A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity

Argumentation will start in round two. Please just accept and clarify in round 1.
I will start my positive argument in round two.
Round one will be definition and acceptance only.

Triune Godhead = One God in Essence, Three Persons in Corporate Unity.
Single God Entity = Only the Father is God both in Person and Essence.

The Bible will be both the Protestant and Catholic Bible.

Con will work to reaveal a single God. Pro will work to reveal a Triune God.

A non-Christian or non-orthodox may accept this debate but they will have to work within the two differing viewpoints among Christianity and its non-orthodox sects.

Please no "pink unicorns" and such.

Avanti !

I accept this debate.

Disclaimer

I am a Pastor and Christian school teacher. I do personally believe Trinitarian Theism, but also realize that the Trinity is merely a well intended attempt to describe the indescribable. While I will make my case vigorously I do not mean to communicate to any reader that I negate the model of the Trinity wholesale. However, I'm always open to being wrong in even my deepest convictions, and for this reason I am well aware of the Trinity's weaknesses, and will attempt to communicate these in the round.

My motivation for accepting this debate is to educate Christians on this website to learn the valuable skill of historically analyzing modern theology. I also hope to dismiss Christian prejudice against those who may reject the Trinity by explaining exactly where the disputations are, and what rationale those groups often labeled "cults" have for their beliefs.

My sincerest belief is that we all benefit from hearing both sides of the argument, and since traditionally topics like this one are taken by somebody ill suited for the task, I decided to ensure the audience a more substantive debate by accepting.

Special Request

I have several important writings due in the next week. In total, something like 24 pages for my Masters. I took this debate to ensure its quality, but need some leniency in the timing of responses. I respectfully ask my opponent not to post his Round 2 Case until Wednesday.


Definitions

1. Bible- The 66 books of the Old and New Testament irrespective of translation or version. (Catholic Canon also acceptable).
   
   
2. Trinitarian Theism- The theological view that God is three distinct person united in one person. Simultaneously a Tri (three) Unity (singularity).
   
   
3. Sabellianism- (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.
   
   
4. Council of Nicaea- (325AD) The first of a series of assembled discussions of Church leaders to reach consensus on a range of theological issues, from the exact date of Easter, to the included books of the biblical canon, and most notoriously the nature of Jesus and his true relationship to God the Father. This Council did reach a final vote, but did not reach consense on the issue of Trinitarian Theism, which resulted in several more councils being summoned to clarify and resolve the issue.
   
   
5. Constantine- Emperror of Rome from 306-337AD. Granted legality to Christianity through Edict of Milan in 313AD. Notoriously meddled in Church affairs and is supsected of having seen the Church not as God's manifested truth on Earth, but rather an administrative vessel for achieving a united Empire. Assembled the Council of Nicaea in 325AD for exactly that purpose, because the church itself was divided throughout the empire, especially on the issue of the nature of God.
   
   
6. Arius- A priest of Alexandria in Egypt in the time of the Council of Nicaea. Arius became the name associated with the most prominent nontrinitarian view of the time, known as Arianism. His enemies attacked him in effigy and legend now paints him in shadows and isolation, which has been historically debunked. While Arius' name is most associated with the brand of theology that bears it, he was not its originator nor its strongest proponnent.
   
   
   
7. Nicene Creed- The official statement of belief issued by the Council of Nicaea. It reads:
   "We believe in one God,
   the Father, the Almighty,
   maker of heaven and earth,
   of all that is, seen and unseen.

   We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
   the only Son of God,
   eternally begotten of the Father,
   God from God, Light from Light,
   true God from true God,
   begotten, not made,
   of one Being with the Father.
   Through him all things were made.
   For us and for our salvation
   he came down from heaven:
   by the power of the Holy Spirit
   he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
   and was made man.
   For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
   he suffered death and was buried.
   On the third day he rose again
   in accordance with the Scriptures;
   he ascended into heaven
   and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
   He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
   and his kingdom will have no end.

   We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
   who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
   With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
   He has spoken through the Prophets.
   We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
   We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
   We look for the resurrection of the dead,
   and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Observations

1. The Bible is the weighing mechanism for the round. However the Bible is inescapably subjective. Therefore my oponent and I will need to do more than merely quote verses and offer our own personal interpretations. We will both need to consult theologians and offer their interpretations. Theologians and Church leaders who lived during and before the Council of Nicaea take precedence over modern or Post-Nicaea interpreters.
   
   
2. History is written by the victors, and facts are often suppressed to avoid dissent. This is a well known truth in historical study, and its importance cannot be underestimated in this debate. The Catholic Church has a history of censoring material it objects to, and re-painting history in a preferred likeness to delegitimize controversy. Since most of Arius' writings and other nontrinitarian writings have been destroyed, the Con must observe this reality lest the Pro make sweeping assumptions that the Arian controversy was merely a tempest in a teapot, and "everybody" else was "always" Trinitarian. The best scholarship shows us, despite having limited resources extant, that this is not the case.
   
