Instigator / Con
1
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5689
Are there three persons in the Godhead?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1472
rating
34
debates
45.59%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Stipulation is only strict scriptural text to provide
as it is written to teach what the opposing side is representing.
It is up to the opposing side to show this.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Thank you. Thank you readers. Happy Sunday.
A bonus question to you the opposing side.
In Matthew 28:19 it says go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
What is that name?
Being that we have limited rounds , I'm going to get these questions out now.
Is the Father, the Holy Spirit?
Was the son of God , Father God manifested in flesh?
Did the Father raise himself up with the body of Jesus that rose again?
Questions aside, I'm looking for the opposing side to prove with biblical scriptures alone that there are three persons in the Godhead.
With those scriptures we should be able to read, harmonize and validate three persons. The opposing side can go ahead and explain who and what the three persons are and take us to the book.
I yield.
Thank you to my opponent for this debate.
Because this debate poses the question:
Are there three persons in the Godhead?
I will be making a few assumptions to clear up any miscommunication.
1. We are discussing the Biblical God.
2. I am arguing that there ARE three persons in the Godhead.
3. You are arguing that there are NOT three persons in the Godhead.
If you have any problems with that, please let me know.
I will continue into my argument then refute my opponents first argument.
Argument:
The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Phil. 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4).
So, either we have a contradiction, or we have something very interesting.
Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?
No. We know this because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.
For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son.
Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33).
Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.
The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.
The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally. The Father regards Himself as “I,” while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as “You.” Likewise, the Son regards Himself as “I,” but the Father and the Holy Spirit as “You.”
It is the acknowledgment of personhood. We see that outlined like I just showed up here.
So, are there three Gods then?
No. How do we know this?
Scripture is clear that there is only one God: “There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:21-22).
There is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together. Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not. Therefore, each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity.
Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence.
So, does this mean that each person is 1 part of a whole? That would make logical sense right?
No. It doesn't.
The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).
We should not think of God as like a “pie” cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, “the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God." The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons but is fully in all three persons without being divided into “parts.”
As Wayne Grudem writes, “When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone.”
Now we must be consistent and honest with each other. We can't just look at this and leave it because it "doesn't make sense" Therefore it is a contradiction. Because this isn't actually a contradiction.
In order for something to be contradictory, it must violate the law of noncontradiction. This law states that the thing cannot be both the thing and not the thing at the same time and in the same relationship. In other words, you have contradicted yourself if you affirm and deny the same statement. For example, if I say that the moon is made entirely of cheese but then also say that the moon is not made entirely of cheese, I have contradicted myself.
Theologian R.C. Sproul cites as an example Dickens’ famous line, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Obviously, this is a contradiction if Dickens means that it was the best of times in the same way that it was the worst of times. But he avoids contradiction with this statement because he means that in one sense it was the best of times, but in another sense, it was the worst of times.
So, I do have more for this part of the debate, but I will save it for the crossfire part of the debate. Now we will go into the rebuttal.
In Matthew 28:19 it says go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.What is that name?
The name is the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Is the Father, the Holy Spirit?
No.
Was the son of God , Father God manifested in flesh?
Colossians 1:15 states," Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,"
So Christ or "The Son" is the visible image of the invisible God.
Did the Father raise himself up with the body of Jesus that rose again?
No, he rose The Son up. Not his person.
Round 2
"The name is the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit."
But what is that name? One more time. Let me give a hint. The Son of God Mary birthed , she was told the name of Jesus.
So the name of the Son placed in the same sentence of the Father and Holy Ghost is a singular name . What is that name ? We know the name of the Son.
You say "No." the Father is not holy and not spirit. You are effectively saying that when you say the Father is not the Holy spirit.
Let me go to 1 Corinthians 8:6
" yet for us there is but one God, the Father"
So one God the Father. There's this God, who is he? The Father . Unless you have scripture that says God changes and will STOP being the father at times, you're in error. We read in Malachi 2, about the same God. It says have we all not one FATHER , have not ONE GOD created us?
It's the same from the old testament to the new as the scriptures teach a God that changes not.
What nature is God? I don't know about a person but I know in John 4:24 it says God is a spirit.
John 4
"23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”"
So we have Father, God, Spirit here. All are one. Not separate. I don't read persons . See the pattern of Father God ,Father God ,Father God. That's three witnesses by every word be established.
So the Father is God, the Father is spirit. Is the Father holy?
John 17:11
"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast."
A doctrine, let alone it be the trinity doctrine that teaches the Father is not holy and not spirit or not the holy spirit is a lie.
We can go further into the book of 2nd Corinthians 6 I believe that'll back this up further. Just because a verse doesn't mention a particular title, doesn't mean the essence that belongs to that title is gone because then I'm going to ask where that essence went. 1 John 5 which is used to support the trinity actually backfires on you. It says these three are one so you can't have a part here and not another.
"Colossians 1:15 states," Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,"
So Christ or "The Son" is the visible image of the invisible God."
I don't know if you're saying yes the son of God , was Father God manifested in flesh or no the son was not Father God manifested in flesh.
Which one is it for the record?
"No, he rose The Son up. Not his person. "
Didn't the Father get back in that body to raise it up?
Forfeited
Round 3
Looks like people knew this would not go over easy for the opposing side.
I rest my case.
Forfeited
Round 4
I rest my case .
Forfeited
Round 5
Case closed. Thank you opposing side for the conceding.
I asked is the Father, the Holy Spirit?
The opposing side stated no. This is in turn saying the Father is not Holy and not Spirit.
Book of Ephesians says there one spirit. So when you even acknowledge the Father being spirit, that begs the question, is there another or second spirit in divinity?
When does the Father stop being holy and spirit?
This is the problem with the doctrine the opposing side is trying to argue.
Let's go to 1 Corinthians 6.
"19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
God is the holy Spirit for the scripture teach there is one spirit, that Spirit is God and God is holy. So when the trinity doctrine tries to teach here because the spirit is from God, there's supposedly this separation or additional "person", there is conflict with what the book teaches. God giving you his spirit is not another as we say over and over there's one spirit which the scripture teach God is a spirit . So why would it not be THE spirit of God?
Trinitarians let language confound them . These trinitarians try to be wise but get confounded by the word real simply not going line by line.
So it's the Holy Spirit of God in the temple. Let's line this up with 2 Corinthians 6.
"16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
17 Therefore,
“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”[d]
18 And,
“I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty"
Here we have it all harmonize that the God in the temple as the holy Spirit has identified HIMSELF AS THE FATHER.
We have the Lord Almighty in there so that lines up with Titus 2:13 about the Great God, THE ALMIGHTY.
We learned here the Almighty is related and identified with the Father. There is no place in scripture where God in divinity stops or is never the Father .
I asked the opposing side is the son the Father manifested.
Instead of getting a direct yes, the opposing side went round about with "Colossians 1:15 states," Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,"
So Christ or "The Son" is the visible image of the invisible God."
The opposing side avoided saying yes because this again will go against the doctrine. The son manifested the image of the Father for Jesus said himself, you see him you SEE THE FATHER.
The son was the Father manifested or was the image of manifestation or was the image manifested by the Father or was the Father manifested in image, the Father's manifested image or Father manifested. Either way you put it , it comes back the same. The same was in the beginning with God. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, God is the Word. It comes back to there being one God, one Word , one Spirit. This also where trinitarians get confounded.
Amen.
Forfeited
Man i shouldve been in this debate.
Good luck to pro
I dont know who can possibly argue pro here.