Instigator / Pro
14
1533
rating
8
debates
87.5%
won
Topic
#5886
The Bible supports the notion that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
CatholicApologetics
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
8
1389
rating
406
debates
43.97%
won
Description
The ultimate goal of this debate is to advance the pursuit of truth. Regardless of who wins or loses, the real victor is the one who gains new knowledge. This debate will examine what the Bible has to say about whether God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are the same Person or whether they are distinct. This debate is not about the authenticity or validity about the Bible, it is merely to explore what it has to say on this topic.
The maximum character limit is 30,000 only to allow writing liberty without being limited.
Rules:
1. For consistency, the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture.
2. In the final round, only counterarguments addressing previous points will be allowed; no new arguments may be introduced.
3. Failure to comply with rule #3 will result in an automatic forfeiture.
Round 1
INTRODUCTION.
Welcome and thank you for joining this critical examination of today’s topic. The debate will focus on the concept of the Godhead, specifically whether the Bible supports the idea that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. For those unfamiliar with my debate style, I prefer to structure my discussions logically. I always begin with an introduction, followed by a prerequisite (usually to address specific issues or clarify the debate’s scope). The main body of the debate consists of two rounds. In the first round, I present my initial arguments, while in the second round, I counter my opponent's arguments. Regardless of which round, I will always conclude by summarizing the arguments I've made and offer any closing remarks I may have.
The debate topic was kindly suggested by my opponent, Mall. For months, they have been trying to engage me in this topic and I am excited to finally take part in this discussion. For this reason, I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to Mall for making this debate happen.
PREREQUISITE.
Before delving into the substantive arguments, let us clarify the scope of the debate as I find it is very easy to get carried away with this topic. Per the debate's description, it will only focus on whether or not God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. It is not about whether or not they are a part of the Blessed Trinity. I will be taking the affirmative position, supporting the notion that they are distinct.
Let us review the rules agreed upon for this debate. We will always cite Scripture using the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible. This rule is designed to prevent individuals from selectively using different Bible translations for various verses to manipulate the wording in support of their position. The second rule prohibits either side from presenting entirely new arguments in the final round. This ensures that both sides have an opportunity to respond to each other’s arguments. Consequently, only counter-arguments addressing previously raised points will be permitted in the final round.
MAIN BODY.
The Holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and from the Son. The first evidence that attests to this is by the Trinitarian Formula of Baptism in Matthew 28:19, which states: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In this verse, Christ commands the formula of baptism. This emphasizes that the shared use of the singular 'name' ('in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit') signifies the equal divinity and unified essence of the three Persons. If the Holy Spirit were a creature or subordinate, it would not be included in such a solemn declaration alongside the Father and the Son. Instead, its inclusion signifies a personal distinction. In addition to the Trinitarian formula, the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit is evident in how the Spirit acts independently from the Father and the Son in other key moments. Romans 8:26-27 clearly indicates the Holy Spirit and the Father are distinct. Specifically, when it reveals that the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf to God the Father: "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words" (Romans 8:26-27). If the Holy Spirit were just an impersonal force, or the power of God, it would be unable to intercede on our behalf. Yet, we find the Holy Spirit acting distinctively from the Father. Some may argue that the Spirit's intercession reflects a function rather than a distinction. However, the Spirit’s distinct action of intercession implies a personal agency separate from the Father.
The unity and distinctiveness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are also affirmed in Ephesians 4:4-6: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." In this passage, Paul highlights the “one Spirit,” “one Lord” (a reference to Jesus Christ), and “one God and Father.” While emphasizing the oneness of God, Paul distinguishes the roles of the Spirit, the Lord, and the Father. This reinforces the concept of unity in essence but distinction in personhood. If the Holy Spirit were merely the power or essence of God, Paul’s explicit mention of "one Spirit" alongside "one Lord" and "one Father" would seem redundant. It is important to note that distinction in personhood does not contradict the unity of the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Spirit share the same essence but operate in relationally distinct roles.
The Holy Spirit also appears under a special symbol at the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16-17: "And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.'" In this verse, all three Persons of the Trinity are mentioned. God the Son (Jesus), who is getting baptized, the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, and God the Father who speaks from heaven. If the Holy Spirit was not distinct from the Father, the clear distinction in this verse would not occur. Yet, the Bible makes a distinction: the Holy Spirit descends like a dove while the Father speaks from heaven. This descent is a distinct action of the Holy Spirit, not performed by the Father or the Son. The Father sends the Spirit to anoint the Son. This relational sending only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. This corresponds with other biblical passages where the Spirit is described as being "sent" by the Father or the Son (cf. John 14:26, John 15:26).
In the parting discourses of Jesus, the Holy Spirit is distinguished as one who is given or sent, from the Father and the Son who send Him. Consider John 14:16-17: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you." In this verse, the Holy Spirit is given a name: Advocate. This is a title that belongs to a person only, which tells us that the Holy Spirit is not simply the spiritual Nature of God or an impersonal Divine Power, but a real person (The Greek term paraklētos typically refers to someone who "comes alongside" or "advocates on behalf of another," implying personal agency). In fact, this is evidently seen in Acts 13:2 ("While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”") where the Spirit speaks to the apostles, clearly acting as a person. This is further reinforced by the fact that personal attributes are ascribed to the Holy Spirit; for example, the teaching of truth (John 14:16; 16:13), the giving of testimony for Christ (John 15:26), the knowledge of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 2:10), the forecasting of future events (John 16:13; Acts 21:11), and the installation of bishops (Acts 20:28). In 1 Corinthians 2:10–11, we are told the Spirit has knowledge, which is characteristic of a person.
CONCLUSION.
Having examined the scriptural evidence and its contextual implications, the conclusion is clear: The Bible consistently presents the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person from God the Father. This distinct personhood is not a peripheral or ambiguous feature of the New Testament; rather, it is woven into the fabric of key passages ranging from Matthew 28:19 to Romans 8:26–27 and beyond. The Holy Spirit’s inclusion in the baptismal formula, His independent actions such as interceding on behalf of believers, and His being sent by the Father (and the Son) in a manner befitting a personal agent all affirm His identity as more than an impersonal force or mere power of God. Additionally, New Testament authors such as Paul carefully preserve both the unity of God’s essence and the relational distinction of the Spirit in passages like Ephesians 4:4–6, indicating that God’s oneness does not negate the Spirit’s personhood.