   
3. The Pro and Con must affirm a shared understanding of history. I require that the Pro affirm that the original Council of Nicaea was not unanimous in the creation fo the Nicene Creed, though the majority of the council (but not the plurality) were in agreement for Trinitarian Theism. Once both sides agree to this, we can begin to reenact that ancient debate on even ground, each utlizing scripture and ancient interpretation to make his case. Effectively creating a Council of Nicaea 2011.
   
   
4. The Con is not required to produce a definition of God to oppose Trinitarian Theism, rather Con must cast doubt on the "Triune Godhead" view to dismiss its liklihood in the mind of the voter. The only limit the Con must observe is the phrase "Single God Entity". This permits the Con to advocate for any number of conflicting views of God, so long as they cast doubt on the Trinitarian Theism view. For instance, the Con may argue that scripture describes a Modalism view of God, or a Panentheist view, or any other view so long as it limits God to a singular entity, as per the resolution.
   
   While this may at first seem unfair, granting the Con too much ground and pigeonholing the Pro, please be aware that Trinitarian Theism is the Orthodox view of Christianity and easily the Lion of the match. It has been the preferred view of God for almost 1700 years. The Con is at a natural disadvantage.
   
   Further, as G.K. Chesterton noted in his book Orthodoxy "There are an infinity of angles at which one falls, but only one at which one may stand". If Trinitarian Theism is to be the only true view of God, it must take on all comers and stand undisputed. Surely my opponent would agree that anything less devalues the nature of our subject.

I thank my opponent for some of his observations to "clarify" the debate however in each I must redirect.

<<
Redirection 1)
As to the subjective truth of the Bible…. I will point out all writings and statements can be made subjective by the observer -
For example:
Atheists claim our founding fathers were deists rather than Christians. Though this is clearly untrue any statement can be taken out of context.

Additional example of a theologians statements debated about;
Calvinists point to statements from St. Augustine as a theologian that supports the Calvinist view of Predestination.
St. Augustine was speaking of predestination in the realm of not choosing your parents, your country, your timeline, your gender etc… Calvinists view these statements as supporting irresistible grace, everyone else in the church does not.

- However, clearly all things should be read for the author's intent and remain in the context of those statements and in view of the fullness of their life and Isagogics.
- For readers that may not know, Isagogics is the historical occurrences and the persons life etc.. that is read "into" the work or scripture to bring clarity to the text.

Redirection 2)
Concerning History written by the victors. Even if it is true that the victors write history are you suggesting that the Church Fathers were inaccurate in their recordings of History? I would need to see evidence for this as 95% of Christianity today confirms the cannons of the Council and its Creed.
Additionally "rewriting" history is not always the case or successful as is the case with Emperor Constantius, the Emperor after Constantine and his council and a zealous Arian, tried to erase parts of the Bible and destroy Athanasius and supporters to give dominion to Arianism. He was unsuccessful and the church still did then and does today support a Triune God. http://www.newadvent.org...
Clearly, of the two, I would stand with the Council rather than such an avid Emperor trying to change the Bible to eradicate a competing viewpoint. Sounds like the viewpoint supported by the enemy rather than God.
"That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text (scripture) out of as many copies as fell into his hands. "
John Wesleys 1775 Cork Sermon (http://www.wbbm.org...)

Redirection 3)
Concerning my opponents understanding of the Nicean Council and history–
There were only at the start, 5 bishops supporting Arianism, at the end of the discussion there were only 2 dissenting opinions, when the other 3 understood what was clearly being claimed.
There were 318 Bishops in attendance.
By any definition the Trinitarian view stands at near unanimous.
316-2 in favor of the Triune nature of God.
The anethamization of the Arian viewpoint was so profound that the document that was read to them to explain the Arian viewpoint was "torn to pieces".
It was not the teaching that was handed down to 99.99485% of the church leadership.
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.columbia.edu...

As for theologians pre Nicea, being superior to the affirmed creed, why exactly would that be the case? Clearly such an opposing belief as Jesus Christ less than God was not preeminent at 325 AD . The doubts on the Holy Spirit did not exist until 381 otherwise they would have addressed them at the Council as well.

Redirection 4)
Concerning burden of proof. The resolution did NOT state "the most likely view given of God in the bible was the Trinity"
It stated one vs. one.
"A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity
I have no problem with the GK Chesterton quote and we can take other divine nature assertions, one vs. one in separate debates.

The burden of proof is shared and limited to two viewpoints.

