If one rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, they can not be considered a Christian.
Debate Rounds (3)
I have recently come across a debate where KeytarHero debated that Mormons are not Christians. A main justification of reasoning was that Mormons rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and therefore could not be considered orthodox Christians. I will take the stance that rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity is actually more rooted in original Christianity than acceptance of it. I will address the origins of the Trinity including its tie to the Council of Nicaea, its doctrinal issues from the Bible and how overall the belief is flawed.
I look forward to this debate and your prompt acceptance.
I would like to thank Con for challenging me to this debate. I would just like to quickly define the Trinity, so there is no misunderstanding.
Trinity -- Trinity simply means "triunity." When properly understood, Trinitarians believe that the Trinity is one God but three separate persons. This means that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit, but the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. This is not one God in three different offices, as some pseudo-Christian sects believe. And this is not tritheism, three separate gods. Trying to accuse Trinitarians of holding a disguised "polytheistic" belief is a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. As Norman Geisler would add, "The Trinity is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. * Unlike an antinomy** or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason. It is known only by divine revelation, so the Trinity is not the subject of natural theology but of revelation." 
*By mystery, it is not meant in a "mysterious" sort of way, but rather something of which "there is no contradiction, but we do not have total comprehension." 
**An antinomy is an actual contradiction, paradox, or antithesis.  Geisler's usage of antinomy in this passage is to contrast it with one of Kant's reasons for his Agnosticism, that reality apparently contains antinomies, or logical contradictions. 
 Geisler, Norman L., Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, 2000), p. 730.
 ibid., p. 515.
 ibid., p. 28.
 ibid., p. 402.
n89 forfeited this round.
Well, Con has forfeited, so obviously he has failed to meet his burden of proof. I will wait until next round.
n89 forfeited this round.
Well, n89 has forfeited, once again. He has not upheld his Burden of Proof, so please vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because con forfeits multiple times. Arguments is tied because no side actually got a chance to make their argument. I understand that pro used sources, however, they were never actually used in a real argument, so I'm going to leave that tied. S&G is good on both sides.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.