Is the trinity three persons doctrine a scriptural doctrine?

What is the Trinity?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship." "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

I am expected to show that there is one God in three persons in scripture. For the sake of argument and historical heresies, I will cite a few sources showing that God is one and the Father is God but not elaborate as historically these statements aren't disputed but rather that the Son and Holy Spirit are likewise God. As for the Son, I must show that He is God but not the Father nor the Spirit; and for the Spirit likewise that He is God but not the Father nor the Son. If my opponent agrees that there is no disagreement with God being One and the Father being God, I believe it right to not waste time debating something we agree on. If my opponent however disagrees that God is One and/or the Father being God I shall nonetheless cite a few passages for him to contest.

One God

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, there is no other, there is no God besides me.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!

Exodus 20:3 You shall not have other gods beside me.

The Father

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist...

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Isaiah 64:7 Yet, LORD, you are our father...

The Son

Again, here I must show three things: that the Son is God, the Son is not the Father, the Son is not the Holy Spirit

John 1-1;14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.; And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

Here in John 1:1 we seem to have a contradiction of phrases. "The Word was with God" shows that the Word and God are distinct from one another. However, "the Word was God" states that the Word and God aren't distinct. In Trinitarian theology, this is easily understood. The Word, which we are told became flesh and is the only Son of the Father in John 1:14, is said to be with God showing a distinction of personhood. He is at the same time said to be God confirming the divinity of the Son with the Father. In this sense, there is no contradiction with the text.

Luke 3:22 and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

Here we see all three persons of the Trinity mentioned. Jesus is identified as the Son by the Father. Unless God is a deceiver, the Father distinguishes Himself from the Son. The text also distinguishes the Spirit and Jesus as the Spirit is He who descends upon Jesus.

Acts 3:15 The author of life you put to death, but God raised him from the dead; of this we are witnesses.

In Acts, Jesus is referred to as the author of life. In what way is Jesus the author of life if He did not create it?

John 1:3-4 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

It is in this way that Jesus, the Son of the Father, the Word, is the author of life. He is identified as Creator of all things including life.

Matthew 4:7 Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

Luke 4:12 Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

Here Jesus tells Satan that he is not supposed to put God to the test, yet Satan is testing Jesus.

Isaiah 41:4 Who has called forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, am the first, and at the last I am he.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, Israel’s king, its redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first, I am the last; there is no God but me.

Isaiah 46:12 Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I called! I, it is I who am the first and am I the last.

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty.”

In these four citations we see that it clearly states God as the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega. Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Alpha and Omega = First and Last.

Revelation 2:8 ...“‘The first and the last, who once died but came to life, says this:

God died and came back to life? More than one person has died and come back to life but when did God die let alone come back to life?

Revelation 1:17-18 When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead. He touched me with his right hand and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. 

Is God truly claiming that He died and is now alive? How does this make sense? When did God die?

Revelation 22:12-13 “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Here God is claiming that He is coming soon. He is using the same titles that we saw earlier.

Revelation 22:16 “I, Jesus...

Revelation 22:20 The one who gives this testimony says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

Here in the final passages of Revelation, not only does Jesus show Himself to be the one talking but the author also reveals that the one who is coming, the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, is also Jesus. Not only does God identify Himself by these titles but Jesus as well. It seems as if Jesus and the author are positing the divinity of Christ. By claiming divine titles, He claims himself to be God.

The Spirit

First is to distinguish the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Being that the Spirit is labeled 'of God' and 'of Christ' or some other similar manner, the idea that it is possessed indicates that it is not the possessor. The relation of possessor/possessed identifies two distinct persons.

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.”

Here, Peter claims that Ananias lied to the Spirit and later claims that as lying to God.

1 Corinthians 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.

Galatians 4:6 As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

Paul states that we received the Spirit that is from God and in Galatians God sent the Spirit of His Son. Here the Spirit of God and of Christ are the same spirit. But the Father is not sending Himself nor is He sending the Son. The Spirit is He who is being sent.

1 Corinthians 2:11 Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.

Here, Paul claims that the Spirit of God is within God and knows what pertains to God. If this is true, just as much as your spirit is yours and is you the Spirit of God is God's and is God.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.

In these two verses we see a parallel. Our bodies our called the temple of God in one verse and of the Spirit in the other verse. In the second verse we are called to glorify God that's in our body. This ties into the previous passage on the Spirit's identity. As much as our spirit is us, the Spirit of God is God. Here the divinity of the Spirit is explicitly stated.

I would like to quote and explain one final passage:

Matthew 28:19 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,

Here we see the three persons of the Trinity mentioned, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, they are said to have one name. If these are three separate beings, in what way do they have one name? In Trinitarian theology this is simple, the three persons are distinguished from each other, but their one name is 'God' representing their one being. If not God, what name do they share?

I am intentionally keeping this short. There are dozens and dozens of passages that I can use but for the sake of debate I will not write a book that's worth 2000 years of Church history. God bless!

As I thought, my opponent and I agree that scripture teaches that there is one God. We also agree that the Father is God. I however would like to add a note here: My opponent has made a few statements among the likes of "Paul/Isaiah/Scripture said/says". I will ask my opponent to follow the parameters that he put in place by quoting exactly and not paraphrase nor reinterpret, and if he fails to comply it will be automatic forfeiture. Thank you.

By these first lines of introduction, conflict is going to come into play. The scriptures teach there is one God so by the son being God, who is God? The Father. So that just said the son is the Father and the holy Spirit is God so the holy Spirit is Father God. So I agree the Father is that which is the son and etc. [bold is for emphasis] This is actually contrary to the trinitarian faith. However, the opposing side will say subsequently things that will appear to contradict this. Now you just said "The Father is that which the Son is". Here you says "He is not the Father who is the Son". I can extend grace in saying you mean each statement in different perspectives or perhaps scriptural revelations. But the conflict is saying he is then isn't. The son is the Father or is God. We have the same God. The only true God, right. We don't have another besides him like Isaiah said. Now, son and father don't mean the same. The scriptures teach what each of these words mean. But each of these words apply to the only wise God and Savior to whom there is also ......none besides him. So , this is why I specifically phrased the topic as done so. To make it simple without confusion, can we read God is three persons in scripture? No. This is how we know we're adding or taking away from written scripture. We just stay steadfast and faithful to what is written. Jesus said in John 4 God is a spirit. He didn't say God is three persons. He didn't say he was or is the second person. Paul said unto us there is One God the Father . Not One God in three persons or one God, the Father being the first person. Mankind has come along and added the words "persons" to scripture. They've added a ranking of persons from somewhere. They've added the term "trinitarian" and "catholism" and "roman catholism". They have just added and added and added and added. As the scripture basically say there is no end to their books. Man invents things after God. Mankind came up with all these denominations of faiths and divisions that the scriptures don't support.