From the Holy Spirit’s role in Christ’s baptism to the explicit depiction of His speaking, guiding, and appointing leaders in the early Church, Scripture attributes actions and attributes to the Spirit that are inherently personal. These passages collectively challenge any view that would reduce the Holy Spirit to a metaphor or the Father’s impersonal influence. Instead, they underscore a vibrant relational dynamic in which the Holy Spirit acts intentionally in coordination with, yet distinctly from, the Father and the Son. It is important to emphasize that recognizing the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person from the Father does not jeopardize the oneness of God’s divine nature; rather, it upholds the biblical witness that the Godhead comprises a unity of essence while maintaining genuine personal distinctions. These scriptural affirmations, therefore, strongly support the position that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are indeed distinct Persons, each fully participating in the divine life and work of God.
Thank you and thank you readers.
Now my position is according to the scriptures, Father God is the Holy Spirit. Which the opposing side can interpret as Father God not being a distinct person from the Holy Spirit . I believe that was not clear to the opposing side in our communication.
Father God is the Holy Ghost. It is not even my position that it's one person. My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period. I understand that the common differences that one side argues for at least are two persons while the other argues for one person. I'm for one spirit, no persons , so that is a vast opposition here that may have not been clear before.
Is Father God the Holy Spirit? That was really the essence of it in all.
Ok, so now that clarity has been drawn, moving forward with my position. I argue for one spirit because I can only argue based on what the scripture says and teaches. As the scripture says if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.
Scripture say all scripture is God breathed so we have a scripture in the book of 1 Corinthians where we can read words God breathed and speaks the oracles of that.
In chapter 8 and at verse 6.
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
One God , who is he? The Father. So it says one God , that's one spirit. True or false.
Let's check with a witness from John . Let's see what John has to say about this.
John 4:24
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
God is a spirit so one God , one spirit.
So God who is spirit , that one spirit is the father. That father is what?
Back to John this time in chapter 17 and at verse eleven.
"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."
That father is holy . This is pretty much 1 John 5 and 7 broken down. Now I've heard it argued that what I'm saying here is a misuse of words . However, when we read these words as is without adding or taking away, we just have what is written. This is what we learn from the scriptures as the scripture say whatsoever ever things were written before time were written for our learning.
I have to make judgment of the trinity doctrine. It is a doctrine that adds to more than what is written and takes away when denying Father God to be the Holy Ghost.
I yield with my case and address the opposing points.
"Let us review the rules agreed upon for this debate. We will always cite Scripture using the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible. This rule is designed to prevent individuals from selectively using different Bible translations for various verses to manipulate the wording in support of their position."
This is where I do have to call out the first inconsistency perhaps and it is not barely touching the debate topic. This says "We will always cite Scripture using the NRSV".
Scripture say by your words you are justified and by them you are condemned. This does not match the description that states "the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture."
Do you follow? Does everybody bear witness of this?
The statement states what will be used. Then it is changed to what we will always cite. Now what will be used is still possible without "we" .
So I'm technically legal to proceed as I have. If the opposing side is much learned and knows the scriptures, this individual will be able to reprove and give a successful admonition regardless.
After looking over what the opposing side stated, much was stated from the opposing side without really the scriptures backing it up. I should be able to read the explanation that the opposing side is giving from the scriptures. I should be able to read it in scriptures. The trinitarian doctrine is formed from a lot of dogma and concepts in human terms. Not being able to understand one spirit doing all these operations, interceding, giving gifts, giving the utterance, giving power, etc., you appeal to your own understanding and you begin to use earthly concepts to equate them to Christ. Scripture says my thoughts are not your thoughts so you use the terminology of persons. We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.
I'm going to ask these questions to the opposing side to progress this thing along.
You quoted the scripture in Ephesians about there being one spirit. Is the Father in the Godhead only, not throughout scripture, but in divine power only, is the Father one spirit in the Godhead and is the Holy Spirit that is also in the Godhead another spirit?
Just that plain. I don't think we even have to go any further.
Is the Father in the Godhead only, not throughout scripture, but in divine power only, is the Father one spirit in the Godhead and is the Holy Spirit that is also in the Godhead another spirit?
Round 2
INTRODUCTION.
Thank you, Mall, for presenting your arguments. I appreciate you communicating your stance, which, as you’ve stated, is that "Father God is the Holy Spirit," rejecting the notion of distinct persons or even the concept of personhood entirely. However, many of my arguments from R1 contradict the notion that God the Father is the Holy Spirit. Yet, most of them remain unaddressed. While I respect the sincerity of your approach, I find that your argument diverges significantly from both the debate topic and the rules we agreed upon (the topic being: "The Bible supports the notion that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.").
PREREQUISITE.
My opponent cites 1 Corinthians 8:6 using the KJV (King James Version). To those planning to vote, please refer to the debate's description, where you will find the rules for the debate, which, in participating, my opponent accepts. The first rule states, "For consistency, the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture." By using the KJV, my opponent has unfortunately broken this rule, which warrents their conduct criterion to be assesed accordingly when voting.
In order to prevent arguments, when citing the verses my opponent has, I will be swapping the verse for the agreed upon version. This is to be prevent arguments claiming that I inadvertly cite the KJV when quoting my opponent.
PRIMARY ARGUMENTS.
Regardless, 1 Corinthians 8:6 states, "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." My opponent equates "one God, the Father" with "one spirit" and uses this to argue that the Father is the Holy Spirit. Not only does Scripture not support this conclusion, but it speaks against it in Romans 8:26-27, which remains unaddressed from R1. The verse reads: "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." This passage clearly portrays the Spirit interceding to God. If the Holy Spirit were simply the Father, this intercession would be nonsensical. How can one "intercede" to oneself? The act of intercession presupposes distinction.
Similarly, my opponent uses John 4:24 ("God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.") in the exact same way, equating God's spiritual nature with "one spirit." The verse describes God's nature as spiritual but it does not address the relational distinction within the Godhead. While the Father is spirit by nature, this does not preclude the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit as revealed elsewhere in Scripture (see R1).
My opponent further cites John 17:11, which states "And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one." Then, they explain, "That father is holy . This is pretty much 1 John 5 and 7 broken down" and emphasize the importance of reading Scripture "as is, without adding or taking away." Regarding John 17:11, it is worth noting that this verse is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and is widely regarded by scholars as a later addition. However, even if we use it for discussion, the verse affirms unity ("these three are one") while maintaining distinction among the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Ghost (Spirit). It does not equate the Father and the Holy Spirit but rather identifies them as distinct witnesses to the truth of God. My opponent's position does not account for the distinctions laid out in R1, which are consistently presented across Scripture.
