The Trinity

[Ovedya]

This thread will be a debate between Ovedya and Brother Chad. Brother Chad will attempt to dispute the Biblical trinity and Ovedya will attempt to defend the Biblical Trinity. Both sides have agreed to the following terms:

1) Each side will take consideration to and respect for each question and point, and will address each question and point until the discussions are resolved within themselves.

2) All forms of fallacy will be rigorously avoided. (For a list of fallacies, refer to the following: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ )

3) Answers to questions will be answers, not questions or assumptions of "What I thought you were saying."

4) No newer postings of threads to the forums regarding the Trinity will be added or added to by either party until this debate is finished.

Also, I would like to add some other items to be agreed upon before we begin:

5) All postings must be the original work of the author. Outside resources (websites) may be used, and textual references within posts (cut-n-paste) are allowed provided that proper citation is made, however, no more than 1/3 of the total post may be outside source work. Attempts to plagiarize someone else's work will constitute an immediate surrender of the debate.

6) Direct or indirect accusations of "Not being a Christian because..." are absolutely forbidden. Although both sides may ultimately disagree over certain matters (And both sides may eventually "agree to disagree), the questioning of one's salvation over these matters is not even in the realm of consideration.

7) Delays of minutes, hours, or even days will not constitute a surrender of the debate. We all have lives outside the Worthy forums. Please respect that immediate responses will not at all times be practicable. However, proper consideration should be made to the fact that this is a debate, and both sides should try to respond in a time frame that is at least reasonable.

8) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to first state your point, and then support that point with evidence. It is up to the [i[readers of the debate to decide which argument holds more weight.

If Brother Chad agrees to the items I've added here, I will allow him the liberty to post first.

Brother Chad, please add your first stating your position on the doctrine of the Trinity, supported with evidence. I will respond in-kind to each point and add an argument of my own.

[Brother Chad]

I hope all is well with you, Ovedya and those watching this debate. I hope to show in this discussion that God has shown Himself to be one in nature and substance. That this same God has manifested Himself in different roles, functions, or modes to reveal His Word to His creation. I will also show where the Trinitarian doctrine does not fit into the Biblical truths which we all agree are the infallible Word of God.

I would like to first start by discussing Jesus and His birth. I now understand and correct me if I am wrong that the Trinitarian doctrine sees the Word in John 1:1 to mean that Jesus Christ is the "eternally begotten Son", that He has been since the beginning of time. My view is that the Word is just that, the word, thought, plan, or thinking of our Father God. On this point I believe we will just have to agree to disagree.

So here is how I see this particular situation:

Galatians 4:4 says, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Luke 1:35, says, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Hebrews 1:5 says, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

In these three verses of scripture we have a specific moment in time when the Son would be born. This would have to negate the claim that the Son was eternally begotten in my understanding. Because of this begetting Jesus "shall be called the Son of God". Jesus was not the Son of God before the Incarnation because Jesus had not been begotten (fathered, sired, or procreated). Another point I would like to bring up with these verses is the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary in the conceiving of the baby in her womb, yet we all say that God the Father is Jesus' Father. With the Trinitarian doctrine, this would give Jesus two Fathers. (If I am not correct or misrepresenting your view on this subject please forgive me).

Due to time constraints this will be my first and only point for today. That being that Jesus as a co-eternal person in the Godhead with God the Father is actually not so. Clearly Jesus was begotten at a specific time in history and not eternally begotten. This would in essence make one of the members of the Trinity not co-eternal.

My question to you, Ovedya, would be to show me where Jesus Christ is shown to be eternally begotten or co-eternal with the Father in light of these verses I have given?

Edited February 14, 2006 by Brother Chad

[Ovedya]

I hope all is well with you, Ovedya and those watching this debate. I hope to show in this discussion that God has shown Himself to be one in nature and substance. That this same God has manifested Himself in different roles, functions, or modes to reveal His Word to His creation. I will also show where the Trinitarian doctrine does not fit into the Biblical truths which we all agree are the infallible Word of God.