Here, my opponent makes a logical error and seems to possess a lack of understanding of the Trinitarian position. He stated that he agreed with the statement, "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God" (CCC, 253). He then posits his own belief that because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God (which we agree) that they are all the Father, he however fails to acknowledge that what he claims to agree with says "i.e. by nature one God". He ignores that the Trinitarian position distinguishes between nature and personhood. Hence, what he claims as a "contradiction" is merely a lack of understanding of what is being said. To make this clearer, "'The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God'...'Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.'" Each person is God.  "The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son (CCC, 254)." Here that same thing states what I mentioned before, that each person is divine (being God) yet distinct. How does the Trinitarian formula claim they are distinct?  "The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance" (CCC, 255). My opponent actually made an interesting claim, that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all the Father. I would like him to show this in scripture. This seems to be an actual contradiction especially in the sense that the Father is His own Son, but I'll get to that later in this round. As to the rest of his comments, he claims that we have "added" to scripture, yet we do not claim to find these words (written properly this time) in scripture: Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, Trinitarian.

"God died and came back to life? More than one person has died and come back to life but when did God die let alone come back to life?" On the cross. Particularly if you say Jesus is God, God died and raised himself up. Now , many people get caught off guard with this. The spirit didn't die. The spirit according to the scripture is everlasting. But Jesus said basically, you can tear down this temple, in three days I will raise it up. Jesus is God, right. Two things you have to learn from the scripture , and that is Jesus being God,God being the Father. Scripture says line upon line. You have to line all this up.

Here again we agree that Jesus Christ is God. However, my opponent makes a bold claim "Jesus being God, God being the Father". What does scripture actually say?

Luke 3:22 and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

John 1:34 Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.”

Matthew 14:33 Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God.”

Romans 1:3-4 the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hebrews 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.

Matthew 26:63-64 But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so...

John 10:36 can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Scripture repeatedly states that Jesus Christ is the Son and not the Father.

I don't see where God says he claims. The Lord said "I declare". Scripture say perceive we the love of God for he.......laid down his life. Jesus said "I lay down my life for the sheep". Being that God is the only savior, Jesus is that Savior, is he not?

Obviously, Jesus is not just our Savior, but God. My opponent again is showing his ignorance of the Trinitarian position, not understanding the difference in nature and personhood.

The Father is the Lord Jesus. Scripture basically says....Stephen was calling on God and we know God is the Father....saying ...Lord Jesus . Lord Jesus , receive my spirit.

Scripture claims Jesus is the Son not the Father (see above citations for references). Seeing as no quotes are given, I will ignore the rest.

Personhood

It seems the debate is going to hinge on whether the three persons are distinct from one another. I will show this in two parts: the function of the names of the persons and the relations of origin in scripture

Function of the Names

The names of the divine persons indicate identities and relations. The Father has paternity and therefore begets. The Son has filiation and is begotten. The Spirit has procession and therefore from which proceeds. However, you must also note the names in their indication of relations. The Father can only be named a father if He has a son, i.e. paternity. The Son can only be named a son if He has a father, i.e. filiation. The Spirit can only be said to be of the person if He proceeds from them, i.e. procession. In these distinctions my opponent errs. He states that the Son and Holy Spirit are the Father. If this is true, then the Father is not the father to the Son neither the Son the son of the Father. There would neither be paternity nor filiation. Likewise, the Spirit is neither of the Father nor the Son for He is both. Again, not only does this put my opponent in a logical contradiction, but a scriptural dilemma.

Luke 3:22 ...“You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

If my opponent is correct, then God is a liar. For Jesus is not truly His Son but rather the Father.

Galatians 4:6 ...God sent the spirit of his Son...

Again, if my opponent is correct then scripture lies. How can God send the spirit of His son if there is no son, only the Father. Likewise, how can God send the Spirit if the Spirit is the Father. In my opponent's words, the text would have to say that God/the Father sent himself, but the text does not say this.

Origin in Scripture

They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." (CCC, 254)

The Father is the source, also called "monarch", of the Trinity. This no one denies. Being the source, we must look at His relations to the other two persons of the Trinity. First, in relation to the Son, the Father begets the Son and the Son is begotten of the Father. Is this scriptural? Yes.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:16 Greek Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

My opponent would claim that this passage doesn't show the Son as being begotten. He would be somewhat correct, when maintaining to certain English translations (like the one above). However, the Greek does not depend upon the English but rather vice versa. Here in the bold we have the words "τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ (ton Huion ton monogenē)". The word of greater importance here is "monogenē". 'Mono', meaning only/one, and '-genē', from the verb gennaó (γεννάω) to beget, meaning begotten. As a result, the Greek clearly states that Christ is "the only begotten Son". This puts my opponent in a dilemma. If my opponent claims that this is true, that He is the begotten Son, then He cannot likewise be the Father, for the Son does not beget but is begotten. If he claims that He is not the begotten Son, then he defies scripture. This is not the only place in scripture where the term begotten is used.

John 3:18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.

1 John 4:9 ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι' αὐτοῦ.

Hebrew 11:17 Πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ πειραζόμενος, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος,

Now, there is one more example of the use of this term for Jesus Christ. I mentioned this verse in the first round when speaking of the divinity of the Son and His distinction from the Father, which my opponent had to ignore in order to avoid explaining the verse.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

What is so crazy about this verse? Here we see that the Word is recognized as the begotten Son of the Father. But what did John say earlier in the same chapter?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The question that needs to be answered is, how is the Word with God and at the same time God? My opponent will state that the Son is God, God is the Father, the Son is the Father. Yet, we've already acknowledged that this is a contradiction and untrue. Rather, the Trinitarian position states that when it says, "the Word was with God", this is the Son with the Father indicating a distinction between the divine persons, and when it says, "and the Word was God" it indicates that this Son of the Father is truly as much God as is the Father. In these reasoning there is harmony without contradiction.

Second, is the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father. The Father generates/spirates the Spirit and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Is this scriptural? Again, yes, it is.

John 15:26 “When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.

If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, He cannot also be the Father. If that were the case, He would not be proceeding from the Father but rather it would truly be the Father who comes. But scripture does not state this.

Concluding Round 2

The burden I will place on the opposing side is proving the Father is not also the holy Spirit nor Jesus being the Father.

My opponent seems a little confused. Burden of proof, which I am sure he knows, cannot be placed on a negative claim, i.e. "the Father is not also the holy Spirit". I, however, have accepted the burden of proof of showing the distinction of the persons (positive claim) which I did in this round. Seeing that my opponent made the positive claim that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Father, I will place the just burden of proof in his hands. Before I finish, I would like my opponent to answer few questions:

Is the Son begotten of the Father? If yes, in what manner is the begotten he who begets?

Does the Spirit proceed from the Father? If yes, in what manner is the one who from which proceeds he who spirates/generates?

That is all. God bless!

Because my opponent made various points that can be consolidated and addressed as such, I will do so beginning with the verse 1 Cor. 8:6 and his eisegesis.

1 Corinthians 8:6 & the Eisegesis of my Opponent

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.

