James White, in Polemicizing Against Catholicism (the Papacy), Asserts a Statement That Logically Reduces to a Denial That the Holy Spirit is God

Is God the Holy Spirit a "Deputy" of God the Son,Jesus Christ??!!

Read my title very carefully. I am not asserting that James White consciously, deliberately denies the divinity or deity of the Holy Spirit. Of course he does not. He defends the Holy Trinity and even devoted his so-called "dissertation" to that topic. What I am contending is that one particular statement of his, made recently, can hardly (in and of itself) be interpreted in any other way (once scrutinized as to possible and plausible objective meanings) than the denial that the Holy Spirit is God.

It was a flat-out dumb statement (that we all make from time to time), but in White's case it is all the more sad because he rarely retracts anything or clarifies when he really needs to do so. Yet he is relentless in calling for this in the case of others (e.g., recently with the controversy with Catholic apologist Steve Ray over numbers of Protestant denominations, or a trumped-up tempest in a teapot over a misunderstood sentence in my latest book, that White grotesquely caricatured, for his own purposes).

It was the usual scenario whereby Bishop White was railing against Catholicism and Catholics, and in his rush to always disagree with anything distinctively Catholic, no matter how groundless and lacking in substance his observation is, he fell into this difficulty. It's a problem, not of theological error per se, but rather, of overzealous rhetoric, "pat" answers not properly thought-through, and a running shortcoming that White has with regard to logical incoherence (or logical incomprehension, to put it as gently as I can).

The statement is found in my paper, Biblical Support for the Terms Holy Father and Vicar of Christ, as Applied to Popes. I defended the use of each from the Bible. Regarding the second, White stated:

Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being . . . the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)?

(original White source: Question #3)

White would have done well to heed his own advice. We can ask his question -- changed a bit -- as follows:

Have you considered what it means to proclaim that the title "Vicar of Christ" can only be applied to the Holy Spirit and not to any man?

Jordan Potter, an astute, historically-minded regular on my blog, spotted the difficulty right away:

This argument cuts both ways. James White says the Holy Spirit is the only true Vicar of Christ, and that to call a man "Vicar of Christ" is idolatrous. But you could also say that to call the Holy Spirit "Christ's administrative deputy" betrays Subordinationist heresy, casting into doubt the full divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, in neither case is the argument valid, but all the same, if James White doesn't like it when the Vicar of Christ is called what he is, then I can say James White is a Pneumatomachian.

I replied:

I was thinking of something along those lines, myself. The Holy Spirit can be neither an "agent" nor a "substitute" of God the Father (or the Son), for then He would not be God. The whole notion seems to me to imply a lesser representing a far greater.

What is curious to me is where White got this notion in the first place, since "vicar" is not a biblical term (and why he would be so dogmatic about such a thing).

I had made the following argument in my previous paper:

As for "Vicar of Christ" this is an equally ridiculous trifle. I don't believe "vicar" appears in the Bible (at least it doesn't in the KJV and RSV, that I searched), yet somehow Bishop White has this notion that this phrase can only denote the Holy Spirit. Where does he come up with this claptrap? Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry:

vic·ar

Pronunciation:

\ˈvi-kər\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin vicarius, from vicarius vicarious

Date:

14th century

1: one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy

Now, is this some blasphemous way of speaking about disciples of Jesus? Again, absolutely not, for it is the sort of language (substitutes, agents, ambassadors, etc.) that Jesus Himself used, in referring to His disciples (the word disciple itself is not far in meaning from vicar):

Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

Jesus even goes further than that, extending this representation of Himself to children and virtually any human being:

Matthew 18:5 Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.

Matthew 25:40 Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me. (cf. 25:45)

Mark 9:37 Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.

Luke 9:48 Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great.

