Moderator Comment

We have now come to the end of part three of our four point debate. We will now be starting the last section the person or being of the Holy Spirit. Searchingone1033 will have the opening argument and Prophetnick77 will have the first rebuttal.

Also, at this time I would like to invite both participants if they wish to make one summary statement consisting of 2500 words with no external links or rebuttals by either party. Because Searchingone1033 had the opening argument at the start of the debate, Prophetnick77 will have the first summary statement.

Summary statements are not to be presented as arguments only a recap of stated beliefs on each of the four points of the debate.

Prophetnick77 -- Point 3: Closing Statement

Point 3: The Person of the Son

Let me begin by stating that I unapologetically stand by my use of extra words in my last post, but because my opponent has cried foul I’ll limit this post to 1200 words.

OK… So we are back to claiming that I have to prove creeds. This has been maintained throughout and as I said in my very first post:

“Before beginning this debate Searchingone1033 asked me what kind of Trinitarianism I hold to and I told him that I hold to orthodox Trinitarianism as affirmed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the Athanasian Creed. The question was then asked if I would be arguing based on these creeds and my response was “no.” I explained that I would be arguing my point based on the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures.”

I’ve held true to my word. My task was to debate my position on the 4 agreed upon points. So far I’ve done this. If the Trinity can be proven (which it has been) to be Who and What God is then it follows that it’s essential to salvation. But once again, I don’t need to defend the creeds.

I will now define my use of the word Biblical. “Biblical” refers to that teaching which is inherent in scripture and brings harmony to the text and our theology. The Trinity by this standard is clearly Biblical since nothing has ever been set forth to contradict or refute it. Searchingone1033’s problem seems to be the extra-Biblical language employed by the creeds, but as Robert Letham said, “This was necessary because heretics misused the Bible to support their erroneous ideas.”[1] In other words, both the orthodox and heterodox were using the same words to describe different things, therefore the orthodox needed to provide more precise definitions of what the Bible taught so the heretics couldn’t twist it.

It was said that I had no answer for the “wealth of information” provided in Searchingone1033’s arguments, but is this the case? As I stated, there was nothing of substance in disproving the Trinity therefore I presented an affirmative position that nullified all arguments against the Trinity. Once again, Jesus is a man, yes—a God-Man. To say that the apostles taught that Jesus was merely a man is ridiculous in light of their praying to Jesus (Acts 7:59; 1Corinthians 1:2) and their worship of Jesus (see last post), and their calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Even secular reference is made to this fact (see Pliny the Younger, Epistles X.96)

I’d like to correct the claim that I said Yahweh applying the title “Savior” to Himself meant that no one other than God could be called “Savior.” The claim was that only Yahweh is able to save, He alone is the Savior. He did after all say that there is NO SAVIOR BESIDE HIM. Of course we are referring to the salvation of our souls and the conferment of eternal life. Something the men in Judges could not do.

Jesus never corrected the men in John 5 in fact to say that He could do nothing of Himself only showed the essential unity of the Father and the Son. Jesus’ statement that the Father is greater was a reference to function, not ontology. Regardless of what my opponent would have you believe, functional subordination is conducive to Trinitarianism. And Jesus’ being a servant in no way detracts from His being God. Philippians 2:5-8 so eloquently explains the humiliation of the Son (cf. Heb. 2:7, 9).

The Granville Sharp rule is anything but ambiguous. It’s an irrefutable rule of grammar with absolutely no exception. And if my only proof of Jesus’ deity was based upon this rule then maybe I’d have reason to worry, but it has been clearly shown that the title “God” in one of a multitude of proofs.

Searchingone1033 is guilty of equivocation concerning the word “one” in John 10:30 and John 17:20-23. Clearly the contexts are completely different and the word “one” is used differently. But let’s imagine that Jesus did mean a unity of purpose and will in John 10… How would that hurt the Trinitarian position?

I’d note that HO ŌN is the present participle of EGŌ EIMI thus Jesus’ saying “I AM” is in keeping with the text. But that ignores the Isaiah parallels.

Concerning the Glory issue I’ll offer A.T. Robertson’s note:

“And the glory (kagō tēn doxan). Literally, “And I the glory,” with emphasis on “I.” It is the glory of the Incarnate Word (Bernard), cf. Joh. 1:14; Joh. 2:11, not the glory of the Eternal Word mentioned in Joh. 17:24.”[2]

Searchingone1033 actually helped the Trinitarian position by mentioning the Angel of Yahweh. Clearly when read in context there is no mistaking that the Angel of Yahweh is indeed Yahweh Himself. Many have concluded this to be the pre-incarnate Christ and with good reason. I can’t possibly cover all the passages so I’ll point readers to some references: Genesis 16:7-13; 21:12-18; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; Exodus 3:1-22; 13:21-22 cf. 14:19-20; Numbers 22:34-35 cf. 22:38 & 23:12; Judges 2:1-4; 6:12-23; 13:3-23.

If Searchingone1033 wants to argue that Jesus wasn’t worshipped then on what grounds would he conclude that God the Father was? There are simply too many examples of Jesus being worshipped to write them off as people merely “bowing down” to Him. I’d also note that the “Lord” in Matthew 18:26 was clearly referring to the Father (vs. 35). Revelation 3:9 is the exception, not the rule.

Answers to Questions

1. Irrelevant (Creeds ain’t the issue)

2. John 17:3 places Jesus on the same level of “essentiality” as the Father.

3. Single passages do—Matthew 28:19.

4. It was taught by the apostles as seen in their benedictions and doxologies (1Corinthians 13:14; 2Thessalonians 3:5; 1Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21).

5. The necessity of the Trinity for salvation is the logical conclusion drawn from identifying God as Triune.

6. John refuted a Gnostic heresy (Docetism) that denied Jesus came in the flesh—they had no problem with His Deity.

7. The apostles did teach that Jesus was God (Acts 20:28) and they baptized in Jesus’ name [authority] (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 16, 10:48, 19:5) using the Trinitarian formula He prescribed (Matthew 28:19).

8. The apostles say no such thing, but Jesus would have needed to be a man to atone for sin since blood was necessary (Leviticus 17:11).

9. I’ll answer the question with a question – What evidence is there that the Greek and Hebrew words for “he” cannot refer to One Being?

10. Jesus is greater (Colossians 1:15-18).

11. Bodies are the only thing that die, but the debate isn’t ‘soul sleep’ it is the Trinity.

12. God incarnate can and did.

13. Yes, God can be seen by men (Genesis 32: 30; Exodus 24:11; Judges 13:22)—No, the Father cannot be seen by men (John 1:18; 6:46; 1John 4:12, 20.)

14. Irrelevant (Perhaps there was no argument against it)

15. Irrelevant (Who says the people needed convincing?)

16. I used 2 verses (Titus 2:13 & 2Peter 1:1) that are irrefutable grammatically via the Granville Sharp rule. I can list plenty stating that Jesus is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; 1Timothy 3:16 (TR); Hebrews 1:8; 1John 5:20)

Notes

[1] Letham, Robert, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004) p. 2.

[2] Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, John 17:22 (E-Sword Bible Software).

Searchingone1033 -- Point 3: Counter Rebuttal

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.

Prophetnick77 -- Point 3: First Rebuttal

Point 3: The Person of the Son

We now move into the point of debate that I have anticipated more than any. Immediately I’d like to point out that my opponent has once again violated the rules of the debate with his link usage. His argument was continued in the links. But I will not fault him for this nor ask that it be changed in any way. As I see it the arguments are less than compelling on all counts. For the sake of space I will not be presenting a point by point refutation to the comments of Searchingone1033 because there wasn’t much substance to the points raised. Instead I will present an affirmative position on the Person of the Son and His Deity.

