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.
Man i shouldve been in this debate.
Good luck to pro
I dont know who can possibly argue pro here.