The Instigator
silveracer
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
DoctrinallyCorrect
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The Holy Trinity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,389 times Debate No: 5310
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

silveracer

Pro

I believe that the Bible teaches the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the Trinity. I will let my opponent lay down his argument(s) and give a rebuttal in my next round. Thank you.
DoctrinallyCorrect

Con

I am the negative in this debate. I have to have some to deny in order to be in the negative. My opponent has not presented any affirmative argument for me to deny. If he presents some affirmative argumentation for the the Trinity, I will gladly attempt to deny it. If he wants me to be in the affirmative, then he is welcome to concede the debate and I will challenge him and affirm a non-Trinitarian proposition.

Here are some questions for my opponent on this matter.

1-Please define the Trinity as you understand it.
2-Are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit separate persons?
3-Please define person as it relates to this issue.
4-According to John 17:3, who is the only God?
5-Is Jesus God?

This should be enough to get this thing going.

Respectfully,

DoctrinallyCorrect
Debate Round No. 1
silveracer

Pro

1-Please define the Trinity as you understand it.

"God is one God in essence, power, and authority, and also eternally exists as three distinct co-equal persons. These three persons are the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit." "Defending Your faith" by Dan Story, p99.

2-Are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit separate persons?

Please see above answer.

3-Please define person as it relates to this issue.

Any one of the three substances or modes of the Holy Trinity.

4-According to John 17:3, who is the only God?

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3 KJV. "According to John 17:3, who is the only God?" That is a loaded question. Are you assuming that before I read that verse that I thought there was more than one God? My answer to your first question does not suggest that I believe in three gods (polytheism). It means I accept the doctrine of the Trinity in that "there is only one God who exists in three distinct persons, and all three share the exact same divine nature or essence." "Defending your Faith" by Dan Story, p99.

5-Is Jesus God?

Jesus, like Yahweh and the Holy Spirit possess the defining characteristics of deity. He is omnipresent (present everywhere at once; Matt. 18:20; 28:20). He is omniscient (possesses infinite knowledge; John 4:29; 16:30; 21:17). And Jesus is omnipotent (all-powerful; John 5:25-29). Yes. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
DoctrinallyCorrect

Con

I am still not sure what I am to be denying here. He is affirming there is a Trinity and so far he as only offered definitions and not proof. He has defined the trinity, but has not proved the Trinity. I have somewhat of an issue with his definition though. In answer to Q-1 he correct defines the doctrine of the Trinity as three distinct persons. Then in answer to Q-3 and he defines person as modes. If these persons are not being, but simply modes then he is espousing modalism. I don't have lot of issue with the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as modes. But the fact of the matter is Trinitaraian view the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as more than modes. If pressed I am sure that he would say that the FS&H are more than modes, but rational beings. The Father is a being, the Son is a being, the Holy Spirit is a being in his view. They are three separate Divine persons.

He states in answer to Q-3 that there are three subtances in the Godhead.

MY OPPONENT: "Any one of the three substances or modes of the Holy Trinity."

This demonstrates my opponent lack of understanding of his on doctrine. There are not reputable sources that define the Trinity as three substances. Notice the follwing definition of the Trinity as beind ONE substance.

"that the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3). & http://en.wikipedia.org...

In attempting to answer Q-4 he just ignores it. I still want an answer to the Question, who does John say is the only true God. I want more than a Dan Story quote defining the Trinity. I am well aware of the definition of the Trinity. Please read the veres and answer the question. Who does John 17:3 say is the only true God?

He then states, "My answer to your first question does not suggest that I believe in three gods (polytheism)." This seems really illogical in light of his combined answers 1, 4, & 5. In question 5 he states, "Yes. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God." He also argues that they are separte persons, in 1 & 4.

In his view the Father is 100% God and is a separater person from the son who is 100% God and both of those persons are separate persons from a third who is also 100% God. If that is not three God's I don't know how to explain what is. Oh, he will say, because the share the same nature (See Dan Story from Q-4). This is often the argument, the reason why three separate persons can be one God is because they share the same nature.

Let look at is like this. If you can worship three separate persons and them be one God because they share the same divine nature, I wonder if one could obey 1 Tim 3:2 and be married to three separate person who all share the human nature and have one wife? You see he believe in three separate persons with their own existence and somehow this is all one God. This is at best mild polytheism. It sure is not monotheism.

That is the reason that no Jew, the original monotheist, accepts the doctrine of the Trinity. They understand it for what it is.

Here is the point. If you have three separate persons and all of them are Governors, you have three Governors. Trinitarianism differs in no way numerically from polytheism.

I am sure that we will go much deeper in this befre this debate is all over. I will cease with the argumentation for now since my affirmative as offer no proof of the Trinity, especially Biblical, but only definitions. You must do more than offer definitions, but proof. A doctrine defined is not a doctrine proved!!!!