Blessings,

Since you have first stated your thesis in this first paragraph, I will begin with first pointing out that you have essentially described the Biblical heresy of Modalism. Modalism, as defined in theological circles is, "...a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms (Matthew J. Slick, Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, 2005)

Further, as Slick states,

"Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ."

In examining this definition in light of the Scriptures, we have too look at the primary fault of modalism - that being that the modes of God in revealing Himself are consecutive and never simultaneous. We should examine the Scriptures critically in light of this claim and ask, "Are there any verses which disprove the theory that God the Son and God the Father are never in the same space at the same time?"

It would seem logical that, if God the Son is merely a mode, or a "temporal aspect" of the Eternal God, then we should not expect to see any evidence that He is anything else at the same time. In other words, if Jesus Christ were merely the temporary incarnation of the one eternal God, then we should never expect to read a verse in the Bible where the Father and the Son are present at the time, The Son and the Spirit are present at the same time or Father and the Spirit are present at the same time.

When we look to the Bible for evidences against the idea that God presents Himself in certain modes consecutively and not simultaneously, we can see that there are several verses:

First, at His baptism, the Son, the Father, and the Spirit are all present at the same time (Matt. 3:16-17):

"And having been baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him. And behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found My delight."

So here we have Jesus, The Spirit, and a voice. If Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the one God - a mode of God - then first where did the Spirit of God come from? And who's voice was it that was coming out of the heavens? The modalist would have enough trouble answering these questions without resorting to speculation or reasonings that are outside the realm of Biblical truth. However, there appear to be more verses that, like the ones above, disprove modalism.

For example, in Matthew 17:1-9, at the mount of transfiguration, the Lord revealed His divine nature (That being the nature of God) to Peter, James, and John. At that time God's voice came from the heavens stating, "This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found my delight." (v.5) In reference to this, Peter wrote the following, "For He received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice such as this being borne to Him by the magnificent glory: This is My Son, My Beloved, in whom I delight." (2 Pet. 1:17).

So what should the modalist do when it comes to verses like the ones above? As I see it, he is faced with at least two choices: 1) Attempt to discredit such verses as being extra-Biblical, 2) Attempt to reason the verses away using speculation or various reasonings which are outside the realm of Biblical thought.

To your next argument:

I would like to first start by discussing Jesus and His birth. I now understand and correct me if I am wrong that the Trinitarian doctrine sees the Word in John 1:1 to mean that Jesus Christ is the "eternally begotten Son", that He has been since the beginning of time. My view is that the Word is just that, the word, thought, plan, or thinking of our Father God. On this point I believe we will just have to agree to disagree.

So here is how I see this particular situation:

Galatians 4:4 says, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Luke 1:35, says, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Hebrews 1:5 says, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

In these three verses of scripture we have a specific moment in time when the Son would be born. This would have to negate the claim that the Son was eternally begotten in my understanding. Because of this begetting Jesus "shall be called the Son of God". Jesus was not the Son of God before the Incarnation because Jesus had not been begotten (fathered, sired, or procreated). Another point I would like to bring up with these verses is the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary in the conceiving of the baby in her womb, yet we all say that God the Father is Jesus' Father. With the Trinitarian doctrine, this would give Jesus two Fathers. (If I am not correct or misrepresenting your view on this subject please forgive me).

Due to time constraints this will be my first and only point for today. That being that Jesus as a co-eternal person in the Godhead with God the Father is actually not so. Clearly Jesus was begotten at a specific time in history and not eternally begotten. This would in essence make one of the members of the Trinity not co-eternal.

My question to you, Ovedya, would be to show me where Jesus Christ is shown to be eternally begotten or co-eternal with the Father in light of these verses I have given?

In the first paragraph of this part of the argument, you state that we "may have to agree to disagree" on your statement that Jesus is the eternally begotten word, thought, plan, or thinking of the Father. While that may be so, I think that it is pertinent to your argument regarding Jesus as the Only Begotten.