Then we see instances of radical identification with Jesus, such as the term "Body of Christ" for the Church, or Paul partaking in Christ's afflictions (Col 2:8; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 4:10, 11:23-30; Gal 6:17), or our "suffering with Christ" (Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 6:9; Gal 2:20; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1,13)

Where's the beef, then? Jesus routinely refers to something highly akin to "vicar" in these statements (and the Apostle Paul picks up on the motif in a big way). So the pope represents Christ to the world, in a particularly visible, compelling fashion. Big wow. This is not outrageous blasphemy; it is straightforward biblical usage. Who is being more 'biblical" now?

To reiterate, the dictionary definition from this source, of vicar, is "substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy." That doesn't sound much like God, does it? White would have the Holy Spirit (as Jordan Potter noted) be Our Lord Jesus' mere "deputy"? The Holy Spirit doesn't "substitute" for Jesus or act as His "agent" either. We could easily verify this definition of vicar by checking with others (reflecting upon the meaning of the cognate word vicarious also shows the basic meaning of vicar, from which it is derived):

a person who acts in place of another; substitute.

a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God's vicar on earth.

(Dictionary.com)

Obviously, God can't substitute for God. God [the Holy Spirit] cannot be God [the Son]'s "vicar"
. This is not only heresy, but blasphemy.

Vic"ar (?), n. [OE. vicar, viker, vicair, F. vicaire, fr. L. vicarius. See Vicarious.]

1. One deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office; a deputy. [R.]

(Webster's 1913 Dictionary)

Little more need be said about this. It is plainly obvious that the Holy Spirit cannot be in this "relationship" with God the Son, Jesus Christ, without doing fundamental violence to orthodox trinitarian theology. White needs to retract this, and fast. I happily note again that I have not accused him of denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but -- beyond that -- he is responsible for not leaving this very heretical and dangerous impression upon less theologically-astute readers.

* * * * *

Tim asked:

You commented on the language he used to describe your argument. Putting that aside, what do you have to say about his response to your argument? (He said that you took one possible meaning of "vicar" and read that into his statements--a meaning which is subordinationist and thus heretical--but that subordination is not inherent in the term "vicar", and was not part of his usage.)

If he responds to my argument (as opposed to simply issuing further statements, while ignoring my critique), I will be happy to respond to his. I get tired of the one-way discussion mentality. That gets boring real quick.

In any event, he simply has not responded to the straightforward question of the meaning of the word "vicar". It's not a matter of how I define it, but how the standard dictionaries do. Since it is not a biblical word, all we can go by is dictionary definitions. Or does White wish to argue that dictionaries are irrelevant to define words? That would be fun . . .

I'm confused. I said, "(He said that you took one possible meaning of "vicar" and read that into his statements--a meaning which is subordinationist and thus heretical--but that subordination is not inherent in the term "vicar", and was not part of his usage.)"

That response is what I referred to. I didn't see anything in your post addressing it--hence my question. (Though after I commented I looked at the combox for the other post, and noticed that Jordan Potter addressed Dr. White's response. I'm contemplating his comment. The paragraph that starts with "Again, you have failed to address the objection we have raised" may be a good point.)

Here is that section of Jordan Potter's comments (purple), responding to Bishop White (blue):

Now he and a few other Romanists have decided that if I object to the application of the title 'Vicar of Christ' to the Pope, this means I would logically have to subordinate the Spirit in a heretical sense.

Sorry, that's a straw man. We aren't saying that objecting to the Pope's title of "Vicar of Christ" means one must subordinate the Spirit in a heretical sense. Rather, we are saying that calling the Holy Spirit "Vicar of Christ" is suggestive of Subordinationist heresy. One can deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ without asserting that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ.

And the reason for this? It's easy: pick a single meaning for 'vicar/vicarious' to fit your absurd assertion, ignore the original context, and voila! You have yet another wonderful apologetic argument.

Again, you have failed to address the objection we have raised. "Vicar of Christ" as applied to the Pope carries a specific range of meanings. You, however, said that it is blasphemous to apply the title of "Vicar of Christ" to any man, since the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ. If you mean that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ in the same way that Catholics mean when they say the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, then I'm afraid you've accidentally lapsed into Subordinationism.

The problem is that you seem to want to use the word "vicar" in a sense that is not the usual sense, and not the sense that Catholics use in reference to the Pope.