As for reading "without adding or taking away," we must also interpret Scripture within its broader context, as individual verses cannot be isolated from the whole.
SECONDARY ARGUMENTS.
My opponent disputes the rule which instructs us to cite Scripture using the NSRV:
"the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture." ... The statement states what will be used. Then it is changed to what we will always cite. Now what will be used is still possible without "we" .
The distinction between "what will be used" and "we will always cite" is purely semantic and does not impact the substance of this debate nor does it change the fact that this command was placed under 'Rules.' Both phrases convey the same intent: that the NRSV will serve as the sole reference for all scriptural citations in this discussion. Any attempt to exploit this minor wording difference is unnecessary and detracts from the primary focus of the debate. Please adhere to the rule in following rounds.
After looking over what the opposing side stated, much was stated from the opposing side without really the scriptures backing it up. I should be able to read the explanation that the opposing side is giving from the scriptures. I should be able to read it in scriptures. The trinitarian doctrine is formed from a lot of dogma and concepts in human terms. Not being able to understand one spirit doing all these operations, interceding, giving gifts, giving the utterance, giving power, etc., you appeal to your own understanding and you begin to use earthly concepts to equate them to Christ. Scripture says my thoughts are not your thoughts so you use the terminology of persons. We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.
The Trinitarian doctrine is drawn from Scripture’s manifold witness—albeit in a veiled, unfolding manner—rather than from mere human constructs. Jesus explicitly commands Baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mattew 28:19), suggesting three distinct subjects who share the one divine Name. Elsewhere, we see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all active yet distinguished: Jesus prays to the Father (John 17), the Father sends the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ name (John 14:26), and Paul blesses believers with “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Corinthians 13:13). While the Bible does not employ the modern term “persons,” these passages and others reveal a tri-personal unity. The Church’s doctrinal language (admittedly imperfect) seeks to describe the mystery Scripture proclaims: one God, revealed eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is the Father in the Godhead only, not throughout scripture, but in divine power only, is the Father one spirit in the Godhead and is the Holy Spirit that is also in the Godhead another spirit?
Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Each Person relates uniquely to the others (e.g., the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), but they are never separated in essence or power. This is the heart of Trinitarian doctrine: one God in three distinct Persons.
CONCLUSIONS.
Thank you, Mall, for sharing your viewpoint and engaging in this debate. Throughout our exchanges so far, I have underscored that Scripture presents a consistent picture of the Father and Holy Spirit as distinct, while still sharing the one divine nature with the Son. This claim is rooted in passages like Romans 8:26–27, where the Spirit intercedes to God rather than being God the Father; and in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus distinctly names the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the source of one divine Name. Moreover, the New Testament repeatedly shows the Father sending the Holy Spirit in the Son’s name (John 14:26), and the apostles speaking of God’s distinct bestowal of grace, love, and fellowship through Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:13).
In light of these biblical witnesses, equating the Holy Spirit solely with the Father collapses the scriptural distinctions and undermines Christ’s direct teaching. While God is indeed spirit by nature, acknowledging that truth does not erase the personal distinctions among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead, as the Church has recognized from its earliest centuries, these distinctions underscore the mystery of one God who has revealed Himself tri-personally. Any interpretive approach that minimizes or conflates this distinction runs counter to the broad sweep of scriptural testimony and the careful, rule-based structure of this debate—including the agreed-upon use of the NRSV text. Ultimately, while human language struggles to capture the full reality of God, Scripture’s testimony to the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—commands a respectful adherence to its revealed distinctions.
"However, many of my arguments from R1 contradict the notion that God the Father is the Holy Spirit. "
Just think about this statement dear audience. The opposing side's arguments contradict that Father God is Holy and Spirit. But the scripture teaches the Father is Holy. So you contradict or deny the Father being holy. The Father is God which God is a spirit.
When you take away from scripture and add , you will argue in contradiction to it in which the opposing side is so doing.
You have to go line up on line as the scripture says. You can't stop with one line and make a correct settled conclusion in the many subjects of scripture that are taught throughout.
I take this instance right now to suggest many of you to check on YouTube a debate called " fiery debate on Holy Spirit being Father God".
Very good debate. Leave a comment, ask questions, let me know. There were many things such as the contradictions in that the opposing side is committing in this topic .
"To those planning to vote, please refer to the debate's description, where you will find the rules for the debate, which, in participating, my opponent accepts. The first rule states, "For consistency, the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture." By using the KJV, my opponent has unfortunately broken this rule, which warrents their conduct criterion to be assesed accordingly when voting."
The rule does not state "you must use " or "you must only use". There's a difference between those statements and the statement "will be used". All those who read those so called rules, if you're honest , the opposing side did not state what was intended but poorly worded the criteria.
The opposing side should have at least stated "will only be used". Very careful with words. Scripture says itself by your words you are justified.
In this case, the opposing side did not use words to justify the case of rule violation.
At this juncture what the opposing side has to state regarding this is to be disregarded. The opposing side should admit the poorly worded language that was to convey the intent.
"In order to prevent arguments, when citing the verses my opponent has, I will be swapping the verse for the agreed upon version. This is to be prevent arguments claiming that I inadvertly cite the KJV when quoting my opponent."
I believe I direct messaged the opposing side to use whatever translation that is thought to be suitable to some upper advantage in building a strong case against the scriptures I bring. It won't really bring any upper advantage and if the opposing case has a very strong case as touted, a particular translation won't be of any consequence.
See, the scripture say rightly dividing the word of truth, not of translation. My arguments won't be prevented. I'm making them in these rounds and have cause to as the biblical scriptures say.
"As for reading "without adding or taking away," we must also interpret Scripture within its broader context, as individual verses cannot be isolated from the whole."
Just as long as you don't add or take away because from your stance it appears you are indeed taking away from scripture. I'm highly confident you will be adding in the subsequent responses.
"The distinction between "what will be used" and "we will always cite" is purely semantic and does not impact the substance of this debate nor does it change the fact that this command was placed under 'Rules.' Both phrases convey the same intent: "
How am supposed to know it conveys the same intent? That's the issue with not stating in semantics exactly what you intended. This works the same way with the scriptures. When you aren't cohesive to according to as it is written, you take your attention off exact words(semantics) and start to deviate with your own private interpretation arguing what was intended to be meant instead of according to how it is written.