One quick note is that the Biblical writers did explicitly teach that Jesus was the Savior, to this there is no doubt (Matthew 1:21; Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 4:12, 5:31; Ephesians 5:23; Philippians 3:20; 2Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2Peter 1:11; 1John 4:14; etc.). To say He is an “agent of salvation” seems nothing more than an admission that He is the Savior while trying to avoid actually saying it. Once again we must remember that Yahweh said in Isaiah 43:11; “I myself am Yahweh and besides me there is no savior” (WEB).

I must at this point mention the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. This rule states that when there are 2 nouns that are both singular which describe a person, and these nouns are connected by the word “and,” the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article then they refer to the SAME PERSON. (*Note that the nouns cannot be personal names*) There is absolutely no exception to this rule in all of the Greek New Testament. Having stated this rule I find it necessary to present two verses of scripture that unequivocally qualify Jesus as both God and Savior.

Titus 2:13 - while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV)

2Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV)

Notice in both verses the noun “God” (theou) has the article (tou) and is connected to the second noun “Savior” (sōtēros) which does not have an article, by the word “and” (kai). Thus “God and Savior” both refer to the Person of Jesus. Grammatically this is irrefutable. So not only is Jesus Savior, He is God! Funnily enough these two verses were called “ambiguous” in one of my opponent’s links, but such is not the case.

Searchingone1033 seems to think that I must show that the apostle’s explicitly taught the Trinity as defined by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan & Athanasian creeds for it to be an essential Christian doctrine but truthfully I don’t. My only task is proving that the Trinity is indeed Biblical which I have already done (see my first post of point 1). It then follows that if Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, and Jesus is essential for salvation, then the doctrine of the Trinity is essential as well. In other words, it would have been impossible to preach about the only Jesus that can save, without a belief in the Trinity.

Already discussed in previous posts were the eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of the Son. Attempts at refutation have been made via arguments against these divine attributes by focusing on the Human Nature of the Son in his incarnation, and consequently, irrelevant conclusions have been drawn. This was seen from Searchingone1033’s summary of the book of Acts which wasn’t all that substantial. Concerning the belief that Jesus is a man, I affirm this. Jesus is a man. He is not a mere man, but He is a man nonetheless.

We must make the distinction between the Son who has been the Son from all eternity, and Jesus who is the Son incarnated. They are not two distinct persons or beings, but Jesus is the Son clothed in humanity. Jesus is the One Person with Two Natures. There was a time when the Son had but one nature of deity. When the nature of humanity was added, then the Son was incarnated as Jesus, the Word was made flesh (John 1:14).

Now to supplement the above information with additional proofs of Christ’s Deity:

· Jesus claimed he was God!

In John 5:18 the Jews understood precisely Jesus’ words when He said that God was His Father. They said that in claiming this he made himself “equal with God.”

In John 10:30 Jesus made the statement saying, “I and my Father are one” which the Jews understood as a claim of deity since they picked up stones to stone Him because He being a man “made himself God” (vs. 33).

Concerning the forgiving of sins, it was the scribes who saw Jesus as blaspheming by forgiving sins because only God could forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7). His giving this authority to the apostles doesn’t negate his being God—in fact it stands to reason that only God could give such authority.

When Jesus stood trial and was adjured under oath to answer whether or not he was the Son of God his reply was, “I am” then He proceeded to tell high priest that he would see Him (the Son of Man) coming in the clouds of heaven sitting at the right hand of power. This was perceived as blasphemy by the high priest and he rent his priestly garment and condemned Jesus to death (Mark 14:60-64). No doubt the high priest saw this as a claim of deity.

Then of course there is Jesus’ famous claim in John 8:58 when he said “Before Abraham was I am.” Once again we see the Jews picking up stones to kill him. Immediately our attention shifts to Exodus 3:14 where Yahweh told Moses to tell the people “I am that I am” had sent him. The Hebrew phrase is “eheyeh asher eheyeh” and was translated in the Septuagint as “egō eimi ho ōn”— Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 was, “prin Abraam genethai egō eimi.”

· I AM Passages

John 8:58 is one of many I AM statements that Jesus made which can be compared to I AM statements which Yahweh made in the Old Testament, specifically the book of Isaiah. Aside from the above mentioned verse, the Septuagint renders another Hebrew phrase “ani hu” as “egō eimi.”

In John 4:26 Jesus says to the woman at the well, “I that speak unto thee am he” (egō eimi, ho lalōn soi) while a parallel can be found from Yahweh’s statement in Isaiah 52:6 when He said, “I am he that does speak, behold it is I” (egō eimi autos ho lalōn pareimi).

Jesus’ words in John 13:19 where He says, “that you may believe that I am” (hina pisteusēte hotan genētai hoti egō eimi) are reminiscent of Yahweh’s words in Isaiah 43:10 where He said, “that you may know and believe and understand that I am” (hina gnōte kai pisteusēte kai sunēte hoti egō eimi).

Directly connected to the above Isaiah passage and perhaps the most telling I am statement is John 8:24 where Jesus said to the Jews, “If you believe not that I am you will die in your sins” (hoti egō eimi, apothaneisthe en tais hamartiais humōn). This fits perfectly with Yahweh’s statements concerning believing and understanding that he is the “I AM” and beside him there is no savior (Isaiah 43:10-11).

Due to the limited space I will not be able to give a full account of all the parallels and usages of “egō eimi” in the LXX and NT, but I will give a reference of all significant passages (*some simply draw parallels without the use of egō eimi*). Besides the abovementioned there is also: Isaiah 41:4; 43:1-3, 5, 25; 45:18; 46:4; 51:12 & John 6:20; 8:28; 18:5-6, 8.

· OT Passages about Yahweh Applied to Jesus

The apostle John quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 which was about Yahweh and applied the passage directly to Jesus in John 12:38-41. After quoting Isaiah John offers us his God-Breathed interpretation of the passage and says, “These things said Isaiah when he saw HIS glory and spoke of HIM.” The context of the chapter shows the HIM to be none other than Jesus! Thus John tells us in the simplest of terms that Jesus is Yahweh!

Likewise, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all apply Isaiah 40:3 where it is said to "prepare the way for Yahweh" and "make straight a highway for God", to the ministry of John the Baptist who came before Jesus to prepare the way for Jesus (Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27).

And what I feel is probably the most compelling passage is Romans 10:13 which applies Joel’s words that “whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved,” directly to Jesus.

· Titles of Yahweh Applied to Jesus

There are also the titles of Yahweh in the OT that are applied to Jesus in the New Testament that must be considered. Those titles are: “Lord of Lords” and “First and Last.” In Deuteronomy 10:17 & Psalm 136:3 Yahweh is called the “Lord of lords”—likewise in 1Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, & 19:16 Jesus is called the “Lord of lords.” Also, in Isaiah 44:6 & 48:12 Yahweh is called “the First and the Last—Jesus as well is called “the First and the Last” in Revelation 1:11, 17; 2:8; 22:13.

· Jesus receives Worship

The Bible shows us Jesus being worshipped again and again without correction or apology. From childhood (Matthew 2:2, 11) to adulthood, Jesus is worshipped. He received worship from a leper in Matthew 8:2 and from Jairus in Matthew 9:18. He was worshipped by the disciples in Matthew 14:33; 28:17; Luke 24:52, the mother of Zebedee’s children in Matthew 20:20, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in Matthew 28:9. Jesus was worshipped by the man possessed with the legion of demons in Mark 5:6 as well as the man who was born blind in John 9:38. We even see the angels worshipping Jesus in Hebrews 1:6.