My opponent made the claim that the Holy Spirit and Son are the Father. I asked him to present scripture, and this is what he presented (albeit he only gave the first half of the verse). In the New Testament (NT) we are presented with three characters the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When presented with passages that claim the God is the Father, at a face value, this would mean that out of the three characters previously mentioned the Father is explicitly identified as God. Some may even assert that only the Father is God. However, my opponent, as do I, sees that the NT doesn't identify just this character, the Father, as God but also the Son and the Holy Spirit. My opponent reconciles this problem by stating that if the Son and the Holy Spirit are God then they must also be the Father. This logic is flawed and leads to problems of its own. Let's look at the verse he cited above. This verse is pretty symmetrical, we have "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ". The problem this verse poses to my opponent is the understanding of the Greek. In the first half it says that all things are ἐξ (from) the Father. The word 'ἐξ' indicates origin in Greek. However, in the second half it says that all things are διά (through) Jesus Christ. The word 'διά' does not indicate origin but rather a cause in Greek. The problem is if my opponent's assertion were true, then this verse is blasphemous and contradictory. He asserts that Jesus Christ is the Father, although never called as such, but the passage he cites states that this one Lord, Jesus Christ isn't the origin of existence, which it claims that God, the Father, is. How does my opponent reconcile this contradiction? Who knows?

Double Standard & Logic and Reason

My opponent has said multiple times that the terms persons, personhood, trinity aren't in scripture. First and foremost, the claim isn't that the terms are in scripture but rather the concept is present in scripture. Not only that but a person/personhood in metaphysics isn't dependent on religion, nor does the Bible claim metaphysics to be false. This seems to be special pleading from my opponent because he doesn't understand what is being said. Hence in the first round he claimed that the two passages contradicted each other when they were comparing these divine biblical characters using nature and personhood which are not the same thing. When my opponent says, "I don't see where the apostles said anything about "personhood", nor the prophets, let alone Father God Jesus", it shows a lack of understanding of what my claim is and a strawman at that. Second, when equally applied to my opponent in form of "the Son is the Father" in scripture, he doesn't cite a passage where it says these words because it doesn't explicitly state this. On the contrary, we have to deduce, using logic and reason, that because God is the Father, the Son is God, the Son is the Father. But if we use logic and reason, such as understanding the relation between a father and his son, i.e. paternity and filiation, and come to the conclusion that a son cannot be his own father and vice versa we are told "no, no, the Son is the Father" by my opponent. However, if the Son is the Father then there is no Son there is only the Father. The Bible doesn't state this though. It states that there are three divine characters the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and my opponent has already admitted this to be true. My opponent states that two of these characters, the Son and Holy Spirit, are actually the Father. The problem this sets up for my opponent is when scripture says, "and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased"(Luke 3:22). Although we see the Spirit descending upon the Son, two distinct characters interacting with each other, my opponent states this isn't true as it's the Father descending upon the Father. Likewise, when the Father says, "You are my beloved son..." this also isn't true. The Son is the Father. So, when my opponent says, "The opposite side is making it harder adding confusion into this topic" I am merely following his own statements to their logical conclusion. If the Son really is the Father then He isn't a son. It's the same person talking to himself. Yet, again, if He truly isn't the Son, even with all the verses that say the contrary, then here God is made to be a liar by calling Himself His own son. It's not my belief. It's the belief of my opponent playing out. His only argument against this is to say that "God is the Father". When my opponent says, "You have no scripture that says "Christ is not the Father", this is false. In the previous round I presented 5 verses from scripture where Jesus is called the "only begotten son of God/the Father". My opponent doesn't understand what father or a son is, nor does he grasp the concept that these are opposite relations, meaning that the term father is inter-dependent on there being a son. If no son exists there is no father.

Is the Son begotten of the Father? If yes, in what manner is the begotten he who begets?

Yes. He came out from God like Jesus said and born of a woman like the book says.

Here my opponent failed to support his position. He agrees that the Son is begotten of the Father. When asked to show how the begotten, i.e. the Son, is he who begets, i.e. the Father, he says, "He came out from God... and [was] born of a woman". In my opponents theological terms the Father came out from the Father and was born of a woman. So the Father is the son of a woman, but how does that make the Father the son of the Father? How is the Father his own son? What is a father? What is a son?

The Ignorance of my Opponent

I guess you better ask God that. Don't lean on your own understanding . Ask the LORD to give you understanding. After consideration, the scripture say " the Lord give thee understanding in all things". I don't have to state anything..the scriptures say "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" See, I can just read truth of the matter concerning God. I don't have to claim anything, make up anything, have private intimate interpretations. The book says the " the Word was with God, and the Word was God" . I know you don't believe we have two Gods here. The word which is the one God was with the one God. See, carnal natural thinking tries to rationalize and make sense in logical terms, and thus .....the trinity doctrine was born. But if we just leave it as is not adding to it, it's the one God in the beginning that was the WORD(GOD) that was with God . So what is John 1 saying that is different about the only true God , no God formed before no second person formed after, from any other scripture that teaches the one God? John 1 like other scriptures is teaching the one God. It just says God there. Now people have questions and question how is this possible and what not and become trinitarians and forget that with Christ all things are possible so God being with God and God filling heaven and earth and being manifest in flesh on earth and being God WHO IS THE FATHER being seen by the apostles....... it's one God and Father working all in all in you all and through you all, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all . So yes, ALL at the same time. All at the same time in you , in another, the same was in the beginning with God. I dare the opposing side to challenge me of what I said saying that the scriptures have said, to give scripture itself saying it.

First, "carnal natural thinking" is a pretty funny term seeing as there is nothing that resembles this idea of the Trinity that you detest so much in nature. Second, a whole lot of nothing was said here. Third, the point that my opponent doesn't address is that the text says, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God". How is the Word with God and is God? Your response was God will give understanding and the Trinity is wrong. Cool bro, now explain how. If you can't explain something that doesn't mean your view is wrong by the way. It just means you lack understanding (aka to be ignorant)

"Yet, we've already acknowledged that this is a contradiction and untrue. Rather, the Trinitarian position states that when it says, "the Word was with God", this is the Son with the Father indicating a distinction between the divine persons, and when it says, "and the Word was God" it indicates that this Son of the Father is truly as much God as is the Father. In these reasoning there is harmony without contradiction."

The problem is, we didn't read all of this in the text. The text itself has to give the explanation or line upon line like the scripture say line upon line..... that's line upon line explanation.

The problem is you didn't read at all. The Word is said to be the son of the Father in John 1:14 (see previous round for full quote). So, when it says "the Word was with God" this is the Son being with the Father as nowhere is the Word called the Father in scripture. Let's recap. Can a son be with his father? Of course. Can a son be his own father? No. Now, when we read "and the Word was God", knowing what we know, this cannot mean the Son is His own Father (that's a contradiction, illogical, irrational, etc.), it must refer to something else. This is called divinity. Do you believe in divinity? Both the Son and the Father are God, but not the same person, hence the preposition 'πρὸς' ('with' in this case). That's a proper exegesis of the passage.

The burden I will place on the opposing side is proving the Father is not also the holy Spirit nor Jesus being the Father.

I said it once and I'll say it again. As my opponent knows, or clearly not, burden of proof cannot be put on a negative claim, i.e. the Father is not the Son/Holy Spirt.