The serious reader knows that my objection to the term 'Vicar of Christ' is based upon the fact that it is the Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son into the world so that believers are not 'left alone,' as Jesus promised in John 15-16.

But that is not what a "vicar" is. To use the word "vicar" to describe the Holy Spirit's role is to suggest that the Holy Spirit is present with us while the Father and the Son are present elsewhere. It is to suggest that the Holy Spirit has a lesser, provisional office, and has authority and glory only as the Father and the Son see fit to bestow it upon Him. (Jonathan Prejean explains it perfectly, I think.)

[see Jonathan's insightful comments here and here.]

. . . As has been made clear here, we know you believe in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit is co-equal and co-essential with the Father and the Son, that the Holy Spirit fully possesses the single divine nature and divine will. What we are objecting to is your use of language that is misleading and incompatible with your Trinitarian belief. Please don't be so proud as to dig in your heels on this matter just because this error of yours was pointed out to you by a few lowly Romanists.

Now, in your second paragraph, you seem to be saying that his non-subordinate use of "vicar" isn't part of the dictionary definition of "vicar". OK, that would answer my question. (Though I don't know that it's a correct answer; "agent" and "deputy" seem to be subordinate, but "substitute" is also part of the dictionary definitions you posted. I don't see anything subordinate in that meaning. If the "specifically" part of the MW definition is correct, then you're probably right--subordination would be inherent. But the Dictionary.com definition seems to allow for simply "substitute".)

On "substitute", both you and Mr. Prejean raised another point involving the co-working of the three divine Persons. Prejean said, "All three Persons are still present in all Trinitarian acts. The Son hasn't "gone" anywhere in the sense of not being fully present in all Trinitarian acts". But in some sense the Son went away and the Helper came (John 16:7), and Jesus spoke of what the Spirit would do. I can't make out what it is in the word "substitute" that makes you think it can't apply to the sense that Jesus stated.

Good comment, Tim, and food for thought. I would continue to object to "substitute" as well. Let's look at Merriam-Webster online for that word:

Main Entry:
1sub·sti·tute Listen to the pronunciation of 1substitute
Pronunciation:
ˈsəb-stə-ˌtüt, -ˌtyüt
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French substitut, from Latin substitutus, past participle of substituere to put in place of, from sub- + statuere to set up, place — more at statute
Date:
15th century

: a person or thing that takes the place or function of another

I agree, that is not as obviously subordinate as "deputy" etc., but does it really fit the Holy Trinity? I don't think so, because no Divine Person is really "taking the place" of another, since each one does what He does because of the very nature of God; thus to speak of One "substituting" for another seems to me to trivialize the very essence of the Triune God, as if, e.g., a substitute teacher in eighth grade were entirely equal to the regular teacher.

Nor does one Person of the Holy Trinity fulfill the "function" of another, since they each have Their own function (in some ways). Hence, the Son has the function of becoming Incarnate. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not do that; in fact, They have no physical bodies at all. The Father has the function of sending the Son into the world (Jn 15:21; 1 Jn 4:14), etc. The denial of that is the heresy of Sabellianism or modal monarchianism, held by the "Jesus Only" pentecostals; particularly the United Pentecostal Church.

Furthermore, White wrote in his paper:

"The serious reader knows that my objection to the term "Vicar of Christ" is based upon the fact that it is the Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son into the world so that believer are not "left alone," as Jesus promised in John 15-16. To give that role and title to a man is blasphemous"

This is asinine, because who is saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the pope is sent by the Father and the Son to indwell believers (which is precisely the context of John 15-16, that White appeals to)? I guess White likes to throw out Scripture references, hoping that his fan club won't ever check them for content and context. So yes, Jesus "sends" the Spirit (Jn 15:26, 16:7): no question about it, but He also indwells us Himself. I understood this fully in 1982 when I did a great deal of biblical research concerning trinitarianism. But White seems to not understand it even now. How odd.