Now contrast this with Peter being worshipped in Acts 10:25-26 where he immediately corrects the man by saying, “Stand up, I myself am also a man,” or Paul and Barnabas renting their garments and not allowing the Greek to sacrifice to them in Acts 14:11-15 claiming that they were “men of like passions.” The apostle John fell down to worship an angel/messenger in Revelation 19:10 and this angel said to him, “see thou do it not!” It is clear then that Jesus must be God in order to receive the same worship afforded to God alone. And to solidify this fact we see the Lamb and God receiving the exact same worship in Revelation 5:13-14. We know that Jesus is the Lamb (John 1:29) so if he were not God then God would have shared worship with a lowly creature.

· Jesus Shares Glory with the Father

Yahweh said in Isaiah 42:8 that he would not give His glory to another or his praise to graven images. Again in Isaiah 48:11 he explicitly states that He will not give His glory to another. We have already seen that Jesus is worshipped and to add to this Jesus Himself said in his famous prayer to the Father in John 17:5, “Father, glorify me with the GLORY I HAD WITH YOU before the world existed.”

This verse speaks volumes… For one it tells us that Jesus possessed the SAME GLORY as the Father. Secondly, it tells us that the Son existed before the world existed. Thirdly, it tells us via the imperfect tense of Jesus’ possession of this glory, that He had it as far back as can possibly be conceived. In other words, the action of Jesus’ “having” this glory was a continuous action in the past, thus there was never a time when he came into possession of this glory. It was ALWAYS HIS!!!

Space won’t allow any more than I have already presented, but I have barely scratched the surface in regard to what Scripture says concerning the Person of Jesus or his Hypostatic Union.

******************Jesus did not need to be saved!******************

Searchingone1033 claimed that Jesus needed to be saved like any other man. Well the scriptures testify unanimously that Jesus came to save people from their sin (Matthew 1:21). Jesus had no sin to be saved from as 2Corinthians 5:21 (who knew no sin); Hebrews 4:15 (without sin); and 1Peter 2:22 (who did no sin) so plainly tell us. Hebrews 9:14 tells us that Jesus offered himself without spot to God.

[*Note: I purposely exceeded the 1500 word limit so as to keep things somewhat fair. Searchingone1033 has violated the parameters of the debate format many times up to this point and I have allowed this without asking that he be disqualified. For this reason I feel that I am entitled to a few extra words in my presentation of the Son.*]

Searchingone1033 -- Point 3: Opening Statement

POINT 3: The Person of the Son


Readers, consider which is more authoritative, my opponent's inferences or the explicit teaching of the apostles.

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).

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 (not just from ‘God the Father’)

* Acts 4: The apostles attribute all creation to God as one person, and refer to Jesus not as God but the servant of God (again distinguishing Jesus from 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 (as distinct from Jesus), preaching to everyone that Jesus was the Christ (not that Jesus was 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: In a lengthy speech 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 as God

Why did the apostles never make arguments of my opponent?

Later Christians admitted the apostles never taught Jesus is God, but could not agree why (here).

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 (here). But Trinitarians cannot accept that Christ really died (here), and some Trinitarian Bibles obscure the fact he came 'in the flesh', along with making other translation errors motivated by bias (here).

Lacking explicit Biblical teaching that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, Trinitarians attempt to make a case that Jesus is God on the basis that he:

* Is called THEOS:

My opponent has rightly corrected this (my emphasis):

‘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.’

Jesus said the same (John 10:33-36).

* Forgave sins:

The disciples could forgive sins (John 20:23), and no one claims they are God.

* Performed miracles

Christ performed miracles not because he was God, but because gave him the power to do so, just like other prophets sent by God (Matthew 9:8, John 3:2; 14:10-11).

Christ taught that the miracles were the work of God through him (John 5:19, 30 ‘the Son can do nothing from himself’, ‘I can do nothing of myself’ John 14:10 ' the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds,'), and Scripture states explicitly that he had no power of his own, but received it from God (Matthew 28:18, John 5:19-20, 26, 30; 8:28, Revelation 5:12).

The apostles likewise taught explicitly that the miracles were performed by God, through Christ (Acts 2:22 ‘a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him’, Acts 10:42; 17:31, Philippians 2:9).

* Has authority to judge men

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).

It is also claimed Jesus:

* Created all things

Christ explicitly attributed the creation to one person who was not himself (Matthew 19:4).

* Is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent

Christ had no power of his own, but received it from God (Matthew 28:18, John 5:19-20, 26, 30; 8:28; 14:10; 17:1-3, Acts 2:22; 10:42; 17:31, Philippians 2:9, Revelation 5:12).

That Christ is not omniscient is proved by the fact that Christ had previously stated explicitly that there was knowledge he did not have (Mark 13:32), and 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').

That Christ is not omnipresent is proved by the fact that 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), and the proof that this is not a declaration of omnipresence is the fact that Paul says exactly 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’).

* Existed from all eternity and had no beginning in time

The Bible says there was a time when God's fatherhood of Christ was still future, demonstrating Christ’s existence is not eternal:

2 Samuel 7:14 'I will become his father and he will become my son.

Scripture also tells us the time that God became the father of Christ:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son! Today I have fathered you”? And in another place he says, “I will be his father and he will be my son.”

Scripture thus tells us explicitly that there was a time when God was not the father of Christ, and Scripture tells us explicitly that 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.

In Hebrews 1:6, Paul says ‘But when he [God] again brings his firstborn into the world’, proving that there was a time when God first brought Christ into the world, which could not have occurred if Christ had always existed. This states explicitly that Christ was brought into the world, twice (commentators usually attribute the second to the resurrection of Christ, again proof that Christ did not exist while he was dead).

* Is co-equal with the Father

That Christ is not co-equal with the Father is proved by the fact that he himself declared his subordination (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).

Moderator Comment

We have now come to the end of part two of our four point debate. At the half way point, I would like to thank both participants for their willingness and diligence in presenting their differing points of view. We will now be moving on to part three of our debate, the person of the Son. Searchingone1033 will have the opening argument and Prophetnick77 will have the first rebuttal.

Searchingone1033 -- Point 2: Closing Statement

POINT 2: The person or being of the Father

My opponent acknowledges that his doctrine is inferred from various passages of Scripture, and not taught explicitly in Scripture. Since my understanding of God is taught explicitly in Scripture, I see no necessity to abandon it for my opponent’s personal inferences. If there was even a single passage in which the apostles taught people the Trinity, or a single passage in which it was said to be essential Christian doctrine, my opponent would have quoted when by now, but we both know such passages do not exist.

My opponent asks where it is written that doctrines must be declared explicitly in order to be valid. I have never said that inferred doctrines are necessarily invalid. Doctrines which are merely inferred cannot be considered essential and necessary teachings, because there is no evidence that they were taught at all (else we would not have to infer them).

Consider instead the Biblical evidence:

* Christ declared that it is eternal life to know the Father as the only true God (John 17:3), meaning that 1 John 5:20 (where the grammar is ambiguous), must refer to the Father and not Jesus (you cannot have two persons who are ‘the only true God’)

* The apostles repeatedly taught that God is one person, the Father (here)

* 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.

My opponent claimed that the Bible and the Early Fathers do not teach that the Father created alone. Readers, judge for yourselves (here and here), noting especially Christ’s attribution of creation to one person, who was not himself.