In your argument you appear to be confusing at least two distinct titles that are given to Jesus Christ. First, as the Word of God, Jesus Christ is God. That much is made clear in John 1:1-4; 14; and 1 John 1:1-2. The title, "Word of God" refers specifically to Jesus' eternal divinity.

Second, the title "Only Begotten" refers to Christ's position within the Godhead. Take note of John 1:14:

"And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality."

In the portion that I bolded above it says that the Word - who is Jesus - is the Only Begotten from the Father. What does this mean? Well, when you examine the Greek language closely you find that the word "from" (para) means "beside." In the case of this verses the context in which the word is used denotes strongly "from beside," and even "with."

Now take a look at John 1:18:

"No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

Here John is referring to the Word - Christ - as the only begotten Son. The plain message of this verses is twofold: First that no one has ever seen God. Second that the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared Him. Well, who is the first "Him" and who is the second? The verse is perfectly clear that the first "Him" is the only begotten Son, and the second "Him" is God the Father. If it were any other way, it just wouldn't make any sense.

Therefore, the two verses above show clearly that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Only Begotten Son, who is also eternally the Word of God. Furthermore, the point of John's exposition in the first chapter of his epistle is to point out that, A) Jesus is completely God. He is eternal, and He is eternally existing - from eternity past to eternity future., B) That Jesus is the only Begotten, the second divine Person of the Godhead, who is full of grace and reality, and who is the expression and definition of God in the flesh (Col. 1:15)

Now, where I see you are getting confused is in the definition of "begotten" in the Scriptures. As you wrote, the word means "fathered, sired, or procreated." However, as I just mentioned, "Only Begotten" is also an eternal title of Christ, which denotes His position within the Godhead.

Another title that you used in your argument was, "The Son of God." Jesus is the Son of God. But ask yourself, How is He the Son of God? In what aspect of His being is He the Son of God? Well, Jesus Christ has two more titles that refer to His two natures: First, He is called the "Son of God," which refers directly to His complete divinity. And second He is called, "Son of man," referring to His perfect and complete humanity. These two terms in Scripture refer to to the two distinct natures that Christ had while He was yet on the earth. Jesus was the complete God and the complete man.

Therefore, this is another aspect or distinction of who Jesus is. And it is necessary to have these terms in the Scriptures so that there is no confusion about who He is. As a man Jesus has both the divine nature of God (All the fullness of the Godhead, in fact) and He has perfect and complete humanity. Yet, although His divinity was hidden within the flesh of His humanity, Jesus Christ was still fully God - fully divine in nature.

Finally, to end this long response, with regard to your question: "...show me where Jesus Christ is shown to be eternally begotten or co-eternal with the Father in light of these verses I have given?" The verses you gave do not disprove that Christ, in the aspect of His divinity (It's important to make that distinction, since we don't want to mistake that I am saying that Jesus Christ, the man from Nazareth, in His humanity is eternally begotten) is not eternally begotten:

Galatians 4:4 is a verse that actually defeats modalism, since it says that God sent His Son (The only begotten Son).

In Luke 1:35, the angel confirmed the truth that, "the holy thing which is born will be called the Son of God" This is a reiteration of verses 32, in fact, which says, "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High;..." Since the angel is talking of Christ's incarnation - as a man - the term refers to His divinity within His humanity (As I wrote above).

Finally, Hebrews 1:5 actually refers to Christ's resurrection, by which He is called, "begotten":

"That God has fully fulfilled this promise to us their children in raising up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, "You are My Son; this day have I begotten You.'' (Acts 13:33, bold added)

As far as any verses which state that Jesus Christ was co-equal with the Father, I offer you Phil. 2:5-8:

5) Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus

6) Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped,

7) But emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men,

8) And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross.