See, e.g., Jn 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." (cf. 15:5)

What pope ever claimed to "abide" in any believer in this sense? Also, note that this is Jesus abiding in us (as well as the Holy Spirit).

White acts as if only the Holy Spirit indwells Christian believers. This is how he comes up with his "vicar of Christ" description for the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit substitutes for Jesus Christ. But this is unbiblical, and easily shown to be so (from my very own 1982 research). The Holy Spirit cannot substitute for Jesus if Jesus is there too! Someone else has already pointed this out, and now I'll back it up from Scripture (KJV):

I) Jesus and the Father Indwell Christian Believers

JOHN 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

II) Jesus Indwells Christian Believers

JOHN 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {cf. Jn 14:16-17}

JOHN 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I {am} in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

JOHN 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

JOHN 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; . . .

III) God the Holy Spirit Indwells Christian Believers

1 CORINTHIANS 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and {that} the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which {temple} ye are.

JOHN 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (17) {Even} the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. {cf. Jn 14:18 below}

ROMANS 8:9,11 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his . . . (11) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. {cf. Rom 8:10 below}

1 CORINTHIANS 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost {which is} in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? {cf. to 1 Cor 3:16}

GALATIANS 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

IV) "God" (Divine Person Not Specified) Indwells Christian Believers
(Arguably God the Father)

2 CORINTHIANS 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in {them}; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. {cf. Ex 29:45, Jer 31:33, Ezek 37:27}

V) God the Father and God the Holy Spirit Indwell Christian Believers

1 JOHN 3:24 . . . And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1 JOHN 4:12-16 . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (13) Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. (14) And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son {to be} the Saviour of the world. (15) Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (16) And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
{cf. Neh 9:20, Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8,13-15, Rom 8:14, 2 Cor 13:14}

VI) God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, Jesus, Indwell Christian Believers

ROMANS 8:10 And if Christ {be} in you, the body {is} dead because of sin; but the Spirit {is} life because of righteousness. {cf. Rom 8:9}

VII) God the Father Indwells Christian Believers

1 JOHN 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him . . .

* * *

How's that for some good old-fashioned biblical theology and exegesis? Let's see White war against Scripture and deny all this. It annihilates his position about the Holy Spirit being the "vicar of Christ" because He indwells believers (but so do the Father and the Son, etc.) even more thoroughly than the linguistic considerations. But I am only a biblical ignoramus and dolt. What do I know, anyway? White has the degrees and the alleged "dissertation" on the Trinity, and so has no time for a dumb, blind amateur exegete like me.

Lastly, White, amidst his avalanche of personal insults, lies, and slanders, gloated:

especially coming from a man who has never, to my knowledge, stood before an audience in defense of the Trinity against those who would deny it,

As a matter of fact, I have, in the Pontiac Silverdome (where the Detroit Lions used to play). A friend of mine and I attended a Jehovah's Witness convention, and witnessed to some 20 elders, standing around us in intimidating fashion, defending the Holy Trinity in particular. We were rushed out of the stadium as soon as they discovered that they couldn't reply to our biblical reasoning.

I have attended a Kingdom Hall (Jehovah's Witnesses' meeting places) for the express purpose of evangelization maybe half a dozen times.

I also defended the Trinity and other Christian doctrines in a radio talk on Jehovah's Witnesses, on the largest Protestant radio station in Detroit: WMUZ, on a show associated with the ministry of George Bogle: an immensely respected Detroit minister and tremendous prayer warrior who is still active today. That was on 3 November 1989, when I was a Protestant. One can hear that talk online.

And, of course, I have defended trinitarianism at great length (pp. 71-163) in my book, Mere Christian Apologetics, and have in lengthy online debates with a Mormon elder, a Jehovah's Witness elder, a Muslim (Shabir Ally), and others. I have a huge refutation of Jehovah's Witnesses online, for free. And I have done this for twenty-five years. If White wishes to despise that, let him. It is only one more instance where he won't acknowledge any thing that I do, even if he completely agrees with it. In his mentality, a person whom he considers unregenerate can even defend the Holy Trinity against heretics, but it has to somehow be wicked and evil, because of his belief in Total Depravity. It's insane . . .