Everything else stated by my opponent is also up for grabs whether it should stand in the light of accuracy. Due to the limited characters I will get on topic.

<<>>
This argument will be wholly from scripture, as it does indeed stand authoritative above all other works. We both will need to show that our interpretation is superior when either party casts that interpretation in doubt.

<< Imagine taking a star, like our own sun, reaching your hand into that star and plucking out an equal piece of that star…. What do you have? Another star. It is of the exact same essence. It is all the same basic elements.
Now imagine reaching your hand into both stars, one at a time and plucking out an equal piece of each and combining those two pieces. What do you have again? Another star right?
All three stars are made of the same essence. They are now three different stars but they are all the same star stuff. They are equally stars of the exact same essence.
They are consubstantial (all of the same substance), but three different things.

Above is the historical and biblical concept of Begotten and Proceeding. This is a philosophers explanatory concept.

<<< Triune In the Bible
How is this taught in the bible?
Genesis Ch 1:
26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Now most would point that clearly a plurality of some form as God (Elohim the plural form of El/God) is discussing things with himself, the question would be what was that form/image/likeness as described in the bible?

We look to the description right after:
I will summarize due to my now extremely limited characters:

God formed Adam from the dust…
Then he formed Eve from the dust…
Wait… no, that is not how he did it.
He took a piece from Adam and formed an entirely whole woman. Eve was begotten of the same "stuff" as Adam. She was not created but begotten. She is equally the same stuff as Adam. Then the husband and wife come together as "one" (Echad same as the "Shema") and another entity in equal essence proceeds from that union.

God uses the family structure and His creating act to describe His nature.
God made us in His image.
"27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

Both male, female and child were made to be the image of God, the representation of the nature of God.
Three persons, of the same essence, consubstantial.
God is also consubstantial of the same essence and that essence is eternal, omni-excellent... etc.

This of course is an explanatory shadow revealing the truth of God, like the lamb shadowing Jesus's sacrifice.

Saint Gregory taught this concept during the middle 300's.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Summary:
We do see a concept clearly pointed to by God in the Genesis account - consubstantial beings sharing Essence but not personhood.
The New Testament never explains the Triune concept as the authors already had scripture they consistently pointed to describe the Triune Nature of God.
We also see Early Church Fathers understood this concept and taught the same concept. This is clearly a traditional teaching and an easy to understand one.
Adam was first (Adam created God is uncreated) – Eve is begotten from the stuff of Adam, and children proceed from that unity also being "of" the same stuff.

The Triune Nature of God is quite describable and easily to understand in a daily frame of reference

Report this Argument

I had hoped that by observing the fickle nature of history, we could limit this debate to bible commentary and theology. But because my opponent tried to go the "Everybody has always been Trinitarian" road, I have to use the majority of my characters to annihilate this argument. Once he has conceded that Arianism was a front runner for Orthodoxy once upon a time, then we can both focus more on the Bible and Theology. But for now...

1) Arianism was more popular than my opponent realizes.

A) Orthodoxy had not been established nor was a Trinitarian model dominant.

“Arianism seemed at the worst one extreme and drastic but not unacceptable option among many. The limits of orthodoxy at the beginning of the fourth century, though more definite than they had been a century earlier, were still loose and unclear. The subject brought to the fore by Arius was one upon which no consensus had ye been reached among the Church’s teachers....No organ for defining universally accepted dogma had yet been devised. And when it very soon was devised by the ingenuity of Constantine, the General Council served at first only to make darkness darker.” (Hanson, Pg 145)

B) Council of Nicaea had more than merely 2 dissenters.

“All we can say is that the number of bishops at the Council of Nicaea probably fell between 250 and 300. The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way...It is likely that the great majority of Western bishops did not know what all the fuss created by the Arian Controversy was about, and saw no strong reason to make a long journey to a Greek-speaking city for so uncertain a purpose” (Hanson, pg 156)

[The Council of Nicaea] “Was attended by about one sixth of all the bishops in the empire...Eighteen bishops opposed the creed.” (http://www.scribd.com...)

C) A brief history of the Arian Controversy demonstrates Arian support until Emperror Theodosius mandated Trinitarianism by imperial decree.

• Council of Nicaea (325AD) -Arian's views discussed, condemned by Alexander. Council is non unanimous but produces Nicene Creed an intentional anti-Arian formula.

• [In 341AD] Two Arian councils are held in Antioch. Of the 97 bishops present, none are from the West and most are hostile to Athanasius. A formal Arian creed is written” (ibid)

• Synod of Tyre and Jerusalem (335AD)- Vindicates Arian condemns Athanasius. “Led by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Pronouncement of the Synod of Tyre and Jerusalem restores Arius and his colleagues into communion with the Church.” (ibid) “Constantine agrees with Eusebius and the council's findings and exiles Athanasius to Trier” (ibid)

• Council of Antioch I (338AD)- Council affirms prior decision, formally deposes Athanasius and orders his Exile.