It was further claimed that the apostles ‘never taught that God was One Person, the Father'. 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’.

The word 'elohim' is not a 'plural noun’. It has an ending which in other nouns is plural), but in fact it can refer either to a singular or plural subject, just like 'fish' and 'sheep'. It's the subject/verb agreement which identifies whether it is singular or plural, as in English.

Other nouns of this class include the following (places where the usage is singular are in parentheses):

* zequnim: old age (Genesis 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20)

* ne`urim: youth (1 Samuel 17:33)

* 'adonim: lord (Isaiah 19:4)

In English, if I say 'The fish is blue', you know I'm talking about one fish, not because 'fish' is the singular form of 'fish', but because 'is' is the singular verb. If I say 'the sheep are outside', you know I am talking about more than one sheep, not because 'sheep' is the plural form of 'sheep', but because 'are' is the plural verb. The same applies to the Hebrew word 'elohim'. Whenever the verb is singular, the noun refers to only one person.

When 'elohim' takes the plural verb, it refers to more than one person, such as the gods of the heathen, men, or angels. But the singular verb is used when 'elohim' is used of God Himself. This reinforces repeatedly that God is one person.

In Genesis 1:26, God ('elohim'), said 'Let us make', addressing persons other than Himself (the angels in His presence to whom He speaks, as in 1 Kings 22:19-22, and Isaiah 6:1-8).

When the actual creation takes place in verse 27, the word 'elohim' is used with the singular form of the verb 'make', proving that the creation was carried out by only one person. If the creation had been carried out by more than one person, it would necessarily have been described with the plural form of the verb.

It is worth noting that the Jews (who may be relied upon to know Hebrew), always understood 'elohim' and the singular verb to refer to one person, and translated it with the singular word for God in their Greek translations of the Old Testament (THEOS). The Jews of course have for thousands of years worshipped God as one person, and He has never seen fit to reveal they should do otherwise.

My opponent claimed that I said ‘beings don’t speak but persons do’, when I said no such thing, I said personal pronouns count persons, not beings. It doesn’t matter if you have only one being, if that one being is more than one male person, then you cannot use the singular male pronoun ‘he’, you must use ‘they’. If you wish to refer to the entity without reference to the persons, you would have to say ‘it’.

Readers, I invite you to ask yourself what you understand by ‘he’. Do you understand one person, or more than one person? In Hebrew, Greek and English, ‘he’ means ‘one person’. My opponent has failed to show otherwise (and cannot).

An appeal was made to the Hebrew word ‘echad’, and it was erroneously claimed that the Trinity is a ‘compound unity’. In fact a compound unity is a union of separate entities, not a single entity, and since Trinitarians insist that God is not a union of separate entities, He cannot be described as a ‘compound unity’.

The Hebrew word ‘echad’ functions as the English word ‘one’ does, and when placed in front of a noun such as ‘one lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4), means one single noun, not a ‘compound unity’ (and a ‘lord’ is certainly not a ‘compound unity’). Academic Trinitarian apologists such as Gregory Boyd understand this (here).

It is of course meaningless to claim (as my opponent does), that God has always been the literal father of Christ, since in order to be a literal father a person must cause a son to come into existence when previously they did not exist (whereas my opponent wishes to claim that Christ has always existed).

The Bible says there was a time when God's fatherhood of Christ was still future, demonstrating that it was not eternal:

2 Samuel 7:14 I will become his father and he will become my son.

Scripture also tells us the time that God became the father of Christ:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son! Today I have fathered you”? And in another place he says, “I will be his father and he will be my son.”

Scripture thus tells us explicitly that there was a time when God was not the father of Christ, and Scripture tells us explicitly that there was a time when God became the father of Christ.

Recognising that none of the earliest creeds declare the son and Holy Spirit to have been active in creation, my opponent responds:

* '...the creeds don’t say anything about the Son and Holy Spirit not being active in creation.'This is a logical fallacy, an attempt to assert an argument in the basis of the absence of evidence.

In contrast, I have argued positively, from the data which is actually in the creeds. I have argued that the Christians who wrote those creeds believed in one God, the Father Almighty, and that the Father created all things. I have provided direct quotes from the creeds saying exactly this.

My opponent has claimed that these Christians believed in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is unable to find a single statement to this effect in any of these creeds, and has been reduced to claiming without evidence that they believed it.

I argue legitimately that the Christians who wrote those creeds believed in one God, the Father Almighty, and that the Father created all things, because that is what they actually wrote. This is positive evidence for my argument from the creeds, but there is none for my opponent’s.

My opponent complains about my raising the earliest creeds (to which he is unable to give unqualified consent), but I only raise them in response to his repeated claims that the Trinity was taught as essential doctrine from the 1st century onwards. If such claims were true, we would find the Trinity explicitly declared as such in these creeds (as it was in much later creeds), but we do not find it so much as referred to, not even once.

I have, of course, made a positive argument from Scripture, as a reading of both my posts and my web pages will show (over fifty passages of Scripture have been quoted).

Prophetnick77 -- Point 2: Counter Rebuttal

Point 2: The Person or Being of the Father

Have you ever seen a comedian bomb on stage? Or perhaps watched your infant fall off of the bed after being left unattended for a second or two? If you have then you know how painful it is and how these things appear to happen in slow motion. That’s how I felt while reading Searachingone1033’s rebuttal to my opening argument. It was akin to watching a train wreck—I was horrified by what I was witnessing.

I must immediately begin by pointing out the less than honest conclusions of my opponent.

1. It was NEVER agreed upon that scripture does not describe the one Being of God as Three Persons. In fact that statement was supported.

2. Yes, the Trinity is arrived at by systematically studying the whole of scripture in context. The underlying presupposition is that God as an eternally perfect Being cannot contradict Himself. I’d ask for the ‘lone verse’ that says doctrine must be spelled out clearly in a ‘lone verse.’

3. No doubt that the definition was given more precision in later creeds. Such is the destiny of all theology. But let’s not confuse this with the doctrine not being taught in scripture or being believed by the earliest Christians—such is not the case at all as has been sufficiently proven.

I must point out that the same fallacy which has run throughout all of my opponent’s posts rears its ugly little head again in this one and that’s the constant attempt to make this about creeds and not scripture. If he wants to argue creeds then so be it, that’s his right—but I’ll be arguing based on scripture. Any mention of creeds will be supplemental.

We now move into the repeated circular reasoning which is that there is One God who is One Person, the Father. He takes this for granted and then reads into every passage of scripture that speaks of God. I’d like to see a positive proof of this—so far none has been provided or from what I can see even attempted.

Another red herring swims into the debate in the question posed to the readers of whether or not the Father is “one person or more than one person” which is immediately followed by an acknowledgement that Trinitarians don’t believe he is more than one person! Why even ask the question then?

More illogic surfaces, this time in the form of straw man arguments claiming that I’m contending that “One God the Father Almighty” is synonymous with “God in Trinity, Trinity in Unity.” When have I ever made such a claim? It’s then argued that my claim would be that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are further clarifications of this phrase—but this isn’t an argument that I have made or will make. I would however say that the later creeds are a further and more precise treatment of the rudimentary language of the ENTIRE Apostle’s Creed. Irenaeus himself endeavored to expound upon the creed which can be seen in Searchingone1033’s links. There is no doubt that the Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned alongside the Father in the Apostle’s Creed, thus it isn’t surprising that they would be given more attention in the years to come.