For instance, 1 John 5 and 7, is constantly interpreted as these three persons. We don't even have a scripture that says that I know , God is a person. "His person" and being a person are not necessarily synonymous.
"Please adhere to the rule in following rounds."
Sorry but the opposing side is not being cohesive or consistent . Now I see why this individual is arguing for what the scripture never teaches.
"The Trinitarian doctrine is drawn from Scripture’s manifold witness—albeit in a veiled, unfolding manner—rather than from mere human constructs. Jesus explicitly commands Baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mattew 28:19), suggesting three distinct subjects who share the one divine Name. Elsewhere, we see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all active yet distinguished: Jesus prays to the Father (John 17), the Father sends the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ name "
So what? Does this mean there is more than one spirit in the Godhead? That is the core of the topic. If you say no, is that one spirit God who is the Father who is also Holy?
1 John 5 and 7 says these three are one. Why would you put up the argument of separation between the Father and Holy Spirit? If you don't , then the topic statement is false.
"While the Bible does not employ the modern term “persons,” these passages and others reveal a tri-personal unity. The Church’s doctrinal language (admittedly imperfect) seeks to describe the mystery Scripture proclaims: one God, revealed eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Here's where I see adding unless , you can give scripture that says "tri-personal unity".
In the scriptures, I believe in the book of Acts, there were people that haven't as much as heard there be any holy ghost. Christ came to point the folks back to the Father as the revelation of the Holy Ghost was not revealed. Some were blessed to know about the spirit because it is the spirit that leads into all truth and revealed who the son of GOD was putting those to believe on the one , the spirit that sent the son.
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Each Person relates uniquely to the others (e.g., the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), but they are never separated in essence or power. This is the heart of Trinitarian doctrine: one God in three distinct Persons."
I don't know if my question was too wordy but this was a response and not an answer to the question. Is the Father another spirit within the Godhead along side the Holy Spirit?
If you don't answer yes or no to that, you are not answering to avoid rebuttal which is forfeiture. Scripture say be ready always to give an answer .
Is the Father another spirit within the Godhead along side the Holy Spirit?
I didn't read where you said the Father was another one or not in your response.
As the scripture mentions to be steadfast.
I'm steadfast on the question.
Is the Father another spirit within the Godhead along side the Holy Spirit?
"CONCLUSIONS."
The problem with the opposing side and why many trinitarians go in error with scripture with the Godhead, they do not adhere to biblical standard.
They say as the opposing side has said...context....within context.
I often hear, "the verse said the Father. So that's not the Holy Ghost". "The Father sends the Holy Ghost".
Right it says that in the given verse. However, the biblical standard is not being followed. The scripture is not broken and it must be line upon line.
You got to harmonize all of these scriptures and 1 John 5 and 7 gives the hint.
The problem is with the trinitarians on the Godhead, they don't go line upon line. The Father sends Holy Spirit , that's one line. The Father is God, that's another line. Some believe the Father is not even spirit because they don't see a verse that calls the Father that. But you learn that line upon line. The spirit make intercession according to the will of God. When the scriptures are harmonized, that spirit is God.
So it comes down to that question. The opposing side has to concede to one spirit or admit that what the opposing case is arguing for is more than one spirit of God.
Round 3
INTRODUCTION.
I'd like to thank everyone for making it this far into the debate. Your time and engagement are truly appreciated as we delve into these profound theological discussions. As we approach the concluding arguments, let us remain focused on understanding the Scripture’s revelations about the Godhead with clarity, respect, and an open mind. Your dedication to seeing this discussion through speaks volumes, and I hope the insights shared so far have been both enlightening and thought-provoking. Let's continue to explore the depths of this important topic together! In this round, I will mostly focus on consolidating my position after a few initial rebutalls.
PREREQUISITE.
Throughout this debate, my opponent has failed to address key arguments I've presented. In particular, my opponent has not addressed: (1) the specific implication of Romans 8:26–27, where the Spirit’s intercession “to God” presupposes a distinction between the Spirit and the Father; (2) the significance of the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, which places the Holy Spirit on equal footing with the Father and the Son; (3) the Spirit’s independent actions—speaking, anointing, and sending—in passages like John 14:26 and Acts 13:2, which imply personal agency rather than a mere force; (4) the clear distinction at Jesus’s baptism in Matthew 3:16–17, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all active in different ways; and (5) the references throughout the New Testament (e.g., Ephesians 4:4–6, 1 1 Corinthians 2:10–11) that attribute personal qualities (knowledge, will, and the capacity to teach or guide) to the Holy Spirit, setting Him apart from the Father in function and personhood.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS.
My opponent spends the first half of R2 arguing that his citations using the KJV does not violate Rule #1 in the debate's description. I dislike rereading the same arguments presented when reading a debate. So to spare the readers, I will refrain from addressing those tangential arguments, especially as I believe I have adequately addressed my opponent's claims in R2.
"The Trinitarian doctrine is drawn from Scripture’s manifold witness—albeit in a veiled, unfolding manner—rather than from mere human constructs. Jesus explicitly commands Baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mattew 28:19), suggesting three distinct subjects who share the one divine Name. Elsewhere, we see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all active yet distinguished: Jesus prays to the Father (John 17), the Father sends the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ name "So what? Does this mean there is more than one spirit in the Godhead? That is the core of the topic. If you say no, is that one spirit God who is the Father who is also Holy? 1 John 5 and 7 says these three are one. Why would you put up the argument of separation between the Father and Holy Spirit? If you don't , then the topic statement is false.
Your question misunderstands the nature of distinction within unity. When I cite Matthew 28:19 and other passages showing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit acting distinctly, I'm not arguing for multiple spirits or complete separation — I'm demonstrating biblical evidence for distinct persons within the one divine nature (which, reading the debate's title, is exactly what this debate is about — whether the Bible supports the notion that the Father is distinct from the Holy Spirit). Let's look at Romans 8:26-27 again, which you haven't addressed: "The Spirit helps us in our weakness... that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." This passage clearly shows the Spirit as distinct from God the Father — the Spirit intercedes to God. If the Father and the Holy Spirit were simply the same person/being with different names, this passage would make no sense — how can one intercede to oneself?
When you cite 1 John 5:7 saying "these three are one," you're actually supporting my position. The verse affirms both unity and distinction — they are "three" who "are one." The unity is in their divine nature, while the distinction is in their persons. Your interpretation collapses this biblical witness by trying to make the Father and Spirit identical, which contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture showing them acting as distinct subjects. Your core question about "more than one spirit in the Godhead" misframes the debate. The issue isn't about multiple spirits — it's about distinct persons within the one divine Spirit. Would you care to address how your position explains passages like Romans 8:26-27 that show clear distinction between the Father and Spirit?