The question is, is God the Father the holy Spirit? Jesus said God is spirit. He also called the Father holy. So if the opposite side believes not that God who is the Father , that God is not the holy Spirit, you're dealing in falsehood.

Case and point here with this. Where is the scripture that says the Father cannot be spirit? Here again, leaning on your own understanding, that if you can't understand something being what it is, you have to make a way that seems right to you. But God is the Father. How is the Father not spirit when the Father is God who is spirit? Straight contradiction. The Father came in the flesh. To say the Father or God can't come some where is leaning on your own limited understanding and knowledge really. Truly ignorant.

I really don't mean this to be insulting but my opponent is so ignorant of the Trinitarian position he has to strawman to prove a contradiction that doesn't exist. My opponent is conflating two ideas, characteristics and names. Is God spirit? Yes. This means all three persons are spirit. Why? They share the same nature. Is God holy? Yes. This means all three persons are holy. Why? They share the same nature. Is God holy spirit? Yes. This means all three persons are holy spirit. Why? They share the same nature. Is God the Holy Spirt? Yes. However, this does not mean the Father is the Holy Spirit and vice versa. Why? This is the name of a person it is not a characteristic, hence why we use the definite article and majuscule when referring to the Holy Spirit. You said, "something being what it is", define being.

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 and Personhood

 DO NOT FORM A CONCEPT SUCH AS PERSONS IN YOUR MIND.

Is this not the spirit who is God who is the Lord?

Do you get what I'm telling you?

1. I've already said yes to this question. 2. Yes, I've understood your patripassianism since before the debate. "DO NOT FORM A CONCEPT SUCH AS PERSONS IN YOUR MIND". This is like being told to describe what the sky looks like but to not use color. Likewise, he wants to talk about a person of the Trinity and then say don't think of personhood. Just because you don't accept or, most likely, understand a concept, doesn't make the concept false. At this point I wonder if my opponent could even steelman the Trinitarian position.

We gone see if the opposite side is going to answer questions. Getting through much of the opposing mumbo jumbo empty words, I'll start with an answer to this question. You reconcile your contradiction by dropping this trinity three person man made gospel. If you believe that Christ is God and you believe God is the Father, WHAT.....DO.....YOU ....NOT......GET ABOUT THIS SCRIPTURAL TRUTH? A lot of what the opposite side has said is just an essay of leaning on the person's own understanding talking about logic which the scripture is against.

The mumbo jumbo that he's referring to I believe is the Greek. By "dropping" I assume he's referring to the use of the word 'character' that I began to use in the last round. Notice he has no problem if I use another term in place of person even if referring to the same thing (inconsistency and ignorance on behalf of my opponent). The scriptural truth that you called "mumbo jumbo", was the verse that you cited, not me, that stated that all existence is from God, the Father using the Greek word ἐξ denoting origin, and that all existence is through the Lord, Jesus Christ using the word διά denoting a cause not origin. That's what the Greek says, not me. Notice, my opponent can't defend his claim against the Greek, so he has to fall back on writing in majuscule and ignoring his own contradiction from the passage he cited, although he only wanted to cite the first half. Weird, isn't it?

Get me scripture that says these words " Christ is not the Father". Just admit scripture doesn't say that and it's you saying it. Get me scripture that says these words "Christ is not God". I got scripture that says "Our God and Savior Jesus Christ". Not to mention, unto us there is ONE.......ONE....GOD .....THE FATHER. I give scripture that says my point . You give your opinion.

"What is a father?" In terms of people, flesh and blood, a male, would be one who begets a descendant or even adopts one like that person, flesh and blood, etc. Like Adam beget Seth, etc. down the generations.

" What is a son?" In terms of people, flesh and blood, a male, would be one who is begotten by another becoming a descendant or even adopted as one like that person, flesh and blood, etc.

Mind you, last round I mentioned how my opponent will demand me to show something explicit in scripture, but if I do the same to him, he will talk his way around it. 1) My opponent says, again, "show me Christ is not the Father". Let's use my opponent's own definitions that I asked of him. Oh, shoot, it seems to be a father or a son you need to be flesh and blood, and male. What a shame because God, the Father is spirit not flesh and blood. As you stated, He took on flesh and blood but only to be a son so I guess He isn't a father by your definition, right? Nor a son? Unless the concept of paternity and filiation aren't constricted to purely flesh and blood. Then I would have to ask myself why you didn't include that in your definition. I also noticed you used the "forbidden word". It's pretty ironic. 2) I believe Christ is God so that wouldn't make sense for me to show He isn't now, would it? 3) Trinitarians believe in one God as well.

Let's do one question at a time. Father God took on the non nature of spirit. This appears to be what the man made trinity doctrine leaves out. Is that God took on not the nature of angels but flesh and blood. So God was not just spirit at one point and particular. The word or God become flesh and in that flesh God was manifest. As I may have said before, great is the mystery of godliness. It's not great is the logic. Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh. This is where the sonship if you will, if we can use that term, fullness of time came for the son, the flesh that was the holy thing being GOD WITH US. That didn't just mean the spirit being with us as the spirit is already there but the text is referring to the son of God, that child, the son himself is the everlasting Father like Esaias said. He is Immanuel like Isaiah and Matthew said. A thing which is the flesh and blood, is holy, without spot, without blemish. That flesh was God manifest. That is what was the son, what Mary was the mother of. Not the spirit who is the Father or God. There's the spirit and the flesh. This is what we read over and over. We never read "persons" but we read about the flesh and spirit. They seen the Father by looking at the flesh. They handled that which was from the beginning. What they handled was that flesh. That's how Jesus is the ROOT and offspring. Never stopped being the Father but the Father took on flesh and blood in order to manifest and fulfill salvation which was prophesied of him , and himself basically declaring to be the one that will come to be the savior.

To start, if my opponent means to say that we believe God is spirit like angels are spirit then I would have to disagree. My opponent does use odd wording, but I believe we agree here. Trinitarians believe God is spirit, but it's not created spirit like angels. He is uncreated. As to "what we leave out", the Son, who is God, is the Word incarnate (meaning to take on flesh). We have never not believed this. "So God was not just spirit at one point and particular" God is eternally spirit. Just a grammatical note, because I had to read this multiple times, I believe when my opponent is using the word "or" as in "Word or God" he means for commas to be there for if not he would mean them to be two separate beings, but I think my opponent has made it clear he believes in one being, one person (for those reading this). Also, again, my opponent makes it very clear that God who is the Father takes on flesh and is born of Mary. Ergo, the Father is the son of Mary. That doesn't tell us how He is the son of the Father (aka Himself). I get it. He takes on flesh becoming a son of Mary but how is He his own son? Why is He called the son of the Father if He is the Father who has taken on flesh?

When you say the Father here , if you mean the spirit, the spirit who is God is nobody's son. The manifest who was God or the Father was the son , not the spirit. Many people often teach this as two natures. God or the Father took on another nature. The nature of flesh and blood. I tend to stray away from that sort of language. I say as scripture say, he took not on him the nature of angels but on him the seed of Abraham . He took part of the same according to Hebrews 2.