Next we have the claim of the Father creating alone. With the exception of Isaiah 64:8, none of the verses cited even say that the Father created. They all say that Yahweh/God created. Now it can be reasonably deduced that the Father created from these verses because the Father is One of Three Persons who equally share the Nature of Deity, and it was this One Divine Being who created. And once again it must be noted that each of these verses speaks of One God (Yahweh) creating, NOT One Person.

Another straw man argument is given attributing statements to me that I have never made. I won’t dignify them with an explanation. Attention is then shifted back to the creeds as never saying the Son and Holy Spirit were active in creation. My response is “so what?” The Bible makes these declarations as was shown in my first post of point 1. I’d also point out that to argue from silence is no argument at all. I can equally claim that the creeds don’t say anything about the Son and Holy Spirit not being active in creation.

And something I find to be extremely strange is that Irenaeus was quoted in one of the links as saying, “One God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” as if he believed that the Father ALONE created.

Irenaeus said elsewhere:

“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;’” (ANF 1:487-88)

If his first statement can be taken as reflective of early Christian belief (which of course it can be) then his second statement can as well. There is no reason to assume that the early church would have deviated from the testimony of scripture that the Father was not alone in the act of creation.

I find it strange that a non-Trinitarian would tell a Trinitarian that his description of the Trinity was inadequate. For the record, all Trinitarians agree that there is One Being that is God. We understand that God is a noun and not a personal name hence the word “God” in reference to Deity always speaks of the One Being of Deity. Now we also acknowledge that this One Being (i.e. Nature/Essence/Substance) is shared equally by Three Persons. To level the charge of inadequacy in description only shows the lack of substantial argument against the points I have raised.

To continue, I was very careful to differentiate between the Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the One Being (God) speaking collectively, which would employ use of singular pronouns since it is the One Being speaking, and the Three Persons of the One Being conversing amongst themselves which would employ the use of plural pronouns. And what is the response to this?—an alleged rule of grammar that beings don’t speak but persons do.

I’d ask exactly which English or Hebrew grammar references state the rule that personal pronouns are never used of Beings but always Persons. I happen to have in my possession my 2nd grade English textbook. We shall now look to the section on Personal Pronouns and see if it is in agreement with Searchingone1033’s claim.

“When a pronoun is used in place of a person’s name, it is called a personal pronoun. Personal pronouns may also refer to things.” - Building English Skills, (Evanston, IL: McDougal, Littell & Company, 1988) p. 427

Well there you have it—even at an elementary level we are taught that personal pronouns can identify things. If a Being is not a Person (as Searcingone1033 must claim in this case) then it is a Thing. Personal pronouns are still appropriate.

As for confounding the persons, I have done no such thing. This again is a caricature of the view that I took the time to explain in detail. My reason for doing so was so that no possible misrepresentation could occur, and although it has here, I believe the reader will be able to reference my original statements to see the falsity of the claim.

Concerning the Shema as was wrongly cited twice now as Deuteronomy 6:6 (6:4 is the proper citation), there is no interaction with the verse itself. In Hebrew it reads, “Shema Yisrael Yahweh eloheynu Yahweh echad.” Immediately I must point out that “eloheynu” (‘our God’) is in the plural form. Secondly, the word “echad” translated as “one” in many versions is a word that allows for diversity in unity (cf. Genesis 2:24, 11:6; Ezek. 37:17).

It’s the word that “echad” modifies which determines whether or not a plurality in unity is in view. In this case, “echad” modifies “Yahweh” and as such there is no a priori reason to assume that Yahweh is not a plurality of persons, especially in light of verses such as Genesis 19:24.

The argument was simply repeated for Genesis 1:26 but there was once again no attempt to harmonize vs. 26 with vs. 27. We’re then directed to a footnote from the NET Bible which makes inaccurate assertions. It’s a double-edged sword in that Irenaeus interpreted the “us” and “our” as a plurality of persons.

So Searchingone1033 is forced to admit that the Trinitarian concepts were held prior to Nicaea-Constantinople or that the NET Bible commentary is incorrect. I’d also point out that in 1Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6, God does not speak using plural pronouns so any reference to them is irrelevant. Isaiah 6 shows Yahweh conversing within Himself.

As far as the objection goes, my treatment was dealing specifically with the Father. I see this as nothing more than an admission that the argument I posed is too strong to be dealt with accordingly.

Searchingone1033 -- Point 2: First Rebuttal

Point 2: The Person or Being of the Father

The previous exchange reached an agreement that:

* The Bible does not describe God as three persons in any passage of Scripture

* The Trinity is derived by systematically associating texts which speak separately of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit

* The Trinity as defined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds was developed over time from the 2nd century onwards, and was not declared in any creed to be an essential Christian belief until at least the 4th century

Readers, ask yourself if this is truly a doctrine taught by the apostles.

We move now to the Father. I believe in one God, the Father. My opponent believes in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I quoted directly from the earliest creedal confessions, demonstrating that they expressed the belief that there is one God, who is one person, the Father.

However, my opponent claims ’The earliest creedal statements make no comments about God being only one Person’. I invite the readers to consider whether the following statements (taken from the earliest creedal statements), refer to one person or more than one:

* I believe in God the Father, Almighty

* We thank thee, holy Father… Thou, Almighty Master

* I believe in one God, the Father Almighty

* Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?

* I believe in God the Father Almighty

These statements refer to God as the Father, one person, and speak of Him using the singular pronoun (which is used for one person). Readers, ask yourself if the Father is one person or more than one. Even Trinitarians acknowledge the Father is one person.

My opponent wishes to claim that the following statements are equivalent:

* I believe in God the Father, Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth

* We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance, for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit

I ask the readers to consider if these statements are really equivalent. It is inaccurate to claim that the second statement is merely a ‘clarification’ of the first, because it contradicts it. The fact that the first statement was eventually abandoned when the Trinity was finally developed, and replaced in the creeds with the second, proves that the first statement was certainly not considered to be equivalent to the second, nor merely a ‘clarification’ of it. The original teaching was discarded, and replaced by another teaching entirely, which required a totally different description.

Readers, ask your Trinitarian friends which of these statements they confess. Ask them if they would accept the first statement as a true definition of God.

My opponent claimed ‘The scriptures cited in support of this all showed that Yahweh God created alone’, and yet explicit statements to this effect have been provided from both Scripture and the earliest creedal confessions (here). These statements do not simply say ‘God created alone’, but refer explicitly to a person, one person, the Father.

Likewise my opponent wishes to claim that the following statements are equivalent:

* I believe in God the Father, Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth

* I believe God the Father Almighty, and in God the Son Almighty, and in God the Holy Spirit Almighty, and that all three Persons were active in creation

My opponent wishes to claim that the first confession is equivalent to the second, on the basis that Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all involved in creation. But that is not what the first statement says. It says explicitly and exclusively that God, the Father (one person), is the maker of heaven and earth. The earliest confessions say nothing about Jesus or the Holy Spirit being 'active in creation', and only attribute creation to the Father.

Readers, ask your Trinitarian friends which statement they confess. The first statement was the earliest Christian creedal confession, but the Trinitarians who came later abandoned this statement for a completely different statement with which it is incompatible (here), since they did not believe this first statement to be a true expression of their belief.

My opponent wishes to claim that the first person pronoun does not necessarily refer to one person, saying ‘Trinitarians affirm One Being who is God, and claiming ‘If the One Being speaks as a whole then we’d expect to see singular pronouns’.

This isn’t an inadequate description of the Trinity, since Trinitarians do not simply ‘affirm One Being who is God’, but affirm one being who is three persons. Since their ‘One Being’ is three persons, then if the ‘One Being’ speaks as a whole the correct pronoun is the first person plural pronoun ‘we’, as Trinitarians acknowledge when they make their argument for Genesis 1:26.

