heresy.

As already mentioned, one need to understand the meaning of the words being used, especially because the Trinity doctrine is over 1000 years old, and therefore:

-1) it wasn't formulated by English speaking people

-2) the words being used by us are translations (and translations of translations)

Therefore, it is always helpful to go back to the Greek and Latin and learn what those words mean. The most important word to understand is "being". An LDS person would have no problem saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings (or use "person/personage" interchangeably with "being"), because they are using that word ("being") in its modern usage, where "being" is used interchangeably with "person" (i.e. human being=human person).

This is not possible with the Trinity. A Trinitarian would have no problem with someone saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, but they would never say that they are three beings, because of what the word "being" means in its original context. The word translated as "being" in reference to the Trinity comes from the Greek word "ousia", which means "essence, being, nature". As you can see, it has nothing to do with "person", and cannot be used interchangeably with "person". Instead of saying "being", the word "substance" is also used. Substance is a translation of the word "substantia" from Latin, which in turn is a translation of the Greek "ousia".

So that is it. You have to remember that Trinitarians are not using the word "being" in its current meaning or usage (where it is used interchangeably with "person"), but the way that it was used over 1000 years ago when the Trinity doctrine came around, when the Greek word "ousia" was being used, and it was referring to the essence or nature of something. This is extremely important if one wants to understand what the Trinity is actually talking about.

[Jason_J]

I think perhaps it is simple as long as you say, "There is one being that is God. There are three persons contained in God." and then don't ask any questions nor try to think too much about it beyond that.

But the whole model gets awfully complicated when you start asking questions like, "How does that work exactly?"

Comes back to the point I made before: Teaching the Trinity in such a manner that it is well understood is an extremely difficult task. People inevitably try to comprehend and understand it better. They ask questions. "It's all a big mystery," doesn't necessarily placate natural human curiosity.

One obvious trouble is that everyday people have never encountered anything like what the Trinity is described to be: One thing that is three things, but one thing at the same time. Everyday people out there have never actually met somebody who was interlinked into a three-person singular entity. So it's quite natural that they're going to struggle.

The problem is that the Trinity is using a word, "being", in a way that it is not currently being used in everyday language. It is carrying the meaning that was in use (Greek "ousia") when the Trinity doctrine was formulated. So, when people get confused by the Trinity, 9/10 times it is because they are thinking of the word "being" as it is used today, interchangeably with person. "Being" is actually a very important word in philosophy.

I also think that it is important to realize that in the Trinity, the way in which the Persons are three is not the same way that they are one. What makes them three is not what makes them one. So saying that there are three things that are one thing isn't too helpful, because it doesn't say what makes them three, and what makes them one. Again, Personhood is not the same as Being (ousia) in Trinitarian speak.

[Guest]

The soul gives man his personality, self-awareness, rationality, his conscious and subconscious minds, a range of emotions and his will.

Okay, and what is his spirit?

[Guest]

heh, nope, still don't, but don't worry about me, I long ago lost interest in understanding it

Hey, I was devout Catholic for 30 years before becoming LDS and nope, I don't get the Trinity either.

So, yeah, Jason, you are trying your very best to make it simple, but it is only simple in sentences. The copper analogy was pretty good. But, hah, it still doesn't make sense. There is a reason the Catholics call it a Mystery, ya know. Because, if you REALLY think about it - it doesn't make sense. Because when you say being, what exactly is that? What substance is that exactly? Like you, me, and Irene, for example - we are all 3 persons, yet we are one substance - dust. It is easy to understand dust. Yet even dust falls short in trying to grasp the source of the spirit within us. The God substance is a mystery. It is such a mystery that it took council after council to try to define it.

It only makes sense if you don't dig. But after 3rd grade of Catholic school, we really start to get curious and our questions become harder and trickier. You know what the nuns in school always say? They always come back to St. Augustine and the boy digging a hole... they tell me the Trinity is unfathomable and it is pointless to try to understand it. So, like Pixy, I stopped asking.

So, I'm LDS now. And I have a pretty good grasp of what God is now. Okay, so you Trinitarians would say, yeah, easy but wrong... oh well. I can't convince you my understanding of God is the right one. It took me a while to get there and I'm fairly sure it is all a journey especially made just for me. It will be a different journey for you, so my explanations will fall short.