The Spirit is not the Son? But they are both the Father? Are they like different manifestations/modes of the Father?

*****What is a person in reference to the three persons and where can this be read in scripture that explains all this?***** Very important question for you to answer.

I answer that, Although the universal and particular exist in every genus, nevertheless, in a certain special way, the individual belongs to the genus of substance. For substance is individualized by itself; whereas the accidents are individualized by the subject, which is the substance; since this particular whiteness is called "this," because it exists in this particular subject. And so it is reasonable that the individuals of the genus substance should have a special name of their own; for they are called "hypostases," or first substances.

Further still, in a more special and perfect way, the particular and the individual are found in the rational substance which have dominion over their own actions; and which are not only made to act, like others; but which can act of themselves; for actions belong to singulars. Therefore also the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substance; and this name is "person."

Thus the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances. (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1:29:1)

I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold. In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the Greeks ousia, what we may call "essence." In another sense substance means a subject or "suppositum," which subsists in the genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called "suppositum." It is also called by three names signifying a reality—that is, "a thing of nature," "subsistence," and "hypostasis," according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named. For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called "subsistence"; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. As it underlies some common nature, it is called "a thing of nature"; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural thing. As it underlies the accidents, it is called "hypostasis," or "substance." What these three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this name "person" signifies in the genus of rational substances. (ibid., Q. 30) Can this be said of God? (ibid., 1:29:2)

I answer that, "Person" signifies what is most perfect in all nature—that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature. Hence, since everything that is perfect must be attributed to God, forasmuch as His essence contains every perfection, this name "person" is fittingly applied to God; not, however, as it is applied to creatures, but in a more excellent way; as other names also, which, while giving them to creatures, we attribute to God; as we showed above when treating of the names of God (1:13:2). (ibid., 1:29:3)

I answer that, A difficulty arises concerning the meaning of this word "person" in God, from the fact that it is predicated plurally of the Three in contrast to the nature of the names belonging to the essence; nor does it in itself refer to another, as do the words which express relation.

Hence some have thought that this word "person" of itself expresses absolutely the divine essence; as this name "God" and this word "Wise"; but that to meet heretical attack, it was ordained by conciliar decree that it was to be taken in a relative sense, and especially in the plural, or with the addition of a distinguishing adjective; as when we say, "Three persons," or, "one is the person of the Father, another of the Son," etc. Used, however, in the singular, it may be either absolute or relative. But this does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation; for, if this word "person," by force of its own signification, expresses the divine essence only, it follows that forasmuch as we speak of "three persons," so far from the heretics being silenced, they had still more reason to argue. Seeing this, others maintained that this word "person" in God signifies both the essence and the relation. Some of these said that it signifies directly the essence, and relation indirectly, forasmuch as "person" means as it were "by itself one" [per se una]; and unity belongs to the essence. And what is "by itself" implies relation indirectly; for the Father is understood to exist "by Himself," as relatively distinct from the Son. Others, however, said, on the contrary, that it signifies relation directly; and essence indirectly; forasmuch as in the definition of "person" the term nature is mentioned indirectly; and these come nearer to the truth.

To determine the question, we must consider that something may be included in the meaning of a less common term, which is not included in the more common term; as "rational" is included in the meaning of "man," and not in the meaning of "animal." So that it is one thing to ask the meaning of the word animal, and another to ask its meaning when the animal in question is man. Also, it is one thing to ask the meaning of this word "person" in general; and another to ask the meaning of "person" as applied to God. For "person" in general signifies the individual substance of a rational figure. The individual in itself is undivided, but is distinct from others. Therefore "person" in any nature signifies what is distinct in that nature: thus in human nature it signifies this flesh, these bones, and this soul, which are the individuating principles of a man, and which, though not belonging to "person" in general, nevertheless do belong to the meaning of a particular human person.

Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above (1:28:2 and 1:28:3), while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence subsists. Therefore, as the Godhead is God so the divine paternity is God the Father, Who is a divine person. Therefore a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting. And this is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself. Thus it is true to say that the name "person" signifies relation directly, and the essence indirectly; not, however, the relation as such, but as expressed by way of a hypostasis. So likewise it signifies directly the essence, and indirectly the relation, inasmuch as the essence is the same as the hypostasis: while in God the hypostasis is expressed as distinct by the relation: and thus relation, as such, enters into the notion of the person indirectly. Thus we can say that this signification of the word "person" was not clearly perceived before it was attacked by heretics. Hence, this word "person" was used just as any other absolute term. But afterwards it was applied to express relation, as it lent itself to that signification, so that this word "person" means relation not only by use and custom, according to the first opinion, but also by force of its own proper signification. (ibid., 1:29:4)

I'll say this as many times as I have to. A concept does not have to be explained nor explicitly mentioned to exist in scripture. It's fallacious and illogical to think the contrary.

Then you got two Gods. If you have God the Father and then claim a God that's not the Father....... that's another God that's not the Father. If it's not another, it's the self same spirit God the Father. Even in your response, it's indicative that you are going by logic. You're trying to use logic to understand the scripture. So because logic tells you to asks all these logical questions, right, the trinity doctrine is the only way evidently to understand a God before logic existed to attempt to bind him with logic. So because you can't understand this, you are forced by your brain to lean on itself in attempt to understand the godhead. Like anything else you don't understand, you attempt to be rational. Thing is, we're not dealing with a rational or earthly inspired writing here. These are heavenly things according to it.

Many fallacious things were said here that need to be addressed.

1. Two Gods- There's only one God, as I have stated many times. He is three persons. Each person isn't another God but the one God. X being with Y means X is not Y. X being Y means X is Y. These are contradictory but we know the Bible cannot contradict itself. Therefore, Y must refer to two different ideas. Hence, "with Y" indicates distinction of the persons, and "being Y" indicates unity in nature.
2. Logic- Seeing as we are all humans, our brains are wired to think within reason (logically). When you say, "a God before logic existed", are you asserting that God is illogical? We don't attempt to bind God to logic, nor do we believe Him to be fully comprehensible. But not being fully comprehensible doesn't mean He is illogical or irrational. Nor does that mean He is not partially comprehensible. You wouldn't be able to deduce anything without logic or reason (hence it's called "deductive reasoning"). I don't know what your point here is as you must also depend on your brain to understand God, unless you're claiming He revealed all of this to you, ergo "not depending on your brain".
3. Bible- Earthly inspired? No. Rational? Yes. I don't see anything irrational about the Bible.

Different trinitarians I believe explain things differently. May be you're doing the best you can with regurgitation. Some say three persons, some say three manifestations, three personalities. Three roles. That same God can have multiple roles and you can say one role is different from another. However, it's that same self God. The way trinitarians speak, they convey as though God divided himself into three parts , one part remained in heaven and another went to earth. It's that same self spirit you can say taking on these roles or as the scriptures put it, operations. It's that same God operating as Father in creation who is also operating in filling people to speak in tongues. Still the same one, still the one that is the Father.......but not operating in creation. This could be the gap between the misunderstanding, I don't know. We could try to get edification out of this even in a dispute. Scripture say edify.