For much more of my apologetics in this regard. see my Trinitarianism and Christology and Heresies and Comparative Religion pages. The latter has a photo of myself evangelizing Mormons at the Ann Arbor Art Fair in 1989 (I went there every year throughout the 80s witnessing on the street to all sorts of folks, encountering many non-Christian belief-systems).

I wanted to also point out that -- keeping in mind all of my Scripture references above -- we see that these passages refer to the different Persons of the Godhead indwelling Christians the following number of times:

Holy Spirit: 9 times

Jesus: 6 times

The Father: 4 times

"God" (unclear as to Person, but most arguably the Father, I think): 1 time.

So sure, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in this respect more than the Father and the Son, but yet (somewhat curiously) if you add the times that the Father and the Son are written of in this way, together, those instances are numerically more: 10 to 9. And if you include the "God" passage, then it is either 11 to 9 or 10 to 10 (depending how one interprets it). In any event, that is highly significant biblical data that White cannot dismiss, as if only the Holy Spirit indwells Christians.

Since the Father and Son do the same thing (according to ten explicit biblical evidences), it is ludicrous to speak of the Holy Spirit "substituting" or being a "vicar" of the Father or the Son.

White wants to argue according to whim and illogic. I use solid Scriptural reasoning, that is perfectly self-consistent and quite strong evidence. Take your pick.

Moreover, there is another related theological term: perichoresis. From the Theopedia article:

Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. Charles Hodge explains that this term was used "to express the Scriptural facts that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son; that where the Father is, there the Son and Spirit are; that what the one does the others do (the Father creates, the Son creates, the Spirit creates), or, as our Lord expresses it, "What things soever" the Father "doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19.) So also what the one knows, the others know. "The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:10, 11.)."

Presbyterian pastor Peter Leithart has written on this topic:

Perichoresis has been used historically to describe God's relationship to the world, as a way of expressing the immanence and transcendence of God. It is true, on the one hand, that God is contained by nothing, and is instead the One in whom we live and move and have our being. I.e., everything is contained by Him. Yet at the same time God is within all things, "omnipresent." As Hilary of Poitiers put it, God is both "without" and "within" all things.

This mutual indwelling and containment is a created extension of the mutual indwelling and containment of the Triune Persons. The Father is in the Son, and in the Son are "precontained" all created things (so Cusa, and many others, including Bavinck); so, the Father is "in" all things. Likewise the Son, as the One in whom are all things, is in the Father, so that all things are in the Father. And all things are within and without the Father and the Son because the Father and Son indwell one another by the Spirit.

Likewise, see the Orthodox-Reformed dialogue on the Holy Trinity, Kappel-am-Albis, Switzerland, March 1992:

Perichoresis: the mutual indwelling of Father, Son and Holy Spirit

1>The Holy Trinity remains invariable, known in one Godhead and one Monarchy, but in which Each of the three Divine Persons indwells and is indwelt by the Others. "They reciprocally contain One Another, so that One permanently envelopes, and is permanently enveloped by, the Other whom he yet envelopes" (Hilary, De Trin. 3.1). It is in the light of this eternal perichoresis of the three Divine Persons in God, or the co-indwelling and co-inhering of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in One Another, that we are to understand the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the gift of the Holy Spirit by the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but because of the unity of the Godhead in which each Person is perfectly and wholly God, he proceeds from the Father through the Son for the Spirit belongs to and is inseparable from the Being of the Father and of the Son. He receives from the Son and through him is given to us. Thus "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets." (The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). It is precisely with the doctrine of the consubstantiality and Deity of the Holy Spirit that the proper understanding of the Holy Trinity is brought to its completion in the theology and worship of the Church. And it is with the doctrine of the Trinity that the adoration and knowledge of God reach their perfection. This is the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.