The thing that made me embrace LDS doctrine is I finally feel that I can know God. That I do know Him. Not just Jesus, the Christ. But God the Father, especially. Looking back at my Catholic years (I will always be grateful for the Catholic nuns for their teachings. I love them and I will always look at those years of my life fondly), I feel that it shouldn't be a mystery. God is what it is all about. It would be such a tragedy if we are given all the rich doctrines and all the scriptures and all the prophetic guidance, the Atonement of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, yet the one thing that drives all of it is not intended to be understood - that it remains a mystery.

People always try to pigeon-hole it into a label - polytheism, henotheism, whatevereism. I really don't care what -ism it is. I understand it well enough without it having a name. So, even within the LDS membership you can ask, are you monotheists? I will bet you my last dollar you will have different answers to that - or even if you find 5 people who say, Yes, we are monotheists, you will probably get at least 2 different reasoning why they say so. It is easier to understand God - the LDS way - than it is to understand how it fits to the label "monotheism".

But I'd rather it be a mystery on what word to use to describe it perfectly, than for the entire God concept to be the mystery, know what I'm saying?

Just my 2 cents worth, of course.

Edited February 7, 2010 by anatess

[WillowTheWhisp]

I understand that Anatess as it partly relates to my own experience too.

I do understand what you are saying Jason but that is a scholarly argument and I'm not sure people who are taught to believe in the Trinity realise that is what they are supposed to believe. I know I didn't.

Of course in Catholicism it gets more complicated too because you have different 'manifestations' Jesus Christ such as 'The Sacred Heart' and different manifestations of Mary such as 'Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrows' and 'Our Lady of Lourdes'. You might have several different representative statues of Mary and pray to whichever one was relevant to your particular petition - almost as if she was several different people. But is God like that? We were told no.

[Jason_J]

I understand that Anatess as it partly relates to my own experience too.

I do understand what you are saying Jason but that is a scholarly argument and I'm not sure people who are taught to believe in the Trinity realise that is what they are supposed to believe. I know I didn't.

I agree, that's the problem when many people attempt to describe the Trinity. Unfortunately that's one of the consequences of using a word, "being", in the way it was used when the Trinity doctrine was formulated, and not its common usage today, over a millennium later.

Of course in Catholicism it gets more complicated too because you have different 'manifestations' Jesus Christ such as 'The Sacred Heart' and different manifestations of Mary such as 'Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrows' and 'Our Lady of Lourdes'. You might have several different representative statues of Mary and pray to whichever one was relevant to your particular petition - almost as if she was several different people. But is God like that? We were told no.

None of those are relevant to the nature of the Trinity. Those are apparitions and/or devotions based on someone's personal revelations.

The different statues and icons one finds of Mary, for example, are not "different people", but the different ways she supposedly has appeared to different people, or ways to emphasize certain characteristics of her. Same with Jesus Christ. It is not that there are different Jesuses or Marys. Also, just an fyi for everyone, Catholics do not pray to statues or icons. That would be idolatry. I'm sure you know that, but I don't want anyone to misunderstand your words. :)

[Jason_J]

Actually, now that I think about it, that's pretty much the point that's extremely important in all Trinity discussions that I like to emphasize: that the Trinity doctrine uses a word, "being", in a completely different way than it is used today. The word "being" in the Trinity doctrine is the English translation of the Greek word "ousia", which means "essence, being, nature". The Trinity doctrine was not formulated in an English speaking world, therefore it is important to realize why the word has a precise meaning within the context of the Trinity doctrine. Whether one knows this is not a problem with the Trinity doctrine itself, but a problem of the person attempting to explain the doctrine not knowing this important issue (and in many cases, it is the Trinitarian himself/herself that doesn't know this either).

[Guest]

Okay Jason, I'm not being contrary or putting you in the spot or anything... it's just that we're trying to understand.

So, yes, we understand "being". But, what is THAT exactly as pertains to God?

[Jason_J]

Okay Jason, I'm not being contrary or putting you in the spot or anything... it's just that we're trying to understand.

So, yes, we understand "being". But, what is THAT exactly as pertains to God?