In grammar, personal pronouns do not count beings, they count persons, and therefore when the singular pronoun is used, only one person can be speaking. When more than one person is speaking, the plural pronoun must be used.

My opponent accepts that the plural pronoun refers to more than one person, but wants to claim that singular pronoun can refer to more than one person also. This is bad grammar, since the singular pronoun actually refers to one person not more than one (check any English or Hebrew grammar reference), and it is bad theology from the Trinitarian perspective because it fails to distinguish the three persons, representing God as one person instead of three. In the Athanasian Creed this is condemned as 'confounding the persons'.

It is worth nothing that Trinitarians censure so called ‘Oneness Pentecostals’ (who believe that there is one God, who is one person, and that person is Jesus), for representing the plural pronouns as referring to only one person, so it is ironic that so many Trinitarians make an equally false argument by likewise abandoning the true meaning of the grammar when it comes to the singular pronoun.

The fact is that the Bible 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'. This is not a description of ‘One Being’ who is ‘three persons’, for pronouns actually count persons not ‘beings’, and since the singular pronoun is used then we are being told repeatedly that God is one person.

Far from being ‘glossed over’ as my opponent claims, Genesis 1:26 was expounded by me in some detail, but since my argument was never addressed and the passage has been raised again, I shall repeat it.

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 the translation 'God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them'.

This is repeated later 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', and 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').

The following is quote is from the footnote on Genesis 1:26 in the New English Translation, a standard Evangelical translation produced by a committee which is uncompromisingly Trinitarian. All emphasis is mine, and the ellipsis omits only a discussion of the ‘plural of majesty’ explanation, which it explains is wrong (and I agree):

‘Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.

[...]

In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court.

In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.)

If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).’

Objection to moderators: The argument that ‘We cannot conclude the Father to ever have not been the Father’ is an argument for the external existence of the son prior to his birth, and should be held over to the next point in the debate.

Prophetnick77 -- Point 2: Opening Statement

Point 2: The Person or Being of the Father

The topic of the Father is an interesting one because there is little disagreement concerning Him even amongst the most adversarial positions. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Mormons, etc… all acknowledge the Father as God. So from this it would seem that there is little to debate, but on the contrary, our views of the Father are all different.

Immediately I must define the Father as a Person, the first Person of the Trinity. The Father’s Being is the same as that of the Son and the Holy Spirit yet he is Distinct Personally from the other two.

There isn’t much to be said in this topic concerning the Father’s Deity as we both agree that the Father is God. Where we disagree is in the Father being alone in possession of the Nature of Deity. I have set forth my affirmative position on the Trinity in three points (Creation, Salvation, Indwelling), showing the Father to be active in all three. To this list many things can be added, but they would be added for naught. I will however revisit one point where Searchingone1033 said that the Bible and Early Church Fathers declared that the Father created alone. Such is not the case at all.

The scriptures cited in support of this all showed that Yahweh God created alone. As a Trinitarian I readily affirm that truth because Yahweh is a Tri-unity of Persons. One has to reason circularly to say that the Father created alone. It requires first the belief that Yahweh is only the Father, and then it takes this belief and reads it back into every passage concerning Yahweh, concluding that they all speak of the Father alone. Such is begging the question and must be pointed out as fallacious.

The Early Church quotes simply affirmed that the Father is God Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. This is also a fact that I affirm as a Trinitarian as all three Persons were active in creation, the Father included. The statements are not denials of the other two Persons creative abilities and roles. I’d also point out that the “us” and “our” issue from Genesis 1:26 was glossed over. We were only told that in the next verse the singular noun and verb were used, yet we weren’t told how this coincides with the previous verse or how this in any way shows One Person as opposed to One Being. The Trinitarian position explains this seeming contradiction with clarity and good reason.

That being said, it is obvious that Searchingone1033 does not deny the deity of the Father. He does not deny that the Father is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Therefore I find myself needing to affirm first the Personality of the Father.

Let me first state that Searchingone1033 made many appeals to God being One Person, the Father, yet never told us in what way the Father is a Person. It appears that this has been taken for granted. Perhaps he believes that the pronouns 'He', 'His', 'Him', 'I', 'Me', and 'My' establish this fact, but I would argue that they only help to build the case. As per my definition in my first rebuttal to Searchingone1033’s opening statement, I will set forth the Father’s Personality.

The Father thinks (intelligence)

Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. (Psalm 40:5)

How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! (Psalm 139:17)

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 55:8)

The Father reasons (rational)

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18).

The Father is self-aware (conscious)

And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; (Genesis 35:11)

Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. (Psalm 46:10)

Having now established firmly the Personality of the Father with a scriptural foundation we can look into his identity as Father. Why is He called “Father” and in what sense is He called this? These questions will be answered in the following paragraphs.

The Father is known in relation to the Son. A Father cannot by logical necessity be a Father (that is, truly a Father) without a child. When we use terms like “Early Church Fathers” or “Founding Fathers of our Nation” we are using the word “Father” in a symbolic sense. Symbolically these men were at the foundation of these movements and helped to symbolically birth them. Such is not the case with God the Father.

Eternality

God the Father is eternal as evidenced by Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting thou art God” and Deuteronomy 33:27, “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms…” God’s power and divinity are eternal (Romans 1:20) as well as His glory (1Peter 5:10) and purpose (Ephesians 3:11). Establishing the Father’s eternality is central to His Person because what follows will show the sense in which he has eternally been the Father.

Immutability

God is immutable as Psalm 102:27 declares, “thou art the same and thy years shall have no end.” Yahweh emphatically stating His immutability in Malachi 3:6 saying, “For I am the LORD, I change not…” James informs us that there is no variation in the Father of lights (James 1:17). Thus the immutability of God the Father is established from scripture which brings me to my next point.

Logical Arguments

If God is eternal (which He is) and immutable (which He is), and God is the Father (which He is), then it follows that God has always been the Father. We cannot understand this in the symbolic sense because God has existed from all eternity, pre-existing all that could be considered symbolic children. In other words, to claim that God is known as “Father” in the symbolic sense because he is “The Father of Spirits” (Hebrews 12:9) or the “Father of Lights” (James 1:17) or because angels are referred to as “sons of God” (Job 1:6, 2:1) is necessarily false because all of these things are created. They all came into existence in time, not eternity.

There was a time when there was no light because God had to create light (Genesis 1:3). Likewise there was a time before men had spirits because God had to breathe the breath of life into the nostrils of the first man Adam (Genesis 2:7) and Ecclesiastes 12:7 affirms that God gave the spirit to man. We also see that by the Word of the LORD and the breath of His mouth were all the hosts of heaven (angels) made (Psalm 33:6). Even if one holds to the Arian position of Jesus being the first creation of God, there is still no accounting for the Father being the Father before creation, from all eternity. Thus we must conclude that in the real sense of the word “Father” that God the Father has always been exactly that—an eternal Father with an eternal Son.

We cannot conclude the Father to ever have not been the Father because of his eternality and immutability, yet we cannot conclude the Father to be the Father in either sense (truly or symbolically) without a child of some sort. If there was a time when all things which were created were not in existence, then we can’t take this in the symbolic sense. If the Son was a creation, then He falls into the former category. Therefore we can only reason that there had to have been an eternal child, the Son of God who could qualify the Father as Father. This is also the position supported by scripture and one that will be dealt with in more detail in the next point of debate concerning the Son.