"While the Bible does not employ the modern term “persons,” these passages and others reveal a tri-personal unity. The Church’s doctrinal language (admittedly imperfect) seeks to describe the mystery Scripture proclaims: one God, revealed eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."Here's where I see adding unless , you can give scripture that says "tri-personal unity". ... I believe in the book of Acts, there were people that haven't as much as heard there be any holy ghost. Christ came to point the folks back to the Father as the revelation of the Holy Ghost was not revealed. Some were blessed to know about the spirit because it is the spirit that leads into all truth and revealed who the son of GOD was putting those to believe on the one , the spirit that sent the son.
You raise an important point about the term "tri-personal unity" not appearing in Scripture. However, this misses the fundamental nature of theological language. We use terms to describe what Scripture reveals, even when those exact terms aren't found in the Bible. The Bible doesn't use words like "omnipresent" or "omniscient" either, yet these accurately describe God's attributes as revealed in Scripture. Your reference to Acts actually supports my position. The passage you're alluding to (Acts 19:2) describes disciples who hadn't heard of the Holy Spirit, but this doesn't mean the Holy Spirit didn't exist or wasn't distinct—it simply shows a progression in divine revelation. Just as these disciples needed to learn about the Holy Spirit's role, the New Testament gradually reveals the full nature of God, including the distinct operations of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Consider John 14:16-17, where Jesus says "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate... the Spirit of truth." This shows three distinct actors: Jesus (who asks), the Father (who gives), and the Spirit (who is given). The fact that some early believers weren't aware of the Spirit's role doesn't negate this reality; it simply shows that God's self-revelation was progressive. Would you agree that we should focus on what Scripture actually reveals about the relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit, rather than getting caught up in terminology?
Is the Father another spirit within the Godhead along side the Holy Spirit? If you don't answer yes or no to that, you are not answering to avoid rebuttal which is forfeiture. ... Is the Father another spirit within the Godhead along side the Holy Spirit?
You're demanding a yes/no answer to a question that misframes the entire discussion. Let me be direct: No, the Father is not "another spirit" alongside the Holy Spirit, but this doesn't prove your position. You're creating a false dichotomy—either the Father is a separate spirit from the Holy Spirit, or they must be the same person. Neither is correct. Let me explain: There is one divine Spirit (one divine nature), but within that one Spirit there are distinct persons. This is why John 4:24 says "God is Spirit"—it's speaking of the divine nature shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But sharing one spiritual nature doesn't mean they are the same person, just as Romans 8:26-27 shows the Spirit distinctly interceding to the Father. You keep pressing this question about "another spirit" because you're conflating two different concepts—nature and person. The Father and Holy Spirit share one divine spiritual nature (so no, the Father isn't "another spirit"), but they are distinct persons within that one spiritual nature (which is why we see them acting distinctly throughout Scripture).
I'd like to ask you directly: How do you explain Romans 8:26-27, where the Spirit intercedes to God? How can one intercede to oneself?
the biblical standard is not being followed. The scripture is not broken and it must be line upon line. You got to harmonize all of these scriptures and 1 John 5 and 7 gives the hint. ... The Father sends Holy Spirit , that's one line. The Father is God, that's another line. Some believe the Father is not even spirit because they don't see a verse that calls the Father that. But you learn that line upon line. The spirit make intercession according to the will of God. When the scriptures are harmonized, that spirit is God. ... The opposing side has to concede to one spirit or admit that what the opposing case is arguing for is more than one spirit of God.
Your "line upon line" argument undermines your own position. Let's follow your method:
Line 1: "The Father sends the Holy Spirit" (John 14:26)
Line 2: "The Father is God" (1 Corinthians 8:6)
Line 3: "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
But you stop there. Let's continue with more lines from Scripture:
Line 4: "The Spirit intercedes to God" (Romans 8:26-27)
Line 5: "The Spirit of God descended like a dove" while simultaneously "a voice came from heaven [the Father]" (Matthew 3:16-17)
When we truly harmonize all these lines, we see they cannot be reconciled with your view that the Father and Holy Spirit are simply the same person. How can the Spirit intercede to God if they are identical? How can the Spirit descend as a dove while the Father speaks from heaven in the same moment. You claim Trinitarians don't harmonize Scripture, but we do — we harmonize all of it, including the passages showing distinct actions and relationships between Father and Spirit. Your harmonization requires ignoring or explaining away these distinctions that Scripture clearly presents. I've conceded multiple times there is one divine Spirit (nature), but you haven't addressed how your view accounts for passages showing the Father and Spirit acting distinctly. Will you now address Romans 8:26-27 directly?
CONCLUSION.
I want to close this debate by consolidating the central points of my position in a clear, logical manner. Throughout our discussion, I have argued that Scripture presents God as one divine Spirit but also shows the Father and the Holy Spirit acting in ways that imply distinction of persons rather than a mere difference in titles. This begins with key texts like Matthew 3:16–17, where the Holy Spirit visibly descends on Jesus while the Father’s voice resounds from heaven—an event that is difficult to reconcile if the Father and the Holy Spirit were entirely identical. Likewise, Romans 8:26–27 depicts the Holy Spirit interceding to God on behalf of believers; if the Father and the Holy Spirit were the same person, the notion of intercession would be incoherent. Such passages underscore how Scripture itself, “line upon line,” consistently points to unity of divine nature but genuine distinction of persons.
This principle is further reinforced by the Lord’s instruction to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Jesus’s words do not multiply gods or introduce a second or third “spirit”; rather, they demonstrate that while God is one in nature—“God is Spirit” (John 4:24)—He is revealed as three who relate to each other in ways that cannot be reduced to a single person wearing different labels. The question is not whether we believe in “more than one spirit” but whether the Father and the Holy Spirit can be seen performing distinct divine roles and relating to each other in Scripture. The passages we have examined show that they do, even while remaining one in essence, perfectly united in their divine nature.
It follows, then, that the biblical testimony harmonizes most fully when we acknowledge both the oneness of God’s being and the tri-personal relationships Scripture describes. This understanding arises from reading all relevant passages together. If we dismiss the distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit, we must effectively explain away clear biblical scenes in which they act simultaneously and interrelate in personal ways. Recognizing distinct persons within the single divine Spirit honors the entire witness of Scripture and provides a coherent framework for understanding God’s self-revelation—from creation, through redemption in Christ, to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers. I encourage everyone to revisit the cited passages, weigh their plain meaning, and see if that testimony is better served by conflating the Father and the Holy Spirit into one person or by allowing Scripture to speak of unity and distinction.