Quite simply, "being" ("ousia", "substantia") refers to the divine nature. The three distinct Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are of the same, one and only, divine nature. They are each fully divine/God because they are all of the same nature, and nothing/no one else is. The way that the Persons are one does not preclude them being three, because they are one and three in entirely different ways. "Being"/"nature" refers to what they are (namely, divine), and Person refers to "who" they are.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

Frank Sheed in his book "Theology and Sanity" (essentially an indepth overview of the Catholic "plan of salvation") emphasizes the use of "nature" as a translation of "ousia", instead of "being", which is something that I personally favor, as it avoids the confusion that the word "being" brings due to its modern usage. Ousia is variously translated in Trinitarian discourse as "being", "essence", "nature", and "substance" (from the Latin "substantia", which is a translation of ousia).

[Guest]

Quite simply, "being" ("ousia", "substantia") refers to the divine nature. The three distinct Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are of the same, one and only, divine nature. They are each fully divine/God because they are all of the same nature, and nothing/no one else is. The way that the Persons are one does not preclude them being three, because they are one and three in entirely different ways. "Being"/"nature" refers to what they are (namely, divine), and Person refers to "who" they are.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

Frank Sheed in his book "Theology and Sanity" (essentially an indepth overview of the Catholic "plan of salvation") emphasizes the use of "nature" as a translation of "ousia", instead of "being", which is something that I personally favor, as it avoids the confusion that the word "being" brings due to its modern usage. Ousia is variously translated in Trinitarian discourse as "being", "essence", "nature", and "substance" (from the Latin "substantia", which is a translation of ousia).

Yeah Jason... I have learned this exact same thing in Catholic school. I went to Catholic schools from Kindergarten up to when I got my Bachelor's degree in college.

BUT WHAT IS the essence of God? What is it? You keep on trying to explain to me what essence or being means like you're some dictionary. I know what those words mean. I want to know WHAT ESSENCE God is. Well, you actually answered that question. You described it as divine (a word that is so loosely defined and broadly applied it is the same thing as just saying God) something supernatural, something... uh, unfathomable. It is unique to God so that one can never know what that is exactly.

[Jason_J]

Yeah Jason... I have learned this exact same thing in Catholic school. I went to Catholic schools from Kindergarten up to when I got my Bachelor's degree in college.

BUT WHAT IS the essence of God? What is it? You keep on trying to explain to me what essence or being means like you're some dictionary. I know what those words mean. I want to know WHAT ESSENCE God is. Well, you actually answered that question. You described it as divine (a word that is so loosely defined and broadly applied it is the same thing as just saying God) something supernatural, something... uh, unfathomable. It is unique to God so that one can never know what that is exactly.

Exactly. In Trinitarianism, it is something unique to God, something that humans do not have. It is essentially what makes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God/divine. The essence of God is divine essence, divine nature. This is simple to understand when we put it in the context of creatio ex nihilo, where God alone existed "in the beginning", and therefore only God has non-contingent existence by onto-necessity. God exists by nature, it is His nature to exist. This is part of that nature, whatever it is that is unique to God (essentially making Him God), and us not-God. The question is therefore "what" is a nature. And it is very important to realize that this nature cannot be fully understood at this time (which is Biblical and I assume LDS agree that one cannot fully know everything about God while limited on this earth). However not fully understanding this divine nature does not detract from my point that: the word "being" in Trinitarianism is being used in a specific way that is not the same as how it is used in common language today, and that the way that the three Persons are three is completely different from the way they are one.

I too went to Catholic college (Georgetown University). :)

Edited February 7, 2010 by Jason_J

[Faded]

Quite simply, "being" ("ousia", "substantia") refers to the divine nature. The three distinct Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are of the same, one and only, divine nature. They are each fully divine/God because they are all of the same nature, and nothing/no one else is. The way that the Persons are one does not preclude them being three, because they are one and three in entirely different ways. "Being"/"nature" refers to what they are (namely, divine), and Person refers to "who" they are.

If I may interject -- I've tried for a long time to understand the Trinity and I've long since read through much of the material that you've referenced Jason -- so it's at this point that the explanation always seems to come very close to the Godhead.

What it ends up sounding like is "cut from the same cloth, same 'species' different people." And that fits the LDS position just fine. The LDS teaching defines all three as divine in nature, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

It's at this point in the scholarly explanation that I end up saying, "So they are telling me that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate personages and people, but they are the exactly the same type of divine entity. Exactly alike and identical in attitudes, nature, behavior, and in virtually every way conceivable. They are the only entities of their kind in this Universe. That lines up perfectly with what I believe." And it all falls into place in my mind because I'm told the usage for ousia in it's original context was not equivalent to the word "being" as we now understand it. So I can throw out the notion that "they are all the same being" because as you and many others have pointed out, something entirely different was the original intended meaning.

