Instigator / Pro
1522
rating
7
debates
85.71%
won
Topic
#5886
The Bible supports the notion that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
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
1420
rating
400
debates
44.12%
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.
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
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.