POINT 3: The Person of the Son
Predictably, my opponent had no answer for the wealth of information I provided on what the apostles actually taught as essential doctrine. He claims to affirm Jesus is a man, but he actually affirms that Jesus is a 'God-man'. The real issue is that the apostles only taught that Jesus was a man, never that he was a 'God-man'.
My opponent believes that he does not have to prove the apostles 'explicitly taught the Trinity as defined by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan & Athanasian creeds', yet that is the exact definition he has undertaken to defend.
He falsely claims that his only task 'is proving the Trinity is indeed Biblical', but he has failed to define exactly what he means by 'Biblical', and this is not what the Creeds he profess actually say. It appears that my opponent believes that any doctrine is 'Biblical' if it is derived from a number of verses which someone has put together. This would make the doctrines of purgatory and praying to saints 'Biblical'.
My opponent's real task is not to prove that the doctrine is 'Biblical' in this loose and vague sense, but that it is essential to salvation, since this is what the creeds he professes explicitly state.
He has been unable to provide any evidence at all that it is impossible to preach 'the only Jesus that can save' without 'a belief in the Trinity'. As I have shown, the apostles preached repeatedly about the man whom God appointed (Jesus Christ), but never preached the Trinity, and baptized thousands of people who had no knowledge of this belief. This contradicts my opponent’s claims directly, which is why he failed to address it.
My opponent imagines I have never said Christ is our saviour, when in fact I have. The point I have made is that he does not save us of himself, but as the agent of God
The apostles taught explicitly that Christ is the agent by which God saves (Romans 6:23, Titus 3:5-6, Galatians 3:15, Hebrews 13:20-21), including by justification (Romans 3:24-26; 5:1-2), sanctification (Hebrews 10:10), and glorification (2 Thessalonians 2:12).
It was claimed that God's application of the word 'saviour' to Himself means that none but God can be called 'saviour', but we find men used as God's agents to save are called 'saviour' (Judges 2:16, 18; 3:9, 15 'The Lord raised up a saviour', 31; 10:1; 13:5), just as Christ is.
My opponent's main arguments consisted of the following:
* In John 5:18 the Jews believed Christ was saying he was equal with God: Christ corrected them by saying ‘the Son can do nothing from himself’, and ‘I can do nothing of myself’ (John 5:18, 30). See also John 14:28 ('My Father is greater than I'), and the fact that the apostles taught that he is the servant of God (Acts 3:13, 26 ‘his servant Jesus’, ‘God raised up his servant’, Acts 4:27, 30 ‘your holy servant Jesus’).
* The use of 'THEOS' in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1: Aside from noting the fact that the grammar in both places is ambiguous (readers, check standard Trinitarian Bible translations and commentaries), I shall simply quote my opponent back to himself:
‘it is not enough that the Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God. The title in and of itself does not necessitate that each person being called God is the one true God, nor does it irrefutably prove the Trinity.
Christ said the same (John 10:33-36).
* 'I and my father are one': Christ proves this is no claim to deity, saying in John 17:20-23 that he is praying that his disciples 'may be one just as we are one'.
* Christ can forgive sins: That Christ gave authority to the apostles to forgive sins proves that you don't have to be God to forgive sins (my opponent claims that only God could give authority to men to forgive sins, but provided no evidence for this, nor did he prove that a man with such authority from God could not give it to others).
* 'I am': The loudest appeal was made to the Greek text of Exodus 3:14, which as my opponent helpfully told us does not say 'EGW EIMI' (Christ's words), but 'EGW EIMI HO WN' (which Christ did not say); numerous Bible translations and commentaries (all Trinitarian), qualify Christ's 'I am' statements with the relevant words implied in the Greek in each place, recognising that there is no use of a 'Divine title' here.
* The trial: Christ was asked if he was the son of God, and answered 'I am', proving that his only claim was to be the son of God, not to be God; that the high priest saw this as blasphemy is irrelevant, since it is not described as blasphemy under the Law - but if Christ had actually claimed to be God explicitly, so many times in his ministry, why was this accusation never raised at his trial by any of the witnesses?
* The glory: It was alleged that Christ must be God since God said that He would not share His glory with another, but Christ shares that same glory with his disciples in John 17:22 ('The glory you gave to me I have given to them')
* God's titles applied to Jesus: This only proves that Christ is God's representative (in Exodus 23:20-21 an angel is given the name of Yahweh when he acts as God's agent, and in Acts 7:30 Stephen says that when 'Yahweh' spoke to Moses in the burning bush, it was really an angel); the claim was made that Romans 10:13 applies Joel's words to Jesus, but Jesus isn't even referred to in Romans 10:13
* Jesus receives worship: the Greek word translated worship simply means to bow down, and does not necessarily refer to worship of someone as God; it is used when a man in Christ's parable bows to another man (Matthew 18:26), and used when Christ says he will make the enemies of his servants bow at their feet (Revelation 3:9)
I agree with my opponent that Christ never sinned (I have never said otherwise), but this doesn't change the fact that the apostles predicate Christ's work of salvation on his being a man identical to those he came to save, who really died, and needed salvation from death (Hebrews 5: 'Christ offered both requests and supplications... to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his devotion').