So in summary, I come up with, "Three distinct and separate persons, exactly the same type of being, exactly alike in every way, and unique within this universe."

But inevitably, by pointing this out, I will have solicited a lengthy explanation as to why I'm not understanding the Trinity correctly.

[bytebear]

But henotheism doesn't imply competing gods. That's the whole point. In the LDS understanding, the gods do not compete with each other at all, apparently. However, even the belief that there are other gods...that itself is an apparent renunciation of monotheism. Monotheism means a belief that there is only one God. Henotheism is the worship of only one God, in spite of others existing. So why doesn't that apply?

It doesn't apply to LDS because even if we become "gods" we become one with God, and there is still only one God. If instead of defining God as a being , but as a state of being, all persons who are in that state are God.

[Jason_J]

If I may interject -- I've tried for a long time to understand the Trinity and I've long since read through much of the material that you've referenced Jason -- so it's at this point that the explanation always seems to come very close to the Godhead.

What it ends up sounding like is "cut from the same cloth, same 'species' different people." And that fits the LDS position just fine. The LDS teaching defines all three as divine in nature, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

It's at this point in the scholarly explanation that I end up saying, "So they are telling me that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate personages and people, but they are the exactly the same type of divine entity. Exactly alike and identical in attitudes, nature, behavior, and in virtually every way conceivable. They are the only entities of their kind in this Universe. That lines up perfectly with what I believe." And it all falls into place in my mind because I'm told the usage for ousia in it's original context was not equivalent to the word "being" as we now understand it. So I can throw out the notion that "they are all the same being" because as you and many others have pointed out, something entirely different was the original intended meaning.

So in summary, I come up with, "Three distinct and separate persons, exactly the same type of being, exactly alike in every way, and unique within this universe."

But inevitably, by pointing this out, I will have solicited a lengthy explanation as to why I'm not understanding the Trinity correctly.

I've long said, both here and on other forums, that the traditional Trinity and the LDS Godhead are more similar than many on either side want to say, if we understand the terminology being used. It seems as if you have come to the same conclusion.

One terminology issue: Trinitarians do not use the word "separate" to describe the Persons. They use "distinct". Now, I personally am a little amused by this, because one of the definitions of 'distinct' is separate. However, it is important to realize this as another issue in Trinitarian language. Trinitarians will say that the three Persons are "inseparable". This usually creates another issue similar to that of "being". If they are distinct, how can they be inseparable? Are they attached to each other? No. Like the issue of being three and one (where they are three in a totally different way than they are one), the Persons are distinct in a different way than they are inseparable. Basically, you cannot have one Person without the others. You cannot have the Son without the Father, you cannot have the Holy Spirit without the Father and the Son, and you cannot be a Father without having the Son. In that way, they are inseparable.

No "lengthy explanation" required.

[bytebear]

Quite simply, "being" ("ousia", "substantia") refers to the divine nature. The three distinct Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are of the same, one and only, divine nature. They are each fully divine/God because they are all of the same nature, and nothing/no one else is. The way that the Persons are one does not preclude them being three, because they are one and three in entirely different ways. "Being"/"nature" refers to what they are (namely, divine), and Person refers to "who" they are.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

Frank Sheed in his book "Theology and Sanity" (essentially an indepth overview of the Catholic "plan of salvation") emphasizes the use of "nature" as a translation of "ousia", instead of "being", which is something that I personally favor, as it avoids the confusion that the word "being" brings due to its modern usage. Ousia is variously translated in Trinitarian discourse as "being", "essence", "nature", and "substance" (from the Latin "substantia", which is a translation of ousia).

I a curious, where is the word ""ousia" used. Do you have scriptures to point to, or is it strictly post biblical writings that use the term?

[Maureen]

Okay, and what is his spirit?

The spirit of man is what connects him to the Spirit of God. It is how the Holy Spirit speaks to, testifies to and sanctifies man.

But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers...Romans 1:9)

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God...(Romans 8:16)

M.