Now having stated all of this I expect to hear a lot of things more focused on the Father’s Deity than anything else. I expect to see scripture passages calling the Father God, a point that I affirm. I expect to see the topic shifted from the Father being God to the Son not being God, a point that I reject. But what I would like to see most and don’t expect to see at all (because none exists) is a valid reason for how a Father can be a Father from all eternity without having a Son who has been His Son from all eternity.

Moderator Comment

We have now come to the end of the first of the Four Point Debate. Point two will be on the subject of the being or person of the The Father. Prophetnick77 will make the opening argument and Searchingone1033 will have the follow up rebuttal.

Prophetnick77 -- Point 1: Closing Statement

Point 1: The Trinity--Is it or is it not sound biblical doctrine?

Once again the first point of debate is:

“The Trinity—is it or is it not sound Biblical doctrine?”

This is very important as Searchingone1033 wants to divert the issue via red herring argumentation to early Christian creeds and the alleged beliefs of the Church fathers.

I fail to see how I didn’t address the Bible’s claims of God being Three Persons. I went to great lengths to define what a Person is in the sense Trinitarians use it, as well as demonstrated from scripture each Personality. Let me mention that the Bible never describes the Father as one Person. By whatever reasoning Searchingone1033 considers the Father to be a Person, I can take that and use it to prove the Personality of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The pronoun issue is a non-issue. Trinitarians affirm One Being who is God. If the One Being speaks as a whole then we’d expect to see singular pronouns. If any One Person which constitutes the One Being speaks then we’d expect singular pronouns. Searchingone1033 has failed to notice that plural pronouns are used by God and can only be explained in light of His Tri-Unity. In other words, when one is speaking for the others we’d expect to see plural pronouns such as in John 3:11. We’d expect to see plural pronouns when the Trinity converses amongst itself such as Genesis 1:26 or 3:22. (Cf. Genesis 11:7 & Isaiah 6:8).

The Bible itself doesn’t outline specific heresies in explicit terms. Thus we have to establish sound Biblical doctrine and conclude that any denial or deviation of these doctrines is heresy. Perhaps the clearest statement we have concerning what heresy is may be in 2Peter 2:1 which speaks of false teachers bringing damnable heresies, denying the Lord Jesus. If denying Jesus is considered heresy then it follows that denying the Trinity is heresy as well because denying the Trinity is denying the second person of the Trinity who is the Jesus of scripture. Denying Jesus’ humanity is heresy because this denies the incarnation (1John 4:3), but to deny that Jesus was merely a man and nothing else is just good sense. The Bible presents a clear picture of the deity of Christ.

The Apostles teaching that there is One God is not anti-Trinitarian. We’re monotheists. They never taught that God was One Person, the Father, and once again I point out that by whatever criteria Searchingone1033 believes the Father to be a Person, I can use it to prove the Personality of the Son and Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus’ confirmation of the Father as the “only true God” is not a denial of His status as the “only true God.” 1John 5:20 refers to the Son as “true God.”

The earliest creedal statements make no comments about God being only one Person, this has been read into them by Searchingone1033. We see the foundation of Nicene Trinitarianism in these creeds. And notice that more precision in definition was only needed as deviant teaching arose (e.g. Arian controversy). Even if no creed affirmed the Trinity that would have no bearing on the Bible’s statements concerning the Nature and Persons of God. Once again, this is a red herring used to divert the issue.

Now the request of INDIVIDUAL passages that show Yahweh to be One Being subsisting as Three Persons—I’ll save us all some time—There is no SINGLE passage that states this. As I said, we arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity systematically. Systematic theology brings consistency, harmony, and exclusion of contradiction in the Bible. Without it we run into more problems than can possibly exist in an inerrant Word of God.

Concerning the syllogism, Searchingone1033 didn’t tell us WHY the syllogism in question was fallacious. He just said that it was, and once again he is representing the belief as 3X = 1X. That would be false. We would represent it as 1A, 1B, 1C = 1X. No illogic involved.

Next notice the straw man argument presented in arguing that the logic of one syllogism is appealed to in one argument yet rejected in another. Notice the difference:

The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, and there is Only One God.

The Father is A Person, The Son is A Person, The Holy Spirit is A Person, and there are Three Persons.

See the difference? The difference is in the distinction made between Persons. The Father is A Person distinct from the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit. Yet there is no distinction in Deity. Each is not A God—They are the Same God!

Now we’re faced with the attempted refutations of the scriptures I presented. The claim that Hebrews 1:8 does not refer to Jesus as God is ridiculous. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God…” is clear enough.

Next we’re told that the Holy Spirit isn’t referred to as God in Acts 5:3-4 but rather a divinely appointed man filled with the Holy Spirit was. Such an interpretation is not warranted from the text. Clearly the Holy Spirit was lied to in vs. 4 “why did Satan fill your heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” and then in vs. 5 it’s said that Ananias lied to God. A clearer statement couldn’t have been made.

The Holy Spirit being an “attribute” of God in no way diminishes His Personality. Likewise Wisdom is an attribute of God yet we know that the Person Christ is the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24). No one would claim that Christ is not a Person.

As for the eternality of the Son in Micah 5:2, additional witnesses can be added, this one was used because of the clear implications of the phrase “mi'y'mei olam” (from everlasting). First note that this is the only time this phrase appears in the entire Tanach. Secondly, notice the progression in emphasis, “from old, from everlasting.” Thirdly, although not identical, there’s a supporting reference in Proverbs 8:23 speaking of God’s Wisdom (see above) as being set up from everlasting, and Wisdom is obviously an eternal attribute of God.

We can just as easily point to John 1:1 which speaks of the Word existing in the beginning making use of the imperfect tense which represents a continuous or reoccurring action in past time. The only way the Word could have been present in the beginning (no matter how far back the beginning extends) is to have pre-existed the beginning of time, which shows eternality. While it’s true that Jesus had a beginning (via the incarnation) the Son has existed from all eternity. In Proverbs 30:4 the question was asked concerning the name of God’s Son (pre-incarnation). Job knew his redeemer lived before the incarnation (Job 19:25).

Matthew 28:18 certainly refers to the Son as omnipotent and the Father’s giving the authority to him in no way detracts from this fact. A.T. Robertson describes this act as a “timeless aorist” since there is no point in time where we are shown the giving of authority. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, “His [God’s] omnipotence, in which Christ shares as Kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth.” (TDNT, 1:679) We can also reason that only an omnipotent being can create ex nihilo (from nothing) which the Son has done (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3).

In John 16:30 Jesus does not correct the statement that he knows all things. This is confirmed in John 21:17 post-resurrection. An argument can only be made that Jesus was not omniscient if we focus on his humanity alone. Impossible since within the one Person there are two Natures. Jesus’ not knowing the hour of His return is not a denial of omniscience, but rather spoken in His humiliated state. So even if we exclude John 16:30 which was also during Christ’s humiliated state, we have John 21:17 after Christ was glorified.

The textual variant in John 3:13 don’t affect the omnipresence of the Son a bit. We also have Matthew 28:20 to bear witness to this fact. To be with the disciples always even unto the end of the age would require that the Son be everywhere that disciples are. This is an impossible task without omnipresence.

I’m out of space but allow me to state:

Tertullian: Not a modalist, in fact he "was branded with the charge of polytheism in circles where modalism flourished." (Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrine, p. 110)

Athenagoras: Too clear to misunderstand.

Theopholus: Used trias in the sense of the Trinity (See footnotes 2 & 3 in ANF, 2:101) or Triad (Kelly, ECD, p. 109)… Tertullian derived his Latin trinitas from Theopholus’ trias. No anachronism necessary.