It should be noted that Christ also had to be justified (1 Timothy 3:16), sanctified (John 10:36), and glorified (John 7:39; 12:16, Acts 3:13), meaning he had to be saved through the same process as those he came to save.
Questions I want answered:
* If such statements as these Creeds are binding on all Christians, then why not other doctrinal statements made by other church councils, which contain equally 'Biblical' statements?
* Why does the Bible say it is essential to know the Father is the only true God, not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
* Why does no single passage in the Bible describe God as three persons?
* Why would a doctrine which is allegedly essential for salvation not be taught by the apostles or declared explicitly in Scripture?
* Where does the Bible say that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation?
* Why does the Bible say it is essential to believe that Jesus is a man, not that Jesus is God?
* Why did the apostles baptize thousands of people without teaching them the Trinity, or even that Jesus is God?
* Why do the apostles repeatedly say that the saving work of the atonement was based on Jesus being a man, not on Jesus being God, or a 'God-man'?
* What evidence is there that the Greek and Hebrew words for 'he' can refer to more than one person?
* In Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28, Christ says that of those who have been born of a woman, there was none greater than John the Baptist - Scripture says that Christ was born of a woman (Matthew 1:26, Galatians 4:4), so who is greater, John the Baptist or Christ?
* Did Jesus die, or did only Jesus' body die?
* Can God die?
* God cannot be seen by men (1 Timothy 6:16), so when men saw Jesus, who did they see?
* Why did the apostles use none of the arguments for the Trinity, nor any of the quotes, which my opponent does?
* What arguments and quotes did the apostles use to convince people of the Trinity?
* Why could my opponent only find two verses in the entire Bible which apparently call Jesus 'THEOS'?
Contrary to my opponent’s claims, of all the posts and links I have provided the moderators reviewing my posts as I made them objected to only one, which I edited immediately. Even if I had breached the rules ‘repeatedly’, it would not justify him doing the same.
Predictably, my opponent had no answer for the wealth of information I provided on what the apostles actually taught as essential doctrine. He claims to affirm Jesus is a man, but he actually affirms that Jesus is a 'God-man'. The real issue is that the apostles only taught that Jesus was a man, never that he was a 'God-man'.
My opponent believes that he does not have to prove the apostles 'explicitly taught the Trinity as defined by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan & Athanasian creeds', yet that is the exact definition he has undertaken to defend.
He falsely claims that his only task 'is proving the Trinity is indeed Biblical', but he has failed to define exactly what he means by 'Biblical', and this is not what the Creeds he profess actually say. It appears that my opponent believes that any doctrine is 'Biblical' if it is derived from a number of verses which someone has put together. This would make the doctrines of purgatory and praying to saints 'Biblical'.
My opponent's real task is not to prove that the doctrine is 'Biblical' in this loose and vague sense, but that it is essential to salvation, since this is what the creeds he professes explicitly state.
He has been unable to provide any evidence at all that it is impossible to preach 'the only Jesus that can save' without 'a belief in the Trinity'. As I have shown, the apostles preached repeatedly about the man whom God appointed (Jesus Christ), but never preached the Trinity, and baptized thousands of people who had no knowledge of this belief. This contradicts my opponent’s claims directly, which is why he failed to address it.
My opponent imagines I have never said Christ is our saviour, when in fact I have. The point I have made is that he does not save us of himself, but as the agent of God
The apostles taught explicitly that Christ is the agent by which God saves (Romans 6:23, Titus 3:5-6, Galatians 3:15, Hebrews 13:20-21), including by justification (Romans 3:24-26; 5:1-2), sanctification (Hebrews 10:10), and glorification (2 Thessalonians 2:12).
It was claimed that God's application of the word 'saviour' to Himself means that none but God can be called 'saviour', but we find men used as God's agents to save are called 'saviour' (Judges 2:16, 18; 3:9, 15 'The Lord raised up a saviour', 31; 10:1; 13:5), just as Christ is.
My opponent's main arguments consisted of the following:
* In John 5:18 the Jews believed Christ was saying he was equal with God: Christ corrected them by saying ‘the Son can do nothing from himself’, and ‘I can do nothing of myself’ (John 5:18, 30). See also John 14:28 ('My Father is greater than I'), and the fact that the apostles taught that he is the servant of God (Acts 3:13, 26 ‘his servant Jesus’, ‘God raised up his servant’, Acts 4:27, 30 ‘your holy servant Jesus’).