Rev. Angus Stewart, of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Northern Ireland, wrote a fascinating article on this, published in the British Reformed Journal: "John of Damascus and the Perichoresis":

So the question arises, Why study John of Damascus in a series on the development of true doctrine and, more particularly, why treat John in our consideration of the development of the doctrine of the covenant when he did not treat it as a theological subject?

The answer lies in John’s development of the doctrine of the perichoresis (Greek) or circumincession (Latin), the doctrine of the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit within the blessed Trinity. John was not the first to state this truth. For example, the fourth century Eastern fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Didymus the Blind, taught the perichoresis, 9 and Reinhold Seeberg writes that Augustine (354-430) in the West wrote of the "mutual interpenetration and interdwelling" of the three Persons in the Trinity. 10 John, however, is clearer and fuller than all his predecessors.

. . . The creed drafted at Nicea (325) declared that the Son was homoousios (of the same essence or nature or being) with the Father. Later, the Holy Spirit was also confessed as of the same essence or nature or being with the Father and the Son. Since all three divine Persons possess the one infinite being of God, they must mutually penetrate and indwell each other wholly. Thus the homoousios leads to the perichoresis.

To restate the argument: (1) God is one in His being; (2) all the three Persons possess all of the divine Being; (3) therefore all three Persons indwell each other fully. The Father (as Father with His personal properties as not begotten nor proceeding) abides in the Son and in the Spirit. The Son (as Son with His personal properties as begotten and not proceeding) abides in the Father and in the Spirit. The Spirit (as Spirit with His personal properties as not begotten but proceeding) abides in the Father and in the Son. Thus the perichoresis is a logical implication of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and necessarily flows from it.

John of Damascus understood this. He speaks often of the relationship between the first and second Persons. The Son "ever abide[s] in the Father" (OF 1.8) and is "ever essentially present with" Him (OF 1.13). The Son is "in the bosom" of the Father (OF 3.1) and He became incarnate "without leaving the Father’s bosom" (OF 3.7). John describes the relationship between the second and third Persons as one of companionship. Those who have "learnt about the Spirit of God" "contemplate" Him as "the companion of the Word" (OF 1.7). The third Person is the bond between the first and second Persons: "The holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son" (OF 1.13). Later he describes the relationship between the three Persons from the perspective of the second Person: the Word is "with the Father and the Spirit without beginning and through eternity" (OF 3.12).

John uses certain verbs to describe the perichoresis of the divine persons: cleaving (OF 1.8, 14), abiding (OF 1.8), dwelling (OF 1.8) and indwelling (OF 4.18). He is insistent that there is no confusing, compounding, coalescing or mixing of the Persons in this most intimate union (OF 1.8, 14). The preposition of the perichoresis is not merely "with" but "in." 11 This "unity and community" in the Holy Trinity means that the three Persons "being identical in authority and power and goodness" have perfect "concord of mind" (OF 1.8).

John summarises his position at the end of his treatment of the Trinity in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

The subsistences [i.e., the three Persons] dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature (OF 1.14).

. . . But John of Damascus does not only arrive at the perichoresis by logical deductions from the church’s doctrine of the Holy Trinity and by reflection upon the idea of place. John sees the perichoresis as a Scriptural doctrine: "For the subsistences [i.e., the three Persons] dwell in one another ... according to the word of the Lord, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John 14:11]" (OF 1.8). Later he writes, that the Scriptures "declare the indwelling of the subsistences in one another, as, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John 14:10]" (OF 4.18). 12

John sees an analogy between the perichoresis of the three divine persons and the relationship between Christ’s human and divine natures (OF 3.5). He proceeds to describe Christ’s incarnation in terms of union and indwelling:

[I]n the Incarnation of ... the Word of the Holy Trinity, we hold that in one of its subsistences the nature of the Godhead is wholly and perfectly united with the whole nature of the humanity, and not part united to part. The divine Apostle in truth says that in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily [Col. 2:9] (OF 3.6).

John speaks of the "mutual interchange" (OF 3.19), "intercourse" (OF 3.3), "community" (OF 4.18) and "communion" (OF 3.19) between Christ’s two natures and the "close communion" between His two wills and between His two energies (OF 3.14).

