My opponent is confused by the passages which say that God cannot be seen, and the passages which say that He has been seen, and has to resort to a clumsy chain of reasoning in order to address what he sees as an otherwise irreconcilable contradiction.
The Bible makes it clear that God uses agents to represent Him (such as the angels), and that these agents bear His Name, and are spoken of synonymously with Him.
For example, in Exodus 23:20-21 an angel is given the name of Yahweh when he acts as God's agent, in Genesis 32:27-30 Jacob wrestles with an angel who tells him he has wrestled with God (and Jacob says he has seen God face to face), and in Acts 7:30 Stephen says that when 'Yahweh' spoke to Moses in the burning bush, it was really an angel. This is how God could be ‘seen’ – by an agent who was representing God.
This entirely Biblical solution to my opponent’s problem has not occurred to him, and he resorts to his own inferences and extrapolations as a result. Why not accept the explicit teaching of the Scriptures instead?
My opponent has claimed to rely on the explicit teachings of the apostles, but in fact he has not. For example, he cannot find a passage where the apostles teach Christ is God, so he finds a passage in which Christ is described in such a way as he infers Christ is omnipotent, which he then extrapolates to claim that Jesus is God.
He has had to employ this combination of inference and extrapolation (appealing to the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle), every step of the way in the making of his case, and then combine all these faulty conclusions into a doctrine never taught by the apostles.
The fact that he has had to do this proves that he could find no passages in the Bible teaching the trinity, or else there would be no need for this extended chain of reasoning – he could simply show me the relevant passages.
I haven’t had to rely on personal inferences and then try to make sense of the mess they cause, because I have relied on the explicit teaching of the Bible. I can accept the explicit teaching of the apostles without trying to modify, amplify, or qualify their words with conclusions I have extrapolated from my own personal inferences.
A summary of the Biblical teaching follows.
The Father
* Christ declared that it is eternal life to know the Father as the only true God (John 17:3)
* The apostles repeatedly taught that God is one person, the Father
* Acts 2: 3,000 are baptized with the knowledge that God is the Father, and that Jesus Christ is ‘a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him’
* In the Divine throne room visions of Exodus 24, Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, Acts 7, and Revelation 4-5, God is shown as one person, not three
The apostles did not simply teach that there is one God, they taught explicitly that there is one God, the Father:
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father…
Since the apostles taught that there is one God, who is the Father, and since my opponent has agreed the Father is one person ('The Father is A Person'), then the one God is one person, the Father. Note that Christ is distinguished from God, not included in ‘God’.
Scripture states explicitly concerning God that 'The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deuteronomy 6:6, Mark 12:29), and that 'he [one person] is one, and there is no one else besides him [one person]' (Mark 12:32), never describing God as 'three in one'.
In Genesis 1:26 the plural pronouns 'us' and 'our' are used, but in verse 27 the noun and verb are in the singular, indicating that only one person is involved in the act of creation of man and woman, thus 'God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them'.
Likewise in Genesis 2:8, 'he placed the man he had formed', Genesis 2:22, 'the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken... he brought her', Genesis 5:1-2, 'he made them... He created them male and female... he blessed them'. Christ described the creation of man and woman as the act of one person who was not himself (Matthew 19:4, 'he made them male and female').
Readers, what you understand by ‘he’. One person, or more than one person? In Hebrew, Greek and English, ‘he’ means ‘one person’. Check standard grammars to settle the point for yourself.
Let the readers note that my opponent was utterly unable to answer this question, responding only with a question of his own (which I have already answered twice).
He asked me if I can show that ‘he’ cannot refer to ‘one being’, or one being with many persons, which is a complete blind, since personal pronouns count persons, not beings, as I have already said. Even if there was one being consisting of fifty persons, that one being would still have to be referred to with a plural personal pronoun (‘they’, ‘them’, ‘we’, etc), since more than one person is being referred to.
The Son
The apostles taught explicitly that Christ is the agent by which God saves (Romans 6:23 'the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus', Titus 3:5-6 'renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He [God] poured out on us in full measure in Jesus Christ our Savior', Galatians 3:15 'in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles', Hebrews 13:20-21 'God... working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ'), including justification (Romans 3:24-26; 5:1-2), sanctification (Hebrews 10:10 ‘we have been made holy [‘sanctified’] through the offering of the body of Jesus’), and glorification (2 Thessalonians 2:12).
The apostles predicate Christ's work of salvation on his being a man identical to those he came to save, and really died (my opponent was unable to explain how Christ died). Christ also had to be justified (1 Timothy 3:16), sanctified (John 10:36), and glorified (John 7:39; 11:4; 12:16, Acts 3:13), meaning he had to be saved through the same process as those he came to save.
Christ has the authority to judge men not because he is God, but because he is a man whom God has appointed with this authority (John 5:22, 27; 17:1-3 Acts 10:42; 17:31). Christ explicitly attributed the creation to one person who was not himself (Matthew 19:4).