Hippolytus: Equally as clear, “God is one…threefold manifestation.” (See also Kelly, ECD, p. 110-15).

Cyprian: Why expect an exact definition that didn’t come for another 75 years?

Want earlier quotes? OK… Earlier quotes here.

The earliest creedal statements do not define God as One Person; in fact they all list all Three Persons of the Trinity thus laying the foundation for later more exact definitions.

Searchingone1033 -- Point 1: Counter Rebuttal

Point 1: The Trinity--Is it or is it not sound biblical doctrine?

These points were not addressed:

* The Bible describes God as one person, the Father, and never as three persons

* The pronouns 'He', 'His', 'Him', 'I', 'Me', 'My', and 'Mine' are used to describe God, not 'God the Father' or 'We', ‘They’, ‘Them’, nor are the Trinitarian distinctions 'God the Father', 'God the Son', and 'God the Holy Spirit' made in the Bible

* The Bible does not describe denial of the Trinity as a heresy, but does describe denial that Jesus is a man as heresy

* The apostles taught that to a true Christian there is one God, and that one God is one person, the Father, Jesus Christ is His son, a man who is the mediator between God and men

* Christ says it is life eternal to know that the Father is the only true God, not Father, son and Holy Spirit

* The earliest Christian creedal statements describe God as one person ('the Father Almighty'), Christ as His son, the Holy Spirit as simply 'the Holy Spirit' (not a person), and do not say the Trinity is essential to the Christian faith.

My opponent disagrees that God is nowhere described in the Bible as three persons in one being, so I request a list of every individual passage in the Bible which describes God as three persons in one being.

Contrary to my opponent's claim, reasons were given 'why the reasoning of the Athanasian Creed was fallacious or unscriptural'. I identified that it asserts the following errors:

* The Trinity is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith (the Bible never says this)

* A definition of God which is not only absent from the Bible, but contradicts the Bible's explicit definition of God as one person (John 17:3 the Father is 'the only true God', 1 Corinthians 8:6 'there is one God, the Father', Ephesians 4:6 'one God and Father of all', 1 Timothy 2:4 'one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus')

* The logical fallacy that A is X, B is X, C is X, but there is only one X

It was asserted by my opponent that the analogy I provided is 'clearly not the belief of Trinitarians', and yet he used this formula himself (his words in italics, my analogy inserted in bold):

(1) So the Father is God (Malachi 2:10)

* A is X

(2) the Son is God, (Hebrews 1:8)

* B is X

(3) and the Holy Ghost is God (Acts 5:3-4).

* C is X

(4) And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God (Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:6, 8, 45:5-6, 14, 21-22, 46:9)."

* But there is only one X

Note the inconsistent reasoning:

* The Father is a person

* The Son is a person

* The Holy Spirit is a person

* Therefore there are three persons


* The Father is God

* The Son is God

* The Holy Spirit is God

* But there is only one God

The logic of the syllogism is appealed to in one argument, but rejected in the other. The conclusion of the second argument contradicts the premises.

My opponent acknowledged that the Trinity is derived systematically from Scripture, and presented the traditional syllogism I predicted. Unable to find the doctrine preached by the apostles, he must assemble it himself by taking a verse from this letter, a verse from this book, a verse from this epistle, and constructing arguments which the apostles never preached nor penned. Why did the apostles never present such formulas?

As for the passages cited, Hebrews 1:8 does not refer to Christ as God (though it uses the term THEOS, used of the king of Israel in the psalm quoted), nor does Acts 5:3-4 define the Holy Spirit as God (though it does represent lying to a Divinely appointed man filled with the Holy Spirit as equivalent to lying to God). The reader can compare the claims made with the texts themselves, here.

Since the Holy Spirit itself is 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'), we should expect to see it described as omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal (though it is never described as such separate from the Father). In 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 the Holy Spirit is not referred to explicitly, Paul refers to 'the spirit of God', which he defines at the end of the chapter as 'the mind of God' (1 Corinthians 2:16, quoting LXX Isaiah 40:13).

Supporting references for the following points are here:

* In Micah 5:2 Christ is not defined as eternal, but said to have an ancient lineage (‘whose origins are in the distant past’), and other passages make it clear the son had a beginning in time (such as Matthew 1:1), which a number of the Early Fathers acknowledged.

* In Matthew 28:18 Christ is not defined as omnipotent, but was given all authority, so there was a time when he did not have this authority, and there was one greater than himself who gave him this authority.

* In John 16:30 Christ is not defined as omniscient, the disciples simply say 'You know all things', when Christ had previously stated explicitly that he did not (Mark 13:32). Christ's knowledge was limited during his life in earth (Luke 2:52 'Jesus increased in wisdom', Hebrews 5:8 'he learned obedience'), and still is (Revelation 1:1 'The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him').

* In John 3:13 the phrase 'which is in heaven' is an interpolation (see Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27th edition).

* Creator: In Genesis 1:26 the pronouns 'us' and 'our' are used, but in verse 27 the noun and verb are in the singular, declaring only one person is involved in the act of creation of man and woman (‘God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them'), repeated later in Genesis 2:8, 22; 5:1-2, and Matthew 19:4.

A range of Bible passages and Christian creedal confessions from the 1st to the 2nd centuries say the Father created alone (proof).

* Saviour: Christ and the Holy Spirit are described as involved in the process of salvation not because they effect it through their own acts, but because they are specifically agents by which God saves (Romans 6:23, Titus 3:5-6, Galatians 3:15, Hebrews 13:20-21), through justification (Romans 3:24-26; 5:1-2), sanctification (Hebrews 10:10), and glorification (2 Thessalonians 1:12). It should be noted that glorification is not effected by resurrection, but by that which takes place subsequent to resurrection (John 5:28-29).

Christ does not act independently of God (John 5:19, 30; 8:28), but is the agent through whom God worked (Matthew 9:8, Acts 2:22), by which God spoke (John 12:49-50, Hebrews 1:2), and the man appointed by God to raise and judge the dead on His behalf (John 5:22, Acts 10:42; 17:31).

It should be noted that 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.

* Indwelling: My opponent makes the assumption 'Since we are the temple of God, it makes no sense to believe that another other than God would dwell in us', and fails to take into account different senses of ‘dwell’.

A number of quotes were provided by my opponent from men who did not believe in the Trinity as he defines it (proof).

Athenagoras: Only describes the Father and Son as God.

Theophilus: Uses the Greek word 'trias' (anachronistically translated 'trinity', though it meant 'three', or 'a group of three', and was not used to refer to the Trinity until the 6th century, see Liddell, Scott, Jones exhaustive Greek lexicon, edition 9), referring not to the trinity (three persons in one being), but explicitly to a group of three, the Father, Word and Wisdom (not Father, Son and Holy Spirit), of which only the Father is identified as God.

Clement: No reference to the three of them being God.

Tertullian: Nowhere are all three referred to as God, and Tertullian was a Modalist in any case.

Hipplolytus: Here God is explicitly two persons, not three.

Cyprian: Uses a word translated 'trinity', but there is no definition of what this 'trinity' is.

The earliest of these quotes is dated to 175-177 AD, none of them are from creedal statements, and none refer to 'a Triune Godhead'. In contrast, I supplied three creedal statements predating the earliest quote by up to 100 years. This statement stands:

* The earliest Christian creedal statements describe God as one person ('the Father Almighty'), Christ as His son, the Holy Spirit as simply 'the Holy Spirit' (not a person), and do not say Trinity is essential to the Christian faith