I will be glad when this is over to debate from the affimative my view on the Godhead as a oneness pentecostal. If you would kindly accept.
Debate Round No. 2
silveracer

Pro

silveracer forfeited this round.
DoctrinallyCorrect

Con

Since he forfited the round I have nothing more to respond to. I hope that you vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jthompson89 6 years ago
jthompson89
When responding to the opposition against the holy trinity and the idea of "3 being in 1" it can better be understood (at least for me) as a daily task. For example; picking up a cup of coffee. Fist you have to have the MEMORY (Father) of where the cup was/is, where it was placed, what's it on. Second you must UNDERSTAND (Son) how to pick up the cup (sounds funny but in mental processes which we don't perceive this happens with ever voluntary movement. Last you must WILL (Holy Spirit) you way to actually move your muscles to pick up the cup physically. All of this takes place simultaneously so this is a metaphor for how God is one and The trinity is God, opposing the theology of modelism and subordationism.
When John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ the SON of the FATHER he was baptized in the HOLY SPIRIT, confirming the trinity.
This was all taken up as Orthodox Christian Doctrine at the Council of Nice in 322 CE.
Posted by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
actually people are saved from debates. I know this from personal experience.
Posted by Dellis 8 years ago
Dellis
Because I can "read" something does not always mean I understand nor comprehend what I have read. I have also read many Buddhist and Hindu writings and came away utterly confused.

Within Christianity we have "spirit and flesh". So being that Jesus had a physical mother but no physical father he was then "God-man". So the physical body of Jesus died and was buried yet He gave His spirit up to God the Father. It is not the "death" so much as the "innocence" of Christ first and foremost. Being sinless He was the perfect offering. God took the life of an innocent (innocent blood) animal to cover the nakedness (sin) of Adam and Eve. This was a prototype of the Messiah to come.

God Himself did not die for Spirit cannot die yet this is absurd to the atheist for he/she denies all things metaphysical. Their presuppositions will not allow a belief in God for *IF* God is true then He alone saves people and calls them to Him. No one is ever saved or converted by anyone or their arguments so THIS is why so many debates are pointless.
Posted by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
I would be happy to debate you on this issue. I would like to debate twice, once with me in the affrimative and once with you in the affirmative. In the first of each debate we exchange five questions. Allow for the maximum number of words.
Posted by joshandr30 8 years ago
joshandr30
Doctrinally correct. I would very much like to debate you on this topic. I started a debate on this already, I was hoping you would accepted, you must not have seen my debate:(. I did not know I could extend a challenge like this to a certain person. I would like to finish my debate first and then I will get back to you. But this will be very tricky. I will have to be careful to not "show you my hand" in my other debate.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
lol @ "you atheists"
And yes I have read the Bible, and the Koran and the Hindu vedas, Tao-Te Ching, and a fair chunk of Buddhist texts. So if you want to argue against ignorance - I would hazard to guess it leans towards yourself. That tends to be the pattern in Christianity.

Perhaps you are the one unaware of what atheism actually is *shrugs* who knows. Your education is not my concern. Oh and if you contend that Jesus is god and Jesus dies then it follows that god dies - unless they are seperate entities in which case god raised Jesus or the bible contradicts itself. Or as you say it was just the flesh then the miracle seems less than wonderful - if he did not "die" for 'my' sins and as being omnipotent can not die for 'my' sins - it follows then that the whole charade is somewhat meaningless. Again if he is omniscient - then there is no sacrifice i.e. knew of his resurrection. If you wish to find meaning in that, that is your business, but don't expect me not to laugh at the absurdity.

Contradictions, of which there are plenty, is why "the bible says X" debates are rather pointless because both positions are usually advocated.
Posted by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
What is the logic in drawing that conclusion? Nothing in my statement allow for the world to be godless fore three days. What John 2:21 says will be destroyed/die would be his BODY, not his spirit. As the God-Man, his deity/spirit does not cease to exist because his body died. Else how could he raise himself from the dead, if his total being or person ceased to exist. He gave his flesh.

John 6:51 KJV
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Would you like to debate whether or not the bible teaches that Jesus is God? Not whether or not he is god, but whether or not the bible teaches that he is god.

P.S.-I do not contend that the universe was godless for three days. That is the problem with most of you atheist, you have no idea what the bible actually says about anything. I am not sure about you, but most Atheist have never read the Bible cover to cover. If you fit into that catagory, you have no credibility when you argue against in.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
How amusing - you now contend the universe was godless for 3 days. Don't let it worry you though, the bible is full of such similar contradictions.
Posted by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
you for got that because he was also God, and not Just a man, that he raised himself from the dead.

John 2:19-21 KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"You forgot he rose again three days later. :)"

Acts 2:24: "God raised him up."

Try again. :D

"possesses infinite knowledge"

You forgot he questions, god, on the cross. :P Mark 15: 34
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Weave77 6 years ago
Weave77
silveracerDoctrinallyCorrectTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by silveracer 8 years ago
silveracer
silveracerDoctrinallyCorrectTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
silveracerDoctrinallyCorrectTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07