9 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (USA: HarperSanFrancisco, rev. 1978), p. 264.

10 Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles E. Hay (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), vol. 1, p. 239.

11 Cf. "[A]lways [the Son] was with the Father and in Him" (OF 1.8; cf. 4:18).

12 Importantly, Christ here teaches us that the perichoresis is an object of faith: "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 14:11).

The same doctrine is expressed by White's fellow Baptists; for example, J. Scott Horrell of Dallas Theological Seminary:

Perichoresis and the Imago Dei

When reconciled with God, man and woman are infused with his personal presence. In some sense, the capacity of each person of the Godhead to be indwelt (perichoresis) by the other while remaining fully an individual is reflected in man as created in the image of God (cf. Jn 14:8-11,20,23; 15:4-7; 17:20-23,26). Similar to how the Father indwells the Son and the Son indwells the Father, and to how the Holy Spirit is also literally “the Spirit of Christ” and “the Spirit of the Father,” so God has structured the human being so that he or she can be indwelled by God himself, notably the Holy Spirit. While indwelled by the divine Other, human beings are both conformed to the divine character and simultaneously strengthened in their unique individuality. Man’s capacity for a kind of perichoresis is why also, on the negative side, the human being can be inhabited by demonic spirits. In such cases, of course, malignant spirits typically enslave and depersonalize their human abode. Conversely, the Holy Spirit liberates the sinner, capacitates him to obey and conforms him to the image of Christ.

The Church Fathers nearly unanimously spoke of God’s habitation in man in terms of theosis, that is, of being divinized (God-infused) in character and person (cf. 2Pe 1:4). Unlike pantheism, spiritism and New Age thought, it is not that man becomes God, who is infinite and immutable in nature. Rather man becomes godly in character, resplendent with the divine presence and in this sense God-like. Thus, the divinization of man is directly related to his innate capacity for perichoresis through which God indwells his human creation. As such, the individual becomes alive, elevated and completed as a unique human individual through fellowship with the God of Life.

Thus, Bishop White stands refuted from all hands: catholic and Protestant, dictionaries, and the Bible itself, regarding his absurd, indefensible terminology of the Holy Spirit as the "Vicar of Christ" (simply because he doesn't like the term applied to popes). The question arises, then: where did White get this goofy and ultimately heretical idea? Perhaps from fellow anti-Catholic Richard Bennett, in his article, Who is the true Vicar of Christ? The Roman Catholic Pope or the Holy Spirit?: posted at ChristianAnswers.Net. Bennett writes (my emphases; note also the "Holy Father" section: reasoning also used by White):

[I]t is biblically imperative to examine the true office of the Vicar of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the universal care of souls into the safekeeping of the Divine Person of the Holy Spirit. Concerning this Third Person of the Trinity who was to be His substitute, . . .

. . . Because there is a direct connection between the redemption of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is extremely dangerous to confuse the work of the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ with the position or work of any man.

As Christ Jesus had been the Master, Counselor and Guide to believers, He promised to send the Holy Spirit as His substitute so that He might abide with them for ever (John 14:16).

. . . in a spiritual sense a true believer will only use the words "The Holy Father" of God alone! The Roman Pontiff not only takes to himself the office of "Vicar of Christ" but also the very title of the Godhead, "The Holy Father". We must therefore ask the question that Apostle John asks, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (I John 2:22). In assuming these titles to himself, the Pope shows that he truly is "a vicar of Christ" in the biblical sense of the Antichrist!

[see another online version]

So there you have it. folks: White apparently adopted this "argument" (or at least one very similar to it) as his own, without properly considering the heretical implications of it. In addition to Bennett, the notorious Jack Chick Publications (that White thinks very little of) has made the same argument:

While the Catholic church elevates the pope to the position of "supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful," God's Word reveals that someone else already fills that position: [cites Jn 14:26; 16:13] . . .