Let's break down the lack of knowledge (ignorance) of my opponent again:

1. Person is not synonymous with manifestation. Manifestations are also called theophany (theo- "God", -phany "to appear, make visible"). Examples of manifestations are the burning bush, the Spirit coming down in the visible form of a dove, et cetera.
2. Person and personalities are also not the same. I already showed what a person is above. The suffix -ity (singular form) denotes quality, state, degree of a person.
3. Role is also not synonymous with person. Role and mission at times can be synonymous but they do not mean person.

"They convey as though God divided himself into three parts..." From the Catechism that I cited in round one, "Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another..." So, no, we don't believe He is divided. "...one part remained in heaven and another went to earth" God is eternal and omnipresent. The Son taking on human flesh does not take away his divinity and omnipresence. The rest of this doesn't really make sense. Divine operations exist, yes, how you worded it though doesn't make much sense. Divine operations for example would be "God creates the earth" and all three persons take part in the creation as one God. "God operating as Father", however, seems to separate God and Father where the Father seems to be more of a role God plays rather than something that He is. I don't think you truly believe that seeing how all you seem to cite is "God is the Father", but that's how you worded it. However, when it comes to explaining the Trinity the only models that I know of are the scholastic and monarchical, both are orthodox in belief but focus on different aspects of the Trinity. Other than that, the only differences you'll find amongst Trinitarians is whether they believe in the Filioque (Latin "and from the Son") or not.

By saying this perhaps ignorantly so, the opposite side has indirectly said the son is not God and the holy Spirit is not God and also has said the Father is not holy and not spirit. It's the selfsame Spirit.

See, this isn't what I said. The problem is my opponent doesn't know the difference between an adjective and a proper noun. Seeing that my opponent went further in depth I will go step-by-step showing his blatant ignorance of not just my position but just general grammar.

In your view, the son Jesus is one of the three. So the son is spirit and holy and he is the holy Spirit in the God head.

Jesus in the Son incarnate, yes. One of the three persons. Here in the second half my opponent confuses himself between adjectives and proper nouns. The Son is spirit and holy (adjectives). The Son is holy spirit (still an adjective by the way). The Son is not the Holy Spirit (proper noun). Why? These are two distinct persons of the Godhead. Notice that when I write "the Holy Spirit" I am using the definite article and majuscule, referring to a name of something specific, i.e. a proper noun.

Same goes for the Father in the God head. Being that the Father is the same , holy and spirit which is what the son is , the son is also the Father because all we're talking about here is just one God , the selfsame Spirit. This "three persons" stuff is just a long way around it.

The Father is holy and spirit (adjectives). The Son is holy and spirit (adjectives). The Father and Son are holy and spirit (still adjectives). "The Son is also the Father because we're talking about... one God". No, they are distinct persons. One God, three persons. The term "selfsame Spirit" that you keep using from the KJV translation (subpar translation by the way) refers to the Holy Spirit. Not the Father, not the Son. Even if this "three persons stuff" is a long way around it, that would mean it's still a way (Freudian slip it seems).

Now I'm not going to take you word for it. Word of God says try the spirit. Get the SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS Holy Spirit is one of the names of a person and the holy Spirit is a person, etc. All we have is you saying this. Topic is about SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. Alright the opposite side had nothing else including not admitting the Father stopped being the Father.

It's "spirits", plural (1 John 4:1). I'll do you one better. I'll show you where you use it as a proper noun.

 ...and the holy Spirit is not God and also has said the Father...

So the son is spirit and holy and he is the holy Spirit in the God head.

The question is, is God the Father the holy Spirit?

...that God is not the holy Spirit...

...the Father is not also the holy Spirit...

Must I keep going? Notice how you differentiate between "spirit" (miniscule) and "Spirit" (majuscule). Notice how you instinctively will use the definite article with the majuscule and then drop the article when using the miniscule. What is it a name/proper noun of?

Honestly, my opponent seems to not care about what my position is. Here I am writing in the 4th round, and I still have to make a correction of my opponent from something that was explicitly stated in the 1st round. When shown an apparent contradiction in a passage he cited, he refuses to address it and prefers to call it "mumbo jumbo". He wants the topic to be about "scriptural doctrine", but what he really means is that what I believe must be explicitly stated in scripture. However, if I hold my opponent to the same standard, we have to deduce what he believes because what he believes isn't explicitly stated in scripture. Here also, when referring to what I believe, to show a "contradiction" or "problem" with my beliefs he has to input his own theology whereas to show the faults in his theology I use his own beliefs as a standard. Yet when I use his own beliefs to question him, he then calls it "adding confusion to the topic" on my part. That's partially why this debate isn't really getting anywhere. Instead of truly trying to take the time to understand what I believe and put my own beliefs through the test of fire, he applies his own beliefs as a standard which I don't hold to. It also doesn't help the fact that he actually doesn't understand the Trinitarian position. While, on the contrary, I understand his patripassianist position even if poor grammar and punctuation make it difficult to read. I will say, in defense of my opponent, reading philosophy and theology to the level of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle isn't easy, and not being able to understand terms makes learning difficult, however, it isn't an excuse to not learn.

That's all for now. The last round response and final words will probably be longer than this. God bless!

Not a surprise that my opponent gave up after a deep dive into philosophy and theology (we would be here forever as I try to explain Aristotelian terms). And I get that; philosophy and theology are very wordy. Seeing that my opponent gave up last round I'll just do a summary and closing.

Trinitarian Summary

The purpose of this debate was to show Trinitarian doctrine within scripture. Seeing as my opponent already identified what we call the three persons as being God, I do not see it necessary to go over that point since that is something in which we agree.

Firstly, is the idea of persons. My opponent made it very clear he was against this idea/concept of persons/personhood. In short, a person is "a subsistent individual of a rational nature" (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1:29:3). The reason why I put practically the entirety of question 29 is that Aquinas differentiates between nature and person and describes how it applies to God. My opponent had no response to this. As I have already stated, it is apparent that my opponent doesn't know of philosophy and theology to this degree, which is fine. However, if one is going to have a debate with a Catholic or an Orthodox, they should at least have some prior knowledge or basic understanding of philosophy, or what happened in this debate is going to happen again. The claim wasn't "the word person is in the Bible" nor was it "God is called a person". On the contrary, the claim was, as I repeated multiple times to no avail, that the concept of person is present. As Aquinas states, "since everything that is perfect must be attributed to God...this name "person" is fittingly applied to God" (ibid.). Seeing as my person did not know what a "person" was and did not respond anything last round, no objections have not come to light with the exception of "they are not persons". Disagreeing with a premise while not understanding the premise isn't grounds for its dismissal.