• Council of Antioch II and III (341AD)- Formal Arian creeds written defiant of Council of Nicaea, which is seen as non-binding since so few bishops were present. Eastern bishops lean Arian, West does not.

• Council of Sardica (343AD)- Attempt at unity between East and West, fails horribly. East is seen as entirely Arian. East and West pen condemnatory theses against one another.

• Council of Antioch IV (344AD)- Council writes Arian addendum to Arian Creed

• Council of Milan (345AD)- Arian confessions reviewed and vindicated.

• Council of Milan II (347AD)- “The upshot of the proceedings was that almost everybody present acquiesced in the Emperor's demands,condemned Athanasius, and probably also signed some formula which was not openly Arian but was patient of an Arian interpretation” (Hanson, pg 334)

• Council of Sirmium II (351AD)- Sixth Arian confession adopted.

• Council of Arles (353AD)- Athanasius condemned

• Council of Sirmium III (357AD)- Seventh Arian confession composed, Western Bishops nearly strike compromise with Eastern Arian bishops by leaning Arian themselves. “The Second Creed of Sirmium of 357 constituted a landmark...This is an Arian creed” (Hanson pg 347)

• Council of Ancyra (358AD)- Under the leadership of Basil, a Pro-Nicene statement is released which attacks Arianism.

• Council of Sirmium IV (359AD)- A compromise formula is proposed in recognition of unending dispute.

• Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia (359AD)- Emperror Constans commands a compromise between East (Arian) and West (Athanasian) bishops. A semi-arian creed is constructed.

• Post Synod Council (360AD)- Reviewed the Synods Semi-Arian conclusions. Nicene conclusions condemned completely. 20 years later, Jerome writes that “the world awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.”

• Council of Antioch V (361AD)- Eleventh Arian Confession is written, the produced Creed is strongly Arian.

• Synod is Alexandria (361AD)- Athanasians and Cappodocians reach agreement on God and Jesus' common substance, Athanasius paves way to later acceptance of Nicene Creed by including Holy Spirit.

• Emperor Theodosius (380AD)- Faced with a threatened and disunited Empire, Trinitarianism is decided as official church doctrine by imperial decree. The Trinity becomes the official teaching of the church by order of the state.

• Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381AD)- Theodosius requires bishops to officially affirm Nicene Creed with Holy Spirit addendum.

  
  

CONCLUSION: Arianism managed to divide the entire Empire through 4 separate Emperors and nearly 70 years. At the very least it was a powerful candidate for orthodoxy, at the very best it was the dominant theory overthrown by a theological coup d'etat.

2) Star Example

My opponent is plainly wrong first off. If you remove some of the matter within a star you don't have another star, you have some of its component matter. Just as if you remove my lung you don't have another me. We are more than the sum of our parts, and our parts do not contain our totality. Yes both the original star and the removed object are made of the same stuff, but everything in the universe is made of that stuff. Earth and you and I are made of star dust, that's where all matter is created. By his example we are all con substantial with the Father.

3) Genesis Interpretation

Again this is off base. First many theologians believe that when God used “us” He may have been referring to the Angelic beings.

Second Arians once argued that the Father was speaking to the Son, who was the first created thing in the universe, but a creature, not God. This passage does not disallow for this possibility. Therefore it is no more likely Trinitarian than it is Arian.

A) Adam-Eve Comparison

If my opponent uses Adam and Eve as his analogy, and really more than that, his lynchpin for interpreting the “we” as a Trinity, he is condemning his whole case. Adam and Eve are not the same entity. Arguing that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all made of the same “stuff” or popped out of one another does not make the case for their composite unity. By this logic Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are analogous to the God-Head. This doesn't even represent an Orthodox view of the Trinity, as it would allow for even a Mormon concept of God (three persons made of the same “God stuff”) to fit comfortably within its framework. I suggest he back peddle and quickly.

3) Suggestion for Round 3

Concede the historical point. All this does is admit that there was a contoversy, by the fact that you proposed this debate it suggests the issue was big enough to echo through the millenia and Arianism wasn't small.

Then let's talk bible for the rest of this debate.

Refrerences:

Hanson, R.P.C. (2007), The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversies 318-381. (From the back cover: “Hanson's work on the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century combines meticulous and thorough scholarship with lucid prose. It is the most comprehensive account of the subject in modern English scholarship.”)

I thank my opponent for his reply but I am saddened by the content.
I am also saddened by just two hours given to digest the positive argument (which was clearly entirely new to him due to inaccuracies of understanding).