CLOSING REMARKS.
Thank you, dear readers, for bearing with us through this challenging and deeply significant debate. Your patience and willingness to engage with these nuanced theological discussions reflect your dedication to seeking truth and understanding. I hope this dialogue has not only deepened your insight into the Scriptures but also fostered a sense of trust in the importance of open, respectful discourse.
"this passage would make no sense — how can one intercede to oneself?"
This is the issue. This is why and how the trinitarian doctrine is made. It's made in order to make scriptures "make sense" where instead you are to get the revelation from scripture.
Scripture say receive not words of man but revelation of Christ. You're not to make logical connections which from man, that's how he explains or understands natural things and these rationalizations, he puts into words to say.
We're dealing with scripture that is beyond the natural and natural understanding. I believe in the book of Corinthians it teaches it takes the spirit to show the deep things of God. So it's beyond the natural understanding like every other natural comprehension that has to do with "making sense".
The spirit shows the deeps things , not have things make sense. "Make sense" is a human person to person concept. This is how this trinitarian doctrine comes about. You doing what you ought not as the scripture say, lean not unto your own understanding.
So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me.
Then I ask, two what ? This is what the opposing side could not answer because there's no scripture to support it. If you say two persons in the Godhead, read it . If you say two spirits in the Godhead, read it.
I asked you is there another spirit in the Godhead beside the Father?
Scripture teaches there is one spirit. Scripture teaches the Father is spirit. Now we have a scripture that says the spirit interceding according to the will of God.
Now the scripture teaches there only one God who is Spirit. So how does this line up with Romans 8?
My response is, the scripture only teaches one God the Father. God is spirit so that spirit is interceding according to the will of God who is that Spirit.
Ephesians 4 says ONE SPIRIT. There is not two because of Romans 8.
Why? Ephesians 1 and 11 says he worketh all things after the counsel of HIS OWN WILL. Who? The One God the Father who is Spirit and Holy.
"When you cite 1 John 5:7 saying "these three are one," you're actually supporting my position. The verse affirms both unity and distinction — they are "three" who "are one." The unity is in their divine nature, while the distinction is in their persons. Your interpretation collapses this biblical witness by trying to make the Father and Spirit identical, which contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture showing them acting as distinct subjects."
You are deceiving yourself with this false doctrine. 1 John 5 and 7 says these three are one. So it's not one without the other but you say one is not the other. In this case you say the Father IS NOT the holy Spirit.
But what did 1 John 5 say, these three( Father , Holy Spirit) are one.
You say , the Father is not Holy Spirit.
But what did 1 John 5 say, these three( Father , Holy Spirit) are one.
You say , the Father is not Holy Spirit.
But what did 1 John 5 say, these three( Father , Holy Spirit) are one.
You say , the Father is not Holy Spirit.
But what did 1 John 5 say, these three( Father , Holy Spirit) are one.
You say , the Father is not Holy Spirit.
But what did 1 John 5 say, these three( Father , Holy Spirit) are one.
You say , the Father is not Holy Spirit.
They're one. So you can't mention one and you're not talking about the other.
When you read a verse, if it doesn't specifically use the language of one but mentions the other, you say it isn't that one not mentioned, it's the other one.
That's you deciding that when the scripture said they are one.
Also they doesn't mean multiple spirits. No bible for that. They doesn't mean multiple beings. No bible for that. They doesn't mean multiple persons or personalities.
They are words because that is what is written, the words, scripture, scripture is what is written about one the God the Father.
You have to line it up with all these other scriptures that teach one God . You line it up with 1 Corinthians 8, you line it up with Isaiah that said there is no God beside me. Being that there is no God beside him, why would that one God not be all that bears record in heaven when there is none else?
That Father would be the holy Spirit, the word, all one. It's not one without the other. That one God that's the Father is the same one that's the Word, the same one that is holy Spirit. It's not one without the other.
It's not one without the other. It's not one without the other. Is this not plain enough?
Scripture say we speak with great plainness of speech.
"Your core question about "more than one spirit in the Godhead" misframes the debate. The issue isn't about multiple spirits — it's about distinct persons within the one divine Spirit. Would you care to address how your position explains passages like Romans 8:26-27 that show clear distinction between the Father and Spirit?"
You're ducking the question as it condemns your position. I've already rebuked your attempted case that you tried with Romans 8 above.
"Would you agree that we should focus on what Scripture actually reveals about the relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit, rather than getting caught up in terminology?"
No. Proverbs 30 and 6 says add not to his words. When you start coming up with all sorts of language, you tend to get away from scripture. Then this is how we know less you be reproved and found a liar. We can verify what you're saying is true because we can find it in scripture. But when you don't speak as the scripture says speak as the oracles of God, how do I know you're not adding to scriptures ?
That's why you are to get caught up in the terminology as the scripture says by your words you are justified. So I'm to try with an ear every word, every word as the mouth try meat as the scripture say. You don't focus on revelation. You don't focus on what is revealed . It has to be given. You have to receive it. You receive revelation. If it was up to you to worry about focusing for it, you again lean unto your own understanding.
You receive not the words of man but the revelation of Christ.
"Let me be direct: No, the Father is not "another spirit" alongside the Holy Spirit, but this doesn't prove your position. "
OH YES IT DOES. THE DEBATE IS OVER, YOU CONCEDED.
Your designated translation didn't help you either. No matter where you go, the scripture teaches there is one spirit which you admitted here. There is not another spirit of God with the holy spirit. You admit and try to immediately follow up with a lie . Saying there is not another spirit but still holding the position that the Father is not that spirit where this is only one is a contradiction and is a lie. You're adding the words "The Father is another person".
Let yourself be direct always. Speak with great plainness of speech. Let your yea be yea and nay be nay.
The Father is God which is spirit. So being that there's not another spirit, how is the Father who is holy not that spirit?
Do you see where you're trapped?
You made total shipwreck of these scriptures.
"Your "line upon line" argument undermines your own position. Let's follow your method:"
No let's follow the Bible method. See if you were following the Bible, you say the biblical method. The scripture say line upon line, here a little , there a little. You calling it my method, another lie.
"Will you now address Romans 8:26-27 directly?"