The pope has clearly assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit of God. It is a position no man can fill:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians 2:11

. . . Yet, the pope not only accepts the title "Father," but "Holy Father" as well, a title reserved for God alone:

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy..." [emphasis in original] Revelation 15:4

(Understanding Roman Catholicism: The Pope: Vicar of Christ, by Rick Jones)

White may think Chick and his comrades are dopey dummies, but he uses the same idiotic arguments that they do. Another anti-Catholic site, GotQuestions?,org, makes the same heretical "argument" (my emphases):

Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only Biblical “vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:16-18 proclaims, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is Christ’s “replacement” on the earth. The Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Teacher (John 14:26), and guide into all truth (John 16:13).

In claiming that the pope is the “vicar of Christ,” the Catholic church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit. It is therefore blasphemy to ascribe to the Pope the title of “vicar of Christ.”

Yet another anti-Catholic fool, Ryan Hicks, shows very clearly both the heresy involved in this characterization (that white has made his own), as well as the thoroughly inconsistent logic:

One of the many blasphemous titles given to the Pope is the title of "Vicar of Christ" (for another see The Unholy Father). This title comes from the title used by Constantine, Vicarius Christi. "Vicarius" or "Vicar" means "a substitute" or "another" (See any Dictionary: Oxford, Random House, American, Webster's, etc.). Thus, the title "Vicar of Christ" means "a substitute for Christ" or "another Christ."

All Catholics and Protestants are in agreement that Christ is God, and that makes this title all the more blasphemous; because then it means "a substitute for God" or "another God." It must also be noted for the sincere Catholic that in Greek the title "Vicar of Christ" is "anti-christos" or "anti-Christ" (See Strong's #473 & 5547).

According to the Lord Jesus Christ in John 14:16 He was going to send "another Comforter" or another One in His place, the Holy Spirit. The Pope is not a spirit-being, nor is he God the Spirit. The only one that can be "a substitute for Christ" is the Holy Spirit, and that is according to Jesus' Own words (He does know more than the Pope).

Now surely any Catholic who is sincerely wanting to please God can see that a title such as "Vicar of Christ" is utterly blasphemous and heretical. You cannot blindly serve your Church and submit to your Pope in a good conscience after knowing this truth. You must choose to serve the God (Christ) of the Bible or the man-made substitute for Christ, the Pope.

Let's follow this "logic":

1) "Vicar of Christ" means "a substitute for Christ" or "another Christ."

2) It also means "a substitute for God" or "another God."

3) The only one that can be "a substitute for Christ" is the Holy Spirit . . .

4) Therefore, God the Holy Spirit can substitute for God the Son, Jesus.

5) But according to #1, substituting for Christ also means "another Christ."

6) Therefore, the Holy Spirit is "another Christ" and the Persons of the Trinity are thoroughly confused with each other. Now there are two Christs in the Holy Trinity: Christ #1 and Christ #2? The Holy Trinity thus becomes as silly as Let's Make a Deal, where you choose the proper door? Or maybe the Dating Game?: "Bachelor #1, will you please come out and show yourself?"

7) According to #2, "vicar of Christ" also means "another God."

8) Therefore, the Holy Spirit, as "vicar of Christ" is "another God."

9) Ergo, now we have bitheism: The Father and the Son are One God in Two Persons (the "Binity"?) but the Holy Spirit is "another God" and so this nonsense reduces to Jehovah's Witness or Mormon-like polytheism.

White keeps getting deeper and deeper into error and embarrassment. He dug the pit that he has now fallen into himself. This is the sort of "poor man's theology" that he wants to be associated with. What will it take for him to renounce this ridiculousness? His own intelligent Protestant brethren (Presbytrerians, Reformed, and Baptists) clearly agree with my Catholic position on the relationship of the Persons of the Godhead (as I have documented above), but White insists on agreeing with know-nothing anti-Catholic ignoramuses (even Jack Chick and his cronies!) rather than mainstream Protestant theology proper and trinitarian theology. And all because he can't ever admit that a Catholic got something wright and he got it wrong (even if only inadvertently so).