The bolded portions I added to help emphasize the process that is described in these verses. In verse 5 Paul sets the context of whom he is writing about - Christ Jesus. In verses 6-8 Paul is clearly saying that Christ Jesus, who was equal with God, did not take up His authority or glory, but rather emptied Himself (became poor - 2 Cor. 8:9) to become a slave - a man - in order that He might accomplish a perfect redemption for sins (cf. Heb. 1:3)

A good picture of what Christ did in order to accomplish redemption can be found in the Song of Songs (Or "Song of Solomon"). In the Song of Song the king Solomon falls in love with a lowly country girl, a commoner. In order to court her, Solomon laid aside his kingly status to become a slave. However, although Solomon took the form of a slave to woo this commoner, Solomon never stopped being the king. Likewise, Jesus Christ was "the king of eternity;" He was the very Creator - who laid aside His kingly status in order to become a lowly slave, to be fashioned as a man, so that He could woo the church.

Looking forward to your next response.

[Brother Chad]

As I stated before, we both have such a different grasp of what is being said in the Bible it almost amazes me. However in all fairness I believe I should be given an opportunity to state how I see these verses compared to yours.

So onward through the fog we go. Let

[Ovedya]

I will not break out your points one-by-one here, as it appears from your last post that you really only have two essential points: 1) That the Word of God is God's though, idea, or plan to accomplish redemption and, 2) That Jesus is the incarnation of this thought, idea, or plan.

With regard to your other points, you may be surprised that you basically just repeated what I wrote in my last post! Here you are saying that the term "Word of God" refers specifically to Jesus' divinity - His eternal nature - in the Godhead:. That is exactly what I also stated in my last response. Also, you said that "Son of God" refers to the incarnation - His divine status as a man. That is also exactly what I wrote above.

What you have not shown is the evidence of modalism in the incarnation. Furthermore, in stating that Jesus was the incarnation of God's plan, thought, or idea, you are supporting the doctrinal heresy of the Watchtower - also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness, brother Chad?

I don't feel the need to reiterate what I wrote in my last response, so I will tackle the issue of "The Word" being merely a thought, plan, concept, or idea of God's in eternity past. Then I will ask a few questions of you which go directly to the concept of modalism:

We have already quoted John 1:1-4 and 15, 18 a couple of times here, so I don't think it's necessary to do so again. Instead I will talk briefly about what the Greek says, and what the concept is, of the Greek.

The Greek word for "Word" in John 1:1-2 is Logos. Logos in the Greek is actually a form of the word Lego, which means "to speak." Our English equivalents of these two words might be speak (I speak) and speaking ("I am speaking"); or even spoken ("I have spoken"). Of the two Greek words, Logos is a noun (Lego is a verb). This is somewhat important, because, unlike the root Lego, Logos has solidity. In other words, it is a thing. So it is right to say that Logos is the evidence of something spoken. For example, I might first speak a word and then write it down. My spoken word would be Lego and my written word would be Logos.

Okay, so what does that mean? Well, it means exactly what we have both written - Jesus Christ is the expression of the eternal God. Jesus Christ is the noun, if you will, of God. That kind of throws modalism on it's ear, considering the fact that John wrote that the Logos was "in the beginning" with God. Not only that, but that He was God in the beginning."

Since modalism claims that God came in successive forms - one right after the other - and that one form cannot exist with the other at the same time in the same space, it would be impossible for one to maintain modalism in light of John 1:1-2; because those verses say that Jesus - the Word - was: 1) In the beginning, 2) With God, 3) was God. According to modalism it would be impossible for this Word - which is the expression of God - to be with God and to be God at the same time, because The Word and God are delineated by a pronoun, (with - at, by, or beside) and a verb (was, past tense of be, indicating a state of being). So these verses cannot be just talking about one Person. Although the focus of the verses is clearly "the Word," God is still indicated there as a separate entity - twice! So therefore, these two verses alone directly refute the modalistic concept.

Now let's take a look at the eternal existence - the eternal nature and status of this Word. Since we both agree that Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the Word of God, and since we both agree that Christ is the full expression of the entire God, we don't need to discuss this aspect. What I want to deal with in the next few paragraphs is the evidence for Christ's pre-incarnate existence.