* The use of 'THEOS' in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1: Aside from noting the fact that the grammar in both places is ambiguous (readers, check standard Trinitarian Bible translations and commentaries), I shall simply quote my opponent back to himself:
‘it is not enough that the Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God. The title in and of itself does not necessitate that each person being called God is the one true God, nor does it irrefutably prove the Trinity.
Christ said the same (John 10:33-36).
* 'I and my father are one': Christ proves this is no claim to deity, saying in John 17:20-23 that he is praying that his disciples 'may be one just as we are one'.
* Christ can forgive sins: That Christ gave authority to the apostles to forgive sins proves that you don't have to be God to forgive sins (my opponent claims that only God could give authority to men to forgive sins, but provided no evidence for this, nor did he prove that a man with such authority from God could not give it to others).
* 'I am': The loudest appeal was made to the Greek text of Exodus 3:14, which as my opponent helpfully told us does not say 'EGW EIMI' (Christ's words), but 'EGW EIMI HO WN' (which Christ did not say); numerous Bible translations and commentaries (all Trinitarian), qualify Christ's 'I am' statements with the relevant words implied in the Greek in each place, recognising that there is no use of a 'Divine title' here.
* The trial: Christ was asked if he was the son of God, and answered 'I am', proving that his only claim was to be the son of God, not to be God; that the high priest saw this as blasphemy is irrelevant, since it is not described as blasphemy under the Law - but if Christ had actually claimed to be God explicitly, so many times in his ministry, why was this accusation never raised at his trial by any of the witnesses?
* The glory: It was alleged that Christ must be God since God said that He would not share His glory with another, but Christ shares that same glory with his disciples in John 17:22 ('The glory you gave to me I have given to them')
* God's titles applied to Jesus: This only proves that Christ is God's representative (in Exodus 23:20-21 an angel is given the name of Yahweh when he acts as God's agent, and in Acts 7:30 Stephen says that when 'Yahweh' spoke to Moses in the burning bush, it was really an angel); the claim was made that Romans 10:13 applies Joel's words to Jesus, but Jesus isn't even referred to in Romans 10:13
* Jesus receives worship: the Greek word translated worship simply means to bow down, and does not necessarily refer to worship of someone as God; it is used when a man in Christ's parable bows to another man (Matthew 18:26), and used when Christ says he will make the enemies of his servants bow at their feet (Revelation 3:9)
I agree with my opponent that Christ never sinned (I have never said otherwise), but this doesn't change the fact that the apostles predicate Christ's work of salvation on his being a man identical to those he came to save, who really died, and needed salvation from death (Hebrews 5: 'Christ offered both requests and supplications... to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his devotion').
It should be noted that Christ also had to be justified (1 Timothy 3:16), sanctified (John 10:36), and glorified (John 7:39; 12:16, Acts 3:13), meaning he had to be saved through the same process as those he came to save.
Questions I want answered:
* If such statements as these Creeds are binding on all Christians, then why not other doctrinal statements made by other church councils, which contain equally 'Biblical' statements?
* Why does the Bible say it is essential to know the Father is the only true God, not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
* Why does no single passage in the Bible describe God as three persons?
* Why would a doctrine which is allegedly essential for salvation not be taught by the apostles or declared explicitly in Scripture?
* Where does the Bible say that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation?
* Why does the Bible say it is essential to believe that Jesus is a man, not that Jesus is God?
* Why did the apostles baptize thousands of people without teaching them the Trinity, or even that Jesus is God?
* Why do the apostles repeatedly say that the saving work of the atonement was based on Jesus being a man, not on Jesus being God, or a 'God-man'?
* What evidence is there that the Greek and Hebrew words for 'he' can refer to more than one person?
* In Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28, Christ says that of those who have been born of a woman, there was none greater than John the Baptist - Scripture says that Christ was born of a woman (Matthew 1:26, Galatians 4:4), so who is greater, John the Baptist or Christ?
* Did Jesus die, or did only Jesus' body die?
* Can God die?
* God cannot be seen by men (1 Timothy 6:16), so when men saw Jesus, who did they see?
* Why did the apostles use none of the arguments for the Trinity, nor any of the quotes, which my opponent does?
* What arguments and quotes did the apostles use to convince people of the Trinity?
* Why could my opponent only find two verses in the entire Bible which apparently call Jesus 'THEOS'?
Contrary to my opponent’s claims, of all the posts and links I have provided the moderators reviewing my posts as I made them objected to only one, which I edited immediately. Even if I had breached the rules ‘repeatedly’, it would not justify him doing the same.