Secondly, are the names of the persons. As Aristotle noted, "Those things are called relative, which, being either said to be of something else or related to something else, are explained by reference to that other thing... All relatives have correlatives: by the term 'slave' we mean the slave of a master, by the term 'master', the master of a slave" (Categories, 7). In the context of our debate, it was father and son. If one is called a father, it is meant of a son. If one is called a son, it is meant of a father. In this case, God is called both Father and Son. However, one cannot be his own father nor his own son, as these are opposite relations. Ergo, there must truly be this relation between the Father and the Son. Why? As I mentioned in previous rounds, Jesus Christ, the Son incarnate, is said to be the only begotten son (John 3:16;18, 1 John 4:9, Hebrew 11:17, John 1:14).

What does this mean about the Father? That He is the begetter of the Son. The reason why this is a problem for my opponent is that this means, in some way, the process of begetting has taken place, but we do not believe this to mean in the same way as flesh begets flesh for God is not flesh (the Son merely took on flesh). However, the process, as it applies to God, occurred. This means there is truly a distinction between the Father and the Son. This is where the idea of personhood is necessary. There is one God, but we can see that the Bible mentions true distinctions.

How does the Holy Spirit play into this? As mentioned, multiple times within the Bible the Holy Spirit is said to be of *insert name*. Again, Aristotle says, "Those terms, then, are called relative, the nature of which is explained by reference to something else, the preposition 'of' or some other preposition being used to indicate the relation" (ibid.). This is another important note. Aristotle isn't coming up with something new; he is merely noting truths within human language. If we read the sentences, X is with Y or X is of Y, the use of a preposition says to the brain that X is not Y. Likewise, when we see passages saying that He is the Spirit of *insert name* this indicates to us, the reader, that the Spirit is not *insert name*.

My opponent in all of his brain power will surely state something to the effect of "if He is the Spirit of God then He isn't God? Ha, contradiction!" Sadly, for him, no. One point that we never got to in the debate was the use of the name God, although I did allude to it a few times in some of my exegesis. The name God in scripture may refer to God (nature) and/or the Father (specifically). If words have meaning, then sentences also have meaning. When scripture says, "God is spirit..." (John 4:24), to whom does it refer? Well, God. This verse tells us something about Him, not specifically one of the persons, but rather all three of them. As such, when it says, "...God, the Father..." (1 Cor. 8:6), it's specifically referring to the Father. I'll get further into this when talking on my opponent's position.

This is important to note when bringing up John 1:1 & 14. In the first verse, we are told that the Word is not only with God but was God. As Aristotle stated above, the preposition is indicative of a relation, yet at the same time this relation is negated. What gives? When we look at verse 14, we see that the Word is the son of the Father. We know the Father is God. Let's go back to the first verse. The Word (the Son) was with God (the Father). This seems to make sense. The preposition which already indicated a relation is shown to truly be indicative of a relation between the Son and the Father. As we continue though we find another problem. The Word (the Son) was God (the Father). The name God doesn't just refer to the Father; it also refers to being God. In this case, The Word (the Son) was God (nature). Through this exegesis of the text there is no contradiction. One may disagree with the premise in which we arrive to the conclusion but there is no contradiction.

How can we call these names of God persons? Aquinas stated, "The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation, there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute—namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity—but according to that which is relative" (Summa Theologiae, 1:28:3). With this in mind, Aquinas confirms in 1:29:4 that "the term 'person' signifies the relation directly." Because the relations are real and distinct they cannot be said of the nature of God but rather to these names of God, i.e. the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. For these reasons, the term "person(s)" is used.

To conclude my position, I will list a few verses indicating the relations between the divine persons in scripture. Between the Father and the Son there must be paternity and filiation, i.e. through begetting. Between the Holy Spirit and, the Father and Son there must be procession, i.e. through spirating. This last one may be shown through the explicit term "proceed" or shown as having a relation between the other persons using the preposition "of" (as Aristotle already explained). After the conclusion of my summary and the list of verses I will summarize the objections of my opponent to the Trinitarian position. Following suit, the position of my opponent with my objections.

Paternity/Filiation: John 1:14, John 3:16;18, 1 John 4:9, Hebrews 11:17, Luke 3:22

Procession/Spiration: 1 Corinthians 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Galatians 4:6, John 15:26

Objections from my Opponent

One of my opponent's first objections to the doctrine of the Trinity was in the first round in response to the Catechism where he alleged that there was a contradiction. The contradiction was between "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God" (CCC, 253) and "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son" (CCC, 254). Out of context these would seem to contradict one another. However, 253 refers to nature, as shown in the quote and 254 is referring to the persons, as the first sentence says, "The divine persons are really distinct from one another". So, truly there was no contradiction here.

At another point my opponent made, when referring to the beliefs of Trinitarians, was, "...they convey as though God divided himself into three parts , one part remained in heaven and another went to earth." As stated in paragraph 255 of the Catechism, which was quoted in round one, "Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another..." Here it explicitly states that we do not believe God to be divided. As to the second half of the statement, we believe God to be omnipresent. This applies to all three persons of the Trinity, as they are equally God. The Son taking on flesh doesn't take away His omnipresence.

Another objection that my opponent brought up, numerous times, was the lack of explicit use of words or phrases in the Bible. Here my opponent is using an argument from silence. Essentially, my opponent posited on numerous occasions that the lack of a word or phrase, like "person", in the Bible show the Trinitarian position to be false. This however is fallacious reasoning. Firstly, words like "person" exist apart from the Bible. They aren't dependent on the Bible to be true. Secondly, lack of a word or phrase explicitly mentioned doesn't mean that it cannot be deduced given what is in the Bible. To give an example, I called the three persons "characters' at one point. My opponent, eyes widened by hunger, pounced claiming I had abandoned my Trinitarian beliefs. Yet, there's a tiny little problem. When are they called characters in the Bible? That's the point. My opponent knows what character means when referring to books, TV, et cetera, and accepted the term. But they aren't referred to as such. This is one of a few examples of a double standard that my opponent had.

The irony of my opponent's use of this argument is he admits himself that it works against him. My opponent said, "...just like there is no scripture that says "Jesus is God." If I use his own argument, then my opponent cannot believe that Jesus is God because scripture doesn't say it. Yet, my opponent confirms "...that is Jesus being God..." If scripture doesn't say Jesus is God, then my opponent must have deduced that He is while reading scripture. If my opponent can deduce Jesus is God from scripture, then it follows that I can also claim to deduce a belief from scripture that isn't explicitly stated.

More than a few times my opponent misrepresented the Trinitarian position. When discussing the difference between holy, spirit, and the Holy Spirit, he stated, "...the opposite side has indirectly said the son is not God and the holy Spirit is not God and also has said the Father is not holy and not spirit." My original statement was that because God is described (description words = adjectives) as holy and spirit, then all three persons are holy and spirit. However, this is not the same as calling the Father and the Son as the Holy Spirit (proper noun). Although hard to teach grammar to what I assume is an adult I showed where he used the definite article (the) and the majuscule when referring to the Holy Spirit (my opponent writes as the holy Spirit, which is also fine). The humorous part of all this is my opponent is using terms from the KJV, which is a translation of the Bible written by Trinitarians using the majuscule to identify the Holy Spirit (person). Quite ironic.