Christ is not omniscient, he stated explicitly that there was knowledge he did not have (Mark 13:32). Christ's knowledge has clearly been limited from his life in earth up to and including his current life in heaven (Luke 2:52 'Jesus increased in wisdom', Hebrews 5:8 'he learned obedience', Revelation 1:1 'The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him').
Christ is not omnipresent, he told his disciples he would leave them and return later (John 13:33, 36; 14:2-3, 18, 28; 16:7), and the fact that he actually left and it was said by angels that he would return in the future (Acts 1:9-11).
In Matthew 18:20, Christ says that he is present when two or three are gathered in his name, which places a condition on his presence (if he was omnipresent he would be there regardless of who was gathered in what name). Paul says the same of himself, and does not say that Christ is literally present, only the power of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:4 ‘When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of our Lord Jesus’).
The Bible says there was a time when God's fatherhood of Christ was still future (2 Samuel 7:14), and the time that God became the father of Christ (Hebrews 1:5).
Thus there was a time when God was not the father of Christ, and there was a time when God became the father of Christ. Thus there was a point in time at which Christ was brought into existence, since in order to be a literal father a person must cause a son to come into existence when previously they did not exist.
Christ is not co-equal with the Father (John 5:19, 30 ‘the Son can do nothing from himself’, ‘I can do nothing of myself’, John 14:28 'My Father is greater than I'), and 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 later Trinitarian distinction that Christ is ontologically equal but functionally subordinate is made nowhere in Scripture (which declares an unqualified subordination), nor in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds (which declare an unqualified equality).
My opponent occupies a curious middle position between the Scriptures and the Athanasian Creed, insisting on a subordinationism which is only ‘functional’, a distinction made nowhere in either the Scriptures or the Athanasian Creed.
The later Trinitarian distinction that Christ is ontologically equal but functionally subordinate is made nowhere in Scripture (which declares an unqualified subordination), nor in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds (which declare an unqualified equality).
My opponent occupies a curious middle position between the Scriptures and the Athanasian Creed, insisting on a subordinationism which is only ‘functional’, a distinction made nowhere in either the Scriptures or the Athanasian Creed.
The Holy Spirit
The Greek and Hebrew words used for the Holy Spirit never mean ‘person’. The Holy Spirit is described consistently as an attribute of God (referred to consistently 'the Spirit of God'), and explicitly the agent by which He works (Job 26:13 'by His spirit', Zechariah 4:6 'by My spirit', 1 Corinthians 2:10 'by His spirit', Ephesians 3:16 'by His spirit'). An attribute is of course not a person, an attribute is, by definition, impersonal.
Regardless of the (scant), personification of the spirit, the fact is that the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the spirit do not mean ‘person’. You can check this for yourself with a reputable lexicon which quotes historical sources.
My opponent has attributed to the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’ meanings they simply do not have. These words are used of angels and evil spirits, but my opponent can hardly claim that the Holy Spirit is an angel or an evil spirit. Further, when they are used of an angel or an evil spirit, the words used are ‘a spirit’, whereas the Holy Spirit is never described as ‘a spirit’.
In numerous passages of Scripture we have God and the Holy Spirit distinguished from each other, not as separate persons, but as separate entities. Note that to the Trinitarian, the word God includes persons, so if you have a passage speaking of God and the Holy Spirit, then you have a passage distinguishing the Holy Spirit from the persons of God.
The very fact that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by God proves that the Holy Spirit and God are two separate entities.
The Trinity: Essential Christian Doctrine?
Did the apostles teach the Trinity as an essential Christian doctrine?
* Acts 2: 3,000 are baptized with the knowledge that God is the Father, and that Jesus Christ is ‘a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him’
* Acts 3: The apostles teach that Christ is ‘the servant of God’, that ‘the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus’, distinguishing Jesus from God
* Acts 4: The apostles attribute all creation to God as one person, and refer to Jesus not as God but the servant of God.
* Acts 5: The apostles teach that God raised Jesus (again distinguishing Jesus from God), and say that God exalted Jesus, raising him to the right hand of God (distinct from Jesus), preaching to everyone that Jesus was the Christ (not God)
* Acts 7: Stephen preaches Jesus is the son of man (not ‘God’), distinguishes between God and Christ, and says that he saw Jesus and God as two separate beings, with Jesus on the right hand of God.
* Acts 8: People are baptized after hearing ‘the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ’, not that Jesus is God
* Acts 10: A household is baptized after the apostles preach that Jesus is ‘the one appointed by God’, and say that Jesus could perform miracles ‘because God was with him’, not because he was God
* Acts 11: Peter defends his baptism of Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (not the Trinity), but does not have to defend neglecting to teach that Jesus is really God
* Acts 13: Christ is repeatedly distinguished from God, and the good news is that 'God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus' (not 'Jesus is God')
The Greek and Hebrew words used for the Holy Spirit never mean ‘person’. The Holy Spirit is described consistently as an attribute of God (referred to consistently 'the Spirit of God'), and explicitly the agent by which He works (Job 26:13 'by His spirit', Zechariah 4:6 'by My spirit', 1 Corinthians 2:10 'by His spirit', Ephesians 3:16 'by His spirit'). An attribute is of course not a person, an attribute is, by definition, impersonal.