There are many prophesies regarding the first coming of the Lord Jesus. Among other things these prophesies tell us who is coming to be the Messiah, and where to expect his arrival. Let's examine one of them.

In Matthew 2 there is a specific prophesy that the magi from the east, and the chief priests, used to determine the place of Messiah's birth. When Herod inquired of them where the Christ was to be born they said, "Bethlehem of Judea," and then they quoted Micah 5:2, which says, "But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Now, interestingly Matthew 2:6 is only a loose quotation of Micah 5:2, because the most important part of the verse is left off - "...whose origin is from old, from ancient days."!

Micah 5:2 says that the coming Messiah's origin (Mowtsa'ah, from Yatsa', a verb meaning "to come forth") is from old (Qedem, aforetime, before time) and from ancient days (`owlam - forever and always existing). This is not only conclusive proof that the Messiah is God Himself, but also that He always existed as God from eternity - from before time, and from eternity. This is not a thought, plan, or idea - it is a real Person, an eternally existent divine Person.

Now, going back to the New Testament for evidence that The Word - Jesus - was a divine Person in the Godhead, who existed from the beginning of time and in eternity past, let's look at Jesus' own words. Jesus own testimony has to be the most compelling evidence of all, since He is absolute truth. No lie can come from the Lord's very own mouth, right?

In John 17 the Lord was praying to the Father in the midst of His disciples. In that prayer He said, "And now glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was" (John 17:5, bold added). Here is more irrefutable evidence that The Word - who is the Christ - was a pre-existent divine Person of the Godhead before His incarnation. And this is the testimony from His very own mouth. The Messiah prayed to the Father - another divine Person in the Godhead - asking for the same glory which He shared with the Father (The same "with" as in John 1:1-2, by the way) before the word was - even from before the foundation of the world, according to verse 24.

Again, modalism cannot stand against such verses which prove that, 1) The Word was with God in the beginning of all things, and before the beginning of all things, 2) That He was a self-existent divine Person of the Godhead, who shared in the same glory (Which indicates co-equal inherence - what theologists call "co-inherence") as the Father from and before the beginning of all things. Furthermore, the very fact that Jesus - the expression of God - prayed to God on this, and other occasions, is evidence against modalism.

Therefore, in light of the verses that I have given, and my exposition of those verses, my questions to you are as follows: If Jesus Christ is a "mode" of God - if He is the entire God alone (1 God, 1 Person), and if God is not Triune, then who was Jesus praying to? And why was He "lifting up His eyes to heaven" in John 17:1, (and 11:41)? Furthermore, in the same vein, who was speaking on the occasions of Jesus' baptism and His transfiguration where Jesus was present at the same time? Who's voice was it that came from the heavens?

[Brother Chad]

Brother Ovedya asks,

[Ovedya]

I agree with you here, God has been since before time and before the creation of the world. He is our Creator. This verse used in Matthew 2 is just reiterating what the whole Bible speaks of and that is God is the origin. He is the Creator. Jesus is God manifest in flesh as I Timothy 3:16 states. So in conclusion to this point of yours, yes the Spirit that was in Jesus due to the conception by the Holy Spirit is the same as the God of old and from ancient days. This does not prove that there are two persons in the Godhead but that Jesus is our Creator and Savior, God.

Here you used a separate term in reference to the Spirit. You said, "...the Sprit that was in Jesus due to the conception by the Holy Spirit."

You also completely ignored my exposition of the verses that I gave, and the point of that exposition, which was that He existed in eternity past with the Father, as a separate distinct divine Person of the Godhead, and not a mere thought, plan, or idea.

In your subsequent response to my exposition of John 17 you point out that Jesus prayed to God the Father as a man and that He needed to do so because of His humanity. However, you completely ignored the aspect of His divinity, which I p[pointed out in my exposition.

While is it is true that Jesus, as a man, gave credit to, and acknowledged His heavenly Father in every aspect of His earthly ministry, your answer did not address the subject of His divinity, which Jesus clearly is spoke of in His prayer. In His prayer Jesus said, ..."The glory which I had with you before the world was. The point of my argument was not that Jesus, as a man, did certain things which portrayed the proper pattern of His perfect humanity, but that He made direct reference to His eternal divinity in His prayer.