<<< Address 1)
My opponent would have the readers believe the Arian controversy was something widely supported.

To then support this differing historical account rather than the Primary documentation sourced Catholic Encyclopedia I posted, my opponent posts a scribd timeline webpage sourcing "The Trinity Delusion".

The source for this timeline is a "some guy's" personal bible study page. This person has zero credentials and posts zero sources for me to "fact" check this new version of History.
To compound that;
1)this person holds no position of authority within a church body
2)takes much of his work from Jehovah's Witness which have proven to change the biblical text when it suites them much less history.
3)The sites creator clearly has a detrimental bias and emotionally makes fun of the Triune Orthodox belief system on his website, rather than an intellectual opposing position.

Here are just a few of those "works" posted by my opponents source:
http://www.angelfire.com...
"Holy Spirit Absurdities"
"The Revised Trinitarian Version of the Bible"
"How to build your own Triune God"

Address 2) My opponent then quotes another biased person. This one has the distinction of being a Historian and author, but clearly has a purpose of giving Arianism much more weight than it should.
Example below:
"The subject brought to the fore by Arius was one upon which no consensus had ye been reached among the Church's teachers....No organ for defining universally accepted dogma had yet been devised. And when it very soon was devised by the ingenuity of Constantine, the General Council served at first only to make darkness darker." (Hanson, Pg 145)"
This statement is factually wrong. Even a tiny bit of research or biblical knowledge can prove this to be wrong. Just a quick look at Daily Catholic website would point you to the fact that Constantine in no way had an "original" idea in how to resolve this conflict.
This Website will point you to the first councils (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) held in the Scripture itself were the defining means. Synods were held all the time throughout History and it is how it resolved doctrinal conflicts. This council was the first "ecumenical/world-wide" council.
http://www.dailycatholic.org...
-There was in fact a local council that came before the first ecumenical that excommunicated Arius already.

If this one single quote is so blatantly inaccurate it is no wonder why many historians take issue with Hansons "understanding" of history.
I would recommend another book…
Address 3) The definition of Ecumenical is "world-wide". Not one sixth of the Church happened to show up.
It was an "all expense paid" by the empire calling to gather to resolve the understanding of the Arian position. This was the first world-wide call to gather and at no cost to you or the church. The people who gathered were excited, especially as each of them had seen much of the persecution under Diocletian.
Though some of the western churches may not have attended, those directly established by Paul did, and it was a largely Origen debate of the Eastern empire and was not a debate throughout the whole church.
When the bishops gathered, everyone wanted to avoid another schism like what just happened with the Novations and they wanted to appease everyone. When it was read that Jesus Christ was not God, A near unanimous roar went up that opposed the five bishops supporters.
(Source: Liberty University Textbook, The Story of Christianity. Justo L. Gonzalez Chapter 17)

<< I will concede to my opponent that there is a debate today, not due to a historical competition of another orthodoxy, but due to the musings and defamations of the Triune Doctrine by outsiders to the Christian faith/ Quasi Christians.
Again, to concede that Arianism was a competing orthodoxy or that your sources were factually accurate would be a dishonor to the Truth.

<< My opponent's rebuttal fell dramatically short and ineffective.
Rebuttal 1) Star Example:
My opponent states:
"If you remove some of the matter within a star you don't have another star, you have some of its component matter. Just as if you remove my lung you don't have another me."

Address 1) My opponent may have missed the scripture where a single rib is plucked from Adam (a component) and fashioned into a complete person.
Is my opponent stating that a woman is merely a component of man and indeed NOT a person unto herself? A woman is not a valid soul identity but still just a rib?
I believe my opponent will need to recapture that stray statement.
-Additionally, procreation is exactly two components coming together equally and generating a whole person.

Address 2) The power of this example and the primary source quoted above can be seen when some time is given to digest it.
God formed Adam from the ground, then took a rib, a piece of Adam and formed an equal person. They are of the exact same substance. They are both of the substance of Mankind. They are two separate persons of the same substance. The two come back together in "unity" (Echad) and the two components given generate a third person.

All humans are of the same substance of the first Adam. By default we share his substance. We are not of any differing substance. We are consubstantial with Adam, but differing people. We are all "corporately" one mankind.

Rebuttal 2) Genesis Interpretation:
My opponent states:
"Again this is off base. First many theologians believe that when God used "us" He may have been referring to the Angelic beings."
And
"Second Arians once argued that the Father was speaking to the Son, who was the first created thing in the universe, but a creature, not God. This passage does not disallow for this possibility. Therefore it is no more likely Trinitarian than it is Arian."