Regardless of the (scant), personification of the spirit, the fact is that the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the spirit do not mean ‘person’. You can check this for yourself with a reputable lexicon which quotes historical sources.
My opponent has attributed to the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’ meanings they simply do not have. These words are used of angels and evil spirits, but my opponent can hardly claim that the Holy Spirit is an angel or an evil spirit. Further, when they are used of an angel or an evil spirit, the words used are ‘a spirit’, whereas the Holy Spirit is never described as ‘a spirit’.
In numerous passages of Scripture we have God and the Holy Spirit distinguished from each other, not as separate persons, but as separate entities. Note that to the Trinitarian, the word God includes persons, so if you have a passage speaking of God and the Holy Spirit, then you have a passage distinguishing the Holy Spirit from the persons of God.
The very fact that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by God proves that the Holy Spirit and God are two separate entities.
The Trinity: Essential Christian Doctrine?
Did the apostles teach the Trinity as an essential Christian doctrine?
* Acts 2: 3,000 are baptized with the knowledge that God is the Father, and that Jesus Christ is ‘a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him’
* Acts 3: The apostles teach that Christ is ‘the servant of God’, that ‘the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus’, distinguishing Jesus from God
* Acts 4: The apostles attribute all creation to God as one person, and refer to Jesus not as God but the servant of God.
* Acts 5: The apostles teach that God raised Jesus (again distinguishing Jesus from God), and say that God exalted Jesus, raising him to the right hand of God (distinct from Jesus), preaching to everyone that Jesus was the Christ (not God)
* Acts 7: Stephen preaches Jesus is the son of man (not ‘God’), distinguishes between God and Christ, and says that he saw Jesus and God as two separate beings, with Jesus on the right hand of God.
* Acts 8: People are baptized after hearing ‘the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ’, not that Jesus is God
* Acts 10: A household is baptized after the apostles preach that Jesus is ‘the one appointed by God’, and say that Jesus could perform miracles ‘because God was with him’, not because he was God
* Acts 11: Peter defends his baptism of Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (not the Trinity), but does not have to defend neglecting to teach that Jesus is really God
* Acts 13: Christ is repeatedly distinguished from God, and the good news is that 'God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus' (not 'Jesus is God')
* Acts 17: God is repeatedly identified as one person ('He'), a person other than Christ, who made the world, and is 'going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated', identifying Jesus as a man who is the agent of God, not God Himself
My opponent dismisses these with the claim that there is no evidence that the apostles had to teach people the trinity. This begs the question in an extraordinary way. At Pentecost, Peter had to start by convincing people that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he had risen from the dead, yet my opponent wishes us to believe he was speaking to Jews who already believed in the Trinity?
Absurd – there would have been no reason to teach that Jesus was the Messiah and had risen from the dead, if these Jews already believed in the Trinity.
Why did the apostles never make arguments of my opponent? Why did they use none of the passages of Scripture my opponent uses? My opponent claimed that they were speaking the words which would later become New Testament Scripture, but we don’t find these words teaching the Trinity. Nor does this answer why the apostles did not use any of the Old Testament passages of Scripture to which my opponent appeals. Nor does it explain why the apostles used none of the arguments my opponent uses.
The fact is that the apostles never taught the doctrine of the Trinity at all. As I have shown, later Christians admitted the apostles never taught Jesus is God, but could not agree why. The reason is that they did not believe in it.
The Scriptures teach that it is an essential doctrine to believe that there is one God, who is one person, the Father. My opponent has acknowledged that Scripture teaches it is a heresy to deny that Jesus is a man, and that the apostles taught that it is essential doctrine to believe that Jesus both was, and still is, a man.
Nowhere in the entire Bible is there a single passage teaching that the Trinity is an essential doctrine.
My opponent dismisses these with the claim that there is no evidence that the apostles had to teach people the trinity. This begs the question in an extraordinary way. At Pentecost, Peter had to start by convincing people that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he had risen from the dead, yet my opponent wishes us to believe he was speaking to Jews who already believed in the Trinity?
Absurd – there would have been no reason to teach that Jesus was the Messiah and had risen from the dead, if these Jews already believed in the Trinity.
Why did the apostles never make arguments of my opponent? Why did they use none of the passages of Scripture my opponent uses? My opponent claimed that they were speaking the words which would later become New Testament Scripture, but we don’t find these words teaching the Trinity. Nor does this answer why the apostles did not use any of the Old Testament passages of Scripture to which my opponent appeals. Nor does it explain why the apostles used none of the arguments my opponent uses.
The fact is that the apostles never taught the doctrine of the Trinity at all. As I have shown, later Christians admitted the apostles never taught Jesus is God, but could not agree why. The reason is that they did not believe in it.
The Scriptures teach that it is an essential doctrine to believe that there is one God, who is one person, the Father. My opponent has acknowledged that Scripture teaches it is a heresy to deny that Jesus is a man, and that the apostles taught that it is essential doctrine to believe that Jesus both was, and still is, a man.
Nowhere in the entire Bible is there a single passage teaching that the Trinity is an essential doctrine.