Also, the fact that Jesus - whom you agree is God - the fullness of the Godhead (divinity - Col. 1:19; 2:9) prayed to God as a separate Person, referring to His Father, and using terms that unequivically identify God the Father as a separate divine Person aside from Himself, proves as a fact that He Himself is a separate divine Person in the same Godhead as the Father. Jesus, in His prayer, is not speaking of His humanity alone, but also to His divine and eternal status within the Godhead.

Even so, the Greek language is very specific and precise in its identification of facts. There is no ambiguity in the Greek language when dealing with matters of fact. For example, John 1:1-2 in the Greek language is structured in such a way that it essentially says to the reader (The Greek reader, that is), "The person that I am writing about here is absolutely, unequivically, and without a doubt, God."

The Greek is a lot like English in some ways (Or English is a lot like Greek, would be the right way to put it), but a lot unlike Greek in a lot of ways. For example, the Greek language has many specific words used to describe love. There is the love of friends, the love of parents and children, the love of peoples, brotherly love, the love of God, divine love, etc. The English language simply has only one word for all of these, and depends on the context in which the word is used to convey to the reader which type of love it is.

The Greek language doesn't always rely on context, however, especially when it's intent is convey certain factual information. So if we were both speakers of the Greek language and I told you that, "I love you," (filadelfiva - philadelphia) you would know that I was not talking about intimate love, but brotherly love, because of the specific term that I used. I wouldn't need any qualifiers as I would in the English language; I would not have to say, "I love you like a brother."

So the point here is that the Greek language of John 17 does show a distinction of Persons in the Godhead, and it conveys these distinctions as specific factual information. Furthermore, many other verses also do the same thing. Here is another example from John 14:15-20; 26

15) If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

16) And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever,

17) Even the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you.

18) I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

19) Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live, you also shall live.

20) In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

26) But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and remind you of all the things which I have said to you.

In these verses there are a few things going on. But take note of the portions I bolded specifically. In verse 16 Jesus said that He would ask the Father, and He - the Father - would give them another Comforter. This Comforter is identified as being the Holy Spirit in the next verse, and the Lord assigns a gender to the Spirit. He refers to the Spirit as whom, He, and Him. Then in verse 18 the Lord is not talking about His resurrection, but to His second coming. The Comforter is actually given the the disciples after the Lord's resurrection, because He is the one giving it to them (John 20:22). In verses 19-20 the Lord is telling the disciples that it is through this Spirit that they will live in Him and the Father, and the Father and the Son will live in them. This beholding is the inward experience of eternal life made available by the Spirit. Finally, in verse 26 the language clearly delineates between the Holy Spirit ("whom"), the Father (who is sending that Spirit) and the Son ("my name," denoting the Person).

Also, in John 15, the same message is conveyed by the Lord Jesus concerning the Holy Spirit:

"But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of reality, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify concerning Me;"

Here, again, the Lord Jesus identifies the Holy Spirit as a Person ("whom," "who," and "He"). But take note of the blue part above. According to the Lord Himself in the verses I quoted from John 14, it is the Father who is sending the Spirit. But here in John 15:26, it is the Lord who sends the Spirit from the Father. So, was Jesus lying when He said first that it would be the Father who would be sending the Spirit, or was He lying the second time when He said that He would be sending the Spirit? The answer is neither. As I pointed out in reference above, it was after the resurrection that the Lord Jesus met with the disciples, breathed into them, and said, "receive the Holy Spirit." It was the Father that resurrected Jesus from the grave by the power of the Spirit, and it was the Son that breathed into the the disciples, and dispensed the Spirit into them. The Son does nothing but by the Father (John 14:10). Therefore, the Father's sending the Spirit was through the Son, and the Son dispensed the Spirit into the believers. This fulfilled both prophesies in John 14 and 15 respectively. It is through the Spirit being dispensed