Address 1) Concerning "us" being Angelic - This would be a minority view and my opponent would need to show this interpretation as sound, in the face of my already pointing to the Hebrew use of Elohim (plural form of God) rather than El (Singular form of God) during those scriptural accounts…unless my opponent is postulating that the angels are indeed of Deistic substance…

Address 2) Elohim directly purposes God speaking to God thus clearly more likely Trinitarian. It would have stated El said to …. Whatever.
Linked is the Hebrew Text for Gen 1:26
http://interlinearbible.org...

Rebuttal 3)
My opponent States in the Adam and Eve comparison:
"This doesn't even represent an Orthodox view of the Trinity, as it would allow for even a Mormon concept of God (three persons made of the same "God stuff") to fit comfortably within its framework."

Address 1) I do not believe the resolution stated an orthodox view of the trinity only that a trinitarian view need be asserted and defended. I really really want to avoid the need for you to define what is an orthodox view. We are already clearly having issues with your historical viewpoint. No offense.

Address 2) The concept of entity will be as follows. As the three primary colors (and all subsequent) make the color white, as well the three persons of the Trinity make the Single "Corporate" being of God. These persons of God do not need to be the "same" type of persons as we are but since we are made in his image… we can easily conclude that God is understandable in the same fashion, as we are understood.
Address 3) Sources:
http://www.newadvent.org... Part XI
http://www.newadvent.org... Homily 12

Report this Argument

1) History

Address 1) Agreed that angelfire is a biased source, I relied on that timeline only in so far as I saw events corroborated in the Hanson text.

But the point still stands actually, and here's why. Even a biased source cannot make up councils or fabricate controversies. If so many councils did indeed discuss Arianism, it was widespread, persistent, and controversial enough to merit attention.

Address 2) I will not concede Hanson is prejudiced, as he is a foremost scholar on the subject and also himself a Trinitarian. Hanson wasn't a controversial guy, he was a bland, boring, academician who merely compiled historical sources and explained the Arian Controversy over a span of 70 years. http://en.wikipedia.org...

And even Hanson acknowledges the historical suppression of Arianism. He noted that after the Council of Nicaea the first ruling required that all Arian materials be burned. This became even more so the case under Theodosius who faced the Barbarian Hordes and an internal division caused by theology. The history of Arianism and its best writings were banned in the Empire. Most of what we know of Arianism we actually have to compile from the many, MANY, writings against it, which is actually an argument for its prominence.

Fascinating that according to you this controversy was barely existent, only lasting the few years between the council of Alexandria and the council of Nicaea, and yet serious church leaders rigorously argued against it for over 70 years. It really is ironic that Arianism seems to dominate the polemic and apologetic writings of all the "Orthodox" bishops for nearly a century, especially if it was so handily defeated in the very first council. Also very weird that another 20 councils reconsidered the topic and produced creeds responding to it. Seems like overkill to me. Or it could be inferred that the Arian side of the story has been censored and everything points to a large Arian presence.

Address 3) The definition of "Catholic" is "Universal", does that mean the church enjoys the membership of space aliens? Further, ecumenical means united, not worldwide. Ecumenism today is an effort to unite the fragmented churches, perhaps into a global church, but the name doesn't describe number it describes function.

It is simply not the case that the whole world was so trinitarian that they all affirmed the Nicene Creed. In fact, the Nicene Creed isn't even trinitarian, it doesn't affirm the fullness of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity! It wasn't until years later that the Nicene Creed was edited to include the Holy Spirit, which was a tenet developed by Athanasius as he contended for the Trinity against popular Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

But I suppose this is just another coincidence, of course it isn't possible that the Catholic Church has admitted they destroyed all the Arian writings and suppressed arian theology through the force of law, oh wait, yes they did (http://www.newadvent.org...). Further, reading the history of that link will demonstrate that even the catholic church acknowledges how in dispute Arianism was! “It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian" You haven't a leg left to stand on.

You cite Liberty University, of which I am an Alumni. I too shall read from their Church History Textbook:

“In 318 or 319, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, preached to his presbyters on The Great Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. One of the priests, Arius, an ascetic scholar and popular preacher, attacked the sermon because he believed that it failed to uphold a distinction among the persons in the Godhead....

The controversy became so bitter that Alexander had Arius condemned by a synod. Arius then fled to the friendly palace of Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia, who believed as he did. Constantine then called a council of the bishops of the church to work out a solution to the dispute. The council met at Nicaea in the early summer of 315. Between 250 and 300 bishops of the church were present, but fewer than ten were from the western section of the empire. The emperor presided over the first session and paid all costs....

Three views were put forth at the council. Arius, who was backed by Eusibius of Nicomedia and a minority of bishops present, insisted that Christ had not existed from all eternity but had a beginning by the creative act of God. Athanasius became the chief exponent of the what later was known as the orthodox view. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father; and for these views he suffered exile five times. The largest party was led by the gentle scholar and church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, whose dislike of controversy led him to propose a view that he hoped would be an acceptable compromise. He proposed a moderate view that would combine the best ideas of Arius and Athanasius...