Another one of those times was my exegesis of John 1:1 & 14. The response from my opponent was "Then you got two Gods." The problem with this response is that my opponent isn't using the Trinitarian position against itself, he's using his own position to show contradiction which doesn't follow. Seeing as there is a distinction in persons there can be more than one person (there are specifically three) and still there will be one God. Because my opponent believes that to be God means to be the Father, and he rejects the idea of personhood, his conclusion is that any position that claims there to be God while not the Father is polytheism. While that's great that he's asserting his position it doesn't follow with the views of Trinitarianism, nor does it disprove it.

My opponent's knowledge on the Trinity and of the theology that surrounds it leaves room for improvement. First, is the statement "Some say three persons, some say three manifestations, three personalities. Three roles." None of these are synonyms, neither in philosophy, theology, nor normal English. Manifestations are also generally called theophanies. Personality denotes a state, quality, degree of a person. Roles can be and not be synonymous with missions (it truly depends on who's using it and for what). Either way it still isn't synonymous with person. Another oddity is the use of "nature of angels". The fact that my opponent recognizes, and hopefully understands, what nature is but rejects personhood doesn't make much sense. Not only nature but "non-nature" as well. The meaning of the term I didn't ask as I truly didn't expect to get a very good definition.

My Opponent's Beliefs

I cannot go over every single point my opponent made when talking about his flavor of theology. If I did, I would need more time and a higher limit on characters. I think it is fair to hit his major points and comment on them. Smaller points that my opponent said I refuse to comment on as I do not want to misrepresent my opponent's views.

My opponent's view on God is as follows: there is one God, the Father. The Son is God, therefore the Son is the Father. The Spirit is God, therefore the Spirit is the Father. However, the Son is not the Spirit and vice versa. Although the Son and Spirit are the Father, they are not modes or manifestations of the Father. This is what has been explicitly stated by my opponent. Before giving my overall impression of this stance, I would, first, rather respond to his own defenses.

The Son as the Father is an interesting position. The first thing that must be noted is the contradiction of the names. A son cannot be his own father, neither can a father be his own son. My opponent would seemingly respond that he is son in a different manner than that in which we know it to mean. Luckily, I asked my opponent some questions which to respond. 1) Is the Son begotten of the Father? Yes. 2) In what manner is the Son the Father? (Note: I asked this question multiple times in different ways. I am merely sticking to one way for the sake of this summary.) The first response was, "He came out from God like Jesus said and born of a woman like the book says. The flesh came from heaven born of Mary." Again, he says, "That flesh was God manifest. That is what was the son, what Mary was the mother of."

The first issue is, when is the Son begotten of the Father? We see that He is born of Mary, i.e. the son of Mary. But we do not see how, in my opponent's view, He is begotten of the Father. Likewise, my opponent states that the Son is the Father. If the Father takes on flesh, no begetting mentioned, how is He not still the Father (just in the flesh)? Yet, according to my opponent He is still the Father, he is just now called the Son, as well. Also to note, that although my opponent calls Him "son" and confirmed He was begotten of the Father, he expresses doubts on this "...God was manifest in the flesh. This is where the sonship if you will, if we can use that term..." Rightfully so, my opponent doubts whether this can be called filiation ("sonship"). The only time the Father (in the flesh) is begotten is by Mary it seems. Still, if the Father takes on flesh, in what sense is He a son to Himself?

One of the passages my opponent used to defend this stance was 1 Corinthians 8:6. It explicitly states that there is one God, the Father. Yet it also explicitly states there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. Although my opponent only cited the first part it would seem that this is case closed. Obviously the one Lord is God as well. So, we must be able to assume that Jesus Christ, who's the son of the Father, is also the Father. However, as I contested, the Greek doesn't lie. When speaking of God, the Father, it declares that all existence is from (ἐξ) Him. This word "ἐξ" denotes an origin. But when speaking of the Lord, Jesus Christ, it declares that all existence is through (διά) Him. The word "διά" denotes a cause. If Jesus Christ is truly the Father, then He is the origin of all existence not merely a cause. This contradiction my opponent called "mumbo jumbo", which, besides childish, seems to mean he has no true response to this.

Although we didn't talk of the Holy Spirit as much, he did mention the passage 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. It calls, using the language of the KJV that my opponent is using, the same Spirit that same Lord that same God. Again, my opponent uses his logic that, God is the Father, the Spirit is God, the Spirit is the Father. Yet, we mustn't forget that my opponent claims the Spirit is not the Son. Here in the verse that he cited, it calls the Spirit that same Lord. But in 1 Corinthians 8:6, which he also cited, the Lord is Jesus Christ. This would make the Spirit the Son, no? I'm sure he would deny this or just ignore the statement although I would be using his own standard of reading the Bible.

The more confusing and dangerous of my opponent's beliefs is his view on rationality and logic. My opponent started with "carnal natural thinking tries to rationalize and make sense in logical terms." To an extent my opponent is correct. The human brain and mind are always trying to rationalize and use logic. Through this, as a conscious being, we can make sense of the world God made. However, this isn't all my opponent states:

"Even in your response, it's indicative that you are going by logic. You're trying to use logic to understand the scripture. So because logic tells you to asks all these logical questions, right, the trinity doctrine is the only way evidently to understand a God before logic existed to attempt to bind him with logic. So because you can't understand this, you are forced by your brain to lean on itself in attempt to understand the godhead. Like anything else you don't understand, you attempt to be rational. Thing is, we're not dealing with a rational or earthly inspired writing here. These are heavenly things according to it."

The first thing that jumps out is that it seems my opponent posits that his own position is illogical (?) and the Trinitarian position as logical. The issue I have with this, although I'm glad he thinks so of the Trinitarian position, is that my opponent, who's human, attempts to use logic/reason to explain and discuss his position. Another problem is calling scripture irrational writing. If the writing is irrational the author was acting irrational when authoring it. I believe what my opponent means to say is suprarational. Suprarational means that it is still rational but transcends human logic. Seeing that God is beyond human comprehension without proper revelation, this doesn't mean He is irrational as once He has revealed something it becomes rational to whom it was revealed. This does not mean that things like knowledge of His existence are suprarational. For example, Plato, a Greek philosopher, deduced that there was an uncreated creator. He may not have known Him as we know Him, but His existence was known and deduced from logic and reason. On a personal note, seeing that Plato saw philosophy as the study of knowledge and truth, it would make sense that He would reveal parts of Himself seeing as only He is the truth.

Final Thoughts

All in all, this was a fun little use of my time. As I noted in the first round I assumed I wasn't going to have to argue the divinity of the Father nor that there was one God. However, while reading my opponent's responses, it seems that he is a self-taught semi-modalist. I used the term "patripassianist" originally on the off chance he was a modalist and just wasn't arguing as one. My opponent left a certain impression on me, analyzing his position, that it seems he subconsciously conflates nature and person, even if he doesn't fully understand either. There are so many more things one could say or show but that's what books are for, although I have practically given an essay at this point. Another than that, I have nothing else to say.

As always, God bless!