I already did above. I notice all you refer to is Romans 8. But harmonize it with the scriptures I brought, line them up with Isaiah 44/45, Deuteronomy 6, either chapter 32 or 39, 2 Chronicles 7, Psalm 100 and 3 , know ye not the LORD He is God and the book of Ephesians chapter one and chapter 4. All these scriptures and prophets speak of one God who's the one spirit.
On second thought I'm going to add this as well since we have verse 27 in Romans 8. This is where more of the line upon line comes in.
Verse 8 says "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God."
It says "And he that searcheth the hearts".
Who searcheth and knows the heart?
Line this up with Jeremiah 17 and we start at verse 9
" The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the Lord search the heart"
Who knows it ?
The Lord and the scripture says one Lord . It says here O Israel the Lord our God is ONE LORD .
This one Lord does what? The Lord said the Lord search the heart.
Say what ? Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, best believe every word is established out of the Lord's mouth.
Out of the mouth of the Lord comes the word of the Lord . Scripture say come let him hear what the spirit saith.
Wouldn't that not be the Father as well?
The Lord does what?
I the Lord search the heart.
The Lord does what?
I the Lord search the heart.
The Lord does what?
I the Lord search the heart.
So the opposing side didn't quite continue the line up. The opposing side went there a little bit didn't go here at all.
The spirit that intercedes and he that searcheth the hearts and he that intercedes is that Lord that search the heart which there is one Lord.
Now the opposing side has got two or two Lords or something if the opposing side continues to push the falsehood that there's another whatever besides the Lord.
God said THERE'S NONE ELSE, THERE'S NO GOD BESIDES ME.
The Father is the holy ghost, the holy ghost is the Father. 1 John 5 says one, not two.
You see the words "spirit interceding" and that's supposed to mean two.....as the scripture say "not so".
"CONCLUSION"
This is your true conclusion in your own words what should be because you concluded the debate when you said the following:
"Let me be direct: No, the Father is not "another spirit" alongside the Holy Spirit"
Let the people say AMEN!!!!
People, this was real Sunday school.
I encourage the opposing side to critique and give feedback on this debate in the forum topic for the next Sunday School topic.
Thank you for voting!
For scripture say they received not the love of the truth.
>Reported Vote: MAV99 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quite obviously this is a rare example of a true vote bomb. Please review the voting standards before casting future votes
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
This was pretty clearly a win for Pro.
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
I enjoyed reading it! It was weird, Mall normally isn't this bad. Normally he has some pretty good points to bring up, but here it seemed not so much.
Thanks for voting!
These voters are not taking heed to scripture. Many of you do what you do out of spite. I'm going to keep on spreading the truth. The same spirit of not receiving the truth is what got Christ crucified.
Initial thoughts... Need to go get breakfast, but I expect I'll get back to this debate at some point before voting ends.
---
First of all, sources... It's very very difficult to win sources on biblical debates, because I literally wrote into the rules that discussing the topic itself does not equate to winning sources. However, citing the bible is likely to indicate a strong argument... Conversely, , the lack of a biblical foundation may harm arguments for either side.
Conduct: Using the wrong citation could be an innocent mistake, so not automatically deducting for that. That said, it's one that could easily be leveraged to undermine their argument (writing this as I read, so haven't seen how well he utilizes the correct version yet). That said, the grasping at straws of the dispute over the rules makes it harder for me to take arguments seriously.
R1:
Pro is able to give examples of the Holy Spirit being sent as an agent of the other guys, which indeed strongly implies a distinction.
Con argues in a well done example of circular reasoning: "My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period." He also argues it doesn't explicitly state that they are not the same person ("We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.") therefore they must be.
I should be able to get a vote up this weekend. And yeah, suffice it to say that Mall has a certain "reputation" around here. That's the nicest way I can put it. I would never take his insistence that you "conceded" at face value.
I’ll see what I can do.
Please vote if you have the time! It's not as long as some of the other debates I've participated in, but no worries if you can't make it in time.
And no, I haven't "conceded" as my opponent claims in the last round.
Truly, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here. I brought up a fair point that making pre-assumptions and requiring people to accept them paints a limiting and unfair debate. So far your only counters were to claim my analogy is flawed (but never showing it) and then try to accuse me of being "Annoying as fuck." Just because I made arguments you seemingly have no response to.
Now, your taking your subjective view point as if it is something we all have to go along with and we don't. You did not have an issue with how the host framed the debate. great for you. But that doesn't mean others can't offer other perspectives on that same issue. There is no reason to get upset over it or yell profanity. You can simply say you don't agree with me and that's fine. I would even love to hear your reasoning so I can offer clarity and a different perspective.
However, when you just came at me with aggression and then ignore everything I have to say and declare it flawed with no evidence and then end it with "I don't want to talk to you." Attitude. I take that as just simply being intolerant and it reminds me of PC culture where no matter what we say the other side will just turn it into an offense or frame it to somehow be a bad thing.
I may be old school in my reasoning, but I take the view that when we meet opposition or disagreement. We should do our best to avoid being offended unless actual hurtful things are said. We also should strive for understanding rather then seeking agreement. I don't subscribe to this (in my opinion) backwards line of reasoning where we meet disagreement with aggression, presume the other side has no merits at all (as I agreed with some of your points) and then when we run out of arguments end it with "I don't want to talk with you anymore." Just listen to what others say, Agree with some points (if you do agree with any that is) say you still disagree and end with a respectful jester of good will.
You are, of course. free to conduct yourself in any manner you wish and ignore what I am saying. But, I hope that you can at least see that perhaps maybe their is value in reconducting yourself in a more pleasent manner. good discussion and good day.
Look, there's a lot I could say here, but frankly I don't desire to carry on this discussion with you. I think it's pretty clear that Pro simply wanted to find another Christian to debate with about Christian doctrine. I understood this immediately, and was not offended, because I don't need to be able to participate in every single debate. You can complain about them being "biased" if you want. My suggestion would be to find a bridge and get over it.
"Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely."
Not really. As Con, you need to make an argument as for WHY God the father and the Holy father are not different persons (which was the whole point originally) and you could do that by taking the atheist point of view that they aren't different because they don't exist. Now, because the host changed it to say that the Bible supports the idea or not, I see what your saying. However, You should not have to believe the bible is divine. You could take the point of Con and not be restricted by pre-assumed beliefs by arguing that the bible is interpretive rather than factual and therefore it could easily be argued that the Bible does not actually support it because its based on a persons interpretations rather than fact.