Orthodoxy gained a temporary victory at Nicaea, however the creed formulated here must not be confused with the Nicene Creed used by the church today, although that creed is similar it ends with the phrase “and in the Holy Spirit” without fully including it within the trinity”...

Between 325 and 361, under Constantine and his sons, orthodoxy had to face a reaction that led to its defeat and the temporary victory of Arianism. A second reaction against orthodoxy, with orthodoxy's final victory in 381, came between 361 and 381. Emperor Theodosius in 381 defined as the faith of truth Christians the views formulated by the orthodox at Nicaea, but the years between 325 and 381 were marked by bitterness and contention.” (Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, pg 126-129)

This is the final nail in the coffin. I have proven through historical timelines, through Catholic history, through the accounts of the best scholars on the era, and even through the history textbook of the nation's most conservative Evangelical University, that Arianism was both accepted for a time and popular, and eventually over-thrown by imperial order rather than church agreement. Game. Set. Match.

You should have taken my advice and let this debate be a biblical one. You've now lost because you put all your eggs in the history basket.

2) Star Example

This argument was dropped. It flows to the Con.

3) Adam and Eve Example

I'm not saying that women aren't people, I'm saying your example has nothing to do with the trinity. I'm also deeply disappointed that the person who is supposed to be defending trinitarianism in this debate has an incomplete view of what it actually teaches.

Pulling a rib from Adam and creating Eve has created two separate entities from one common batch of stuff. They are two different people, entirely. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are meant to be seen as three “heads” of the same body, as it were. This, by the way, is where we get that phrase “god head”. The Trinity defies a tangible example in the entire natural world, that's supposed to be the beauty of its mystery. The trinitarians of the 4^th century would have exiled you for this view.

4) Elohim

Elohim means “gods”, and this term has been used to describe angels. It is not reserved only for Jehova. This gentleman does a decent job of explaining this, and it is not a unique reading of the Bible, most seminarians learned this at some point in their Hebrew studies (http://www.thedivinecouncil.com...)

5) BIble References

Still waiting. You have the burden of proof, your resolution requires biblical support, not historical support (good thing because if it did this debate would be over).

You've lost the history ground, you've lost the logical ground, and when I get more characters I promise you'll lose the bible ground.

Last chance, go Bible or lose.

I want to thank my opponent for consenting to allow for the opposing side of the resolution to be dealt with in the final round.
While neither of us consent to the others view of history this will allow for us to stay on task for the resolution.

My opponent has yet to post a positive argument against the resolution so there will be no rebuttals on my end.
I will repost my positive argument while adding some clarifying pieces and he will post his in the final round.

The Historical view will be dealt with in the comments section:

<<< DISCLAIMER – Much of this will be new to the protestant viewpoints. Please bear with the teachings and analogies used by the Early Church Fathers and the General Catechism.
<<< The Triune Concept of God is taught in Scripture.
Many cults/sects point to the fact that "the Trinity is never stated or even outlined within the scripture". The claim we will see is false.
The concept of the Trinity was laid out on the Genesis account.

I have already made the positive argument that the NT writers did not need to "detail" out the Trinity because they merely pointed to already existing OT scripture.

I have posted links to early Church Fathers that do the same as I have posted with the scriptures in the first three rounds.
St. Gregory and John Chrysostom
I will post them again for review:
http://www.newadvent.org... XI
http://www.newadvent.org... 12

Again the Layout (referencing the two works above and the Catholic Catechism below):

-Adam was formed, then Eve was begotten from a "component substance" of Adam. Adam and Eve share the same substance, they are consubstantial.
Eve and Adam came together and a child proceeded from their "communion". That child is also of the same substance and is consubstantial.
Adam and Eve became "Echad". This is a hebrew word and concept relating two into one.
We also see this in Deuteronomy directly referencing God as One.
Shema, Yisroel. Adonai Elihanu. Adonai Echad. – Hear O, Israel, The Lord your God. The Lord is "One".

<< Same concept, my son and wife are nothing less "human" than I am>>>

I will point to the descriptions used by NOT JUST St. Gregory "The Theologian" or John Chrysostom (who were never excommunicated for teaching what I am showing here in this first argument) but by the Catholic Church's Catechism quoting St. Augustine, St Gregory and Others.
http://www.catholicity.com...

254 "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88
248 - The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).
264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son"

The communion with Christ and His Bride in the NT is not a sexual reference nor is the Father and the Son's communion that causes the procession of the Holy Spirit.

<<< How is Adam and Eve linked.
To address my opponents earlier concern that there is nothing "linking" the three persons within the "family" unit, ignoring the concept of the mystical "link" believed by the Majority of Christians (Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, etc) that exist in communion between the bride of Christ and Christ himself….

…We can certainly look to a protestant understanding of the family. Is there not a link between a righteous family that is more than just individuals and the human race at large? Is there not something that causes a love a mother for the father and child and vice versa on all counts….. Would this just be firing neurons as the biologists state? Or is LOVE something that is existential but not perceptible?
(ignoring the fallen world concept that causes breaks in these bonds...)

Now to anyone that states this Genesis description is not a "shadow" metaphor like the sacrificial lamb, I merely point you to…
The Bride of Christ and Paul's clear statements and implications:
Ephesians 5:29-32
29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."[e] 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Jesus Christ left the Father and became "echad" or one flesh, with His Mystical bride the Church as constantly referenced in the NT.
This concept was taught by Paul and laid out in the OT Genesis account, which Paul referenced directly, on how the Triune God functions and how the Mystical body functions.
The word for Mystery is the Greek Musterion
http://www.searchgodsword.org...
1.hidden thing, secret, mystery
a.generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to ordinary mortals
b.a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding
c.a hidden purpose or counsel
1.secret will 1c
d.of men 1c
e.of God: the secret counsels which govern God in dealing with the righteous, which are hidden from ungodly and wicked men but plain to the godly
This directly shows that Paul pointed to the Genesis account as a shadow event, while pointing to musterion in that only the righteous would have a full understanding of these mysteries.

Without a 60 page term paper I leave it at that as proof that the Genesis account does indeed shadow the Trinity and how God functions.
This is a fundamental foundation of the understanding of the Triune God throughout the rest of the Bible.

<<<< NT Scriptures showing the Qualities of God referred to each of the Triune Persons of God.
When we look to the NT we see things that at first blush looked ambiguous, but with our newfound understanding of the teachings of the Genesis account and the understanding of the Church fathers that came before us, also realizing how each can share the same essence of Maximally Supreme Deity, lets look at these NT verses:

Jesus Is God - John 1:1-2, 14 & John 20:28
The Father is God – Philipians 1:2
The Holy Spirit is God – Acts 5:3-4

How about the coequal power of creation?
The Father has this ability in Isa 64:8, 44:24
Jesus has this ability in John 1:3
The Spirit has this ability in 1:15-17

<<<<<
In summary we can see that the Bible is replete with "Shadow" Teachings that are understood by the authors of the NT and we even see concepts carried into the NT like the Bride of Christ, the Serpent of Satan etc…

When this is fully understood as a "Musterion" teaching as Christianity has mysteries… not "things that can never be known" as my opponent suggests, but as things that God will only reveal full understanding of to the righteous.

1)The Trinity is detailed out in the Creation account
2)We see the understanding of consubstances of Humankind reflecting the consubstance of the Triune God.
3)Paul uses the creation account to explain how Christ interacts with His "Bride",by leaving the father and cleaving to his bride, and this bride who is of his same body "Echad"/one flesh with Christ….
4)We see just a sampling of passages where all persons are called God and given the omniscient and omnipotent ability of a "perfect" creation.
5)These interpretations are sound and more accurate than any others as that they are the Historical interpretations of the Church as I have cited, St Gregory "The Theologian", John Chrysostom, St. Augustine and the Catholic Catechism

Report this Argument

The Holy spirit is not God

Jesus and God are not the same person

1. Jesus said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." (John 13:16) Jesus said on numerous occasions that, "the Father… hath sent me." (John 5:37,6:37) The Holy Ghost was also sent by the Father (John 14:26) and Jesus (John 16:7), thus making Jesus inferior to the Father and the Holy Ghost inferior to both the Father and Jesus.

2. "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth." (John 14:16)

3. Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3)

4. Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18, Hebrews 3:2)

5. Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13)

6. Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32, Revelation 1:1)

7. Jesus worships God. (John 4:22)

8. Jesus has one who is God to him. (Revelation 3:12)

9. Jesus is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

10. Jesus' head is God. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

11. Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God. (Hebrews 5:7)

12. Jesus is given lordship by God. (Acts 2:36)

13. Jesus is exalted by God.(Acts 5:31)

14. Jesus is made high priest by God. (Hebrews 5:10)

15. Jesus is given authority by God. (Philippians 2:9)

16. Jesus is given kingship by God. (Luke 1:32,33)

17. Jesus is given judgment by God. (Acts 10:42)

18. "God raised [Jesus] from the dead". (Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:15)

19. Jesus is at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34)

20. Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5)

21. God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

22. Jesus did not think being "equal with God" was graspable. (Philippians 2:6)

23. "Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" (Matthew 27:46)