That would not change the topic at all. However, because you are REQUIRED to assume the bible is divine, such an argument would go against the rules and thus give pro an unfair advantage. You simply cannot justify giving one side an unlimited framework to choose from but then limit it greatly to another.
" Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it."
Honesty i find this argument to be very narrow minded in reasoning and completely missing my point. No where did I say there should not be any rules. Nor did I imply you should be annoying. The ONLY way I see your argument making sense is if One person makes a debate and then the person who accepts it just says something moronic like, "I like potato's." THAT I agree would be very annoying indeed.
However, What I am arguing against is the idea that one must accept pre-determined beliefs in order to just participate in it. It is both bias, unfair, and limits the perspective that can be diverse and varies but maintains the original topic. I agree completely about needing to stay on topic and provided reasonable arguments. nevertheless, there is a fine line between making a rule of a debate that requires one to stay on topic and then making bias rules that force you to argue from a circular framework that you may not agree with and prevent you from offering different points of view.
Ask yourself this since you are a fellow atheist. Would it be fair for someone to make a debate about a religious figure or person and invite you to debate them but on the condition that you must accept that person was divine according to a particular religion? If the answer is no, then my point is as plain as day. If you still can't get it, then I honestly don't know how else to explain that true debates come from hearing ALL perspectives related to the topic and it is unfair to make debates with loaded pre-assumptions that must be accepted no matter what.
"For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made ."
Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely. That's what the rule is meant to prevent. Do you seriously not get that? Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it.
I don't understand how my analogy is flawed. If you think it is, then provide evidence. The fact that this is a doctrinal debate doesn't mean it has to be exclusively within Christian circle reasoning or standard of evidence. For every topic there are infinite perspectives to take. For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made .
"Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is completely standard for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice not to include it." This argument is self-defeating because it is unfair to require participants to accept this assumption. This restriction forces them into a circular argument and prevents them from using their own perspectives and evidence. I don't think one has to act or agree with Christian beliefs in order to debate a Christian topic.
Why should anyone in a debate be told that they have to believe in something in order to argue for or against something? Suppose the debate is about whether capitalism supports private ownership and freedom. If the debate's rules require you to assume that capitalism is divinely inspired, would that be fair to someone who doesn't believe that or wants to make an argument that contradicts that premise?
That analogy is so deeply flawed, it doesn't even make sense. This is a doctrinal debate -- it's about whether or not a certain doctrine is supported by the Bible. Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is *completely standard* for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice to not include it.
Look at it from this perspective: Say I create a debate over tipping and asking if tipping 20% is considered cheap or fair. You, a person who has a passion about the concept of tipping and want to throw your hat in the ring is suddenly met in the rules that you must accept that tipping is the greatest thing ever. How can someone who wants to be con or pro truly offer their perspective if the very rules require you to claim you believe in something you do not? And if you decide to accept that regardless of your true feelings, what arguments can you make when your not allowed to say anything negative about tipping in general?
That's the problem with requiring prerequisites of opinions as conditions for accepting a debate. In the context of this debate, requiring that the person accept the bible as divinity inspired restricts those who might try to argue outside of Christian sources. it is also important for you to know that when this debate was originally made the title was "Are the God of the father and God of the holy spirt the different people" with the rule being added. He only changed it to the bible supports the nation because I made my point previously about the topic being closed to certain circles because of the requirement of needing both sides to agree to believe in the Bible as divine.
Plus, I told him he can do what he wants and that I was only trying to let him know the flaws of the approach. So, its not like I told him in any rude manner that he can't do what he wants or has to do something. And I mean this with total respect to all present, but people these days need to be able to take criticism better. Since I did not curse or insult anyone and have at up to this point maintained professional decorum. I shouldn't be talked it as if I spit in someone's food. I also further apologize if that is not how you meant it, but that is how it is seeming to me.
All i did was make an observation that every debate he makes requires that people accept pre-beliefs that others who may want to participate do not accept and that he should be more open about the diversity of opinions others have over religious concepts to include a more wider audience. I then tried to explain that point of view. So, far either my message has been misunderstood or people are getting overly offended by that simple statement. You don't have to agree and I am always happy to hear different point of view. However, I have a right to express my opinions no matter how it affects others. So, make a big deal out of it if you must. I am merely trying to provide another perspective.
I absolutely do NOT understand what you're getting at. CA wants to debate whether or not the bible supports the idea that the Father and the Holy Spirit are different persons, not whether or not the bible is the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God. The rule exists to make sure the debate stay on-topic. What's wrong with that?
You can, though I do not think it will be needed. Language analysis is encouraged. It's just a rule to ensure consistency.
Why would you limit it to the NSRV?
Why can't I actually look up the. Original Greek it was translated from and parse our what it means?
I would assume the primary reason they do not participate is because they know the Father and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons or because they are not well-versed in Christianity, regardless of their beliefs. That said, I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
Look you can do what you want. I am just telling you that the reality is there are a diversity of people with varying beliefs and that go for and against the bible and when you try to force people to agree to beliefs just for the sake of debating you, many do not partake. Do with that fact for what you will. I am just making you aware of it.
The objective is to find what the Bible has to say about this topic. I'd like to focus on the Bible's claims so I'm not interested in hearing arguments from elsewhere. If other debaters would like different parameters, they are free to ask me in the comments or create their own debates. I'm not forcing anyone to participate that does not want to. I'll rephrase the debate's rules from "Both parties accept the Bible as true" and specify that the debate is about "The Scriptures support the claim that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons."
That's my point. Not everyone agrees that the bible is true. No one said YOU can't use the bible as the basis of your arguments. However, when you force others to do the same, you both deny their ability to put forth their own ideological thinking, and force them to stay within a circular reasoning that gives you an unfair advantage. Just as it is completely valid for you to use your faith as the basis of your argument, it would be valid for someone to say. "My opponents arguments may be based on the bible, but if we don't take that as a credible source and look at none theocratic based evidence we will find etc."
True debates are not conducted when you set rules that force people to accept beliefs they may not share.
I will use the Bible as the basis and source for my arguments. All they have to do to refute my arguments, if that rule doesn't exist, is to question the authenticity of the Bible. This would switch the focus and topic of the debate from what the Bible has to say about x topic to is it the true Word of God.
See, your not going to get a lot of people accepting a debate where both parties have to agree that the bible is divinity inspired. Not everyone is Christian or even believes in God. You have got to add room for other beliefs or lack there of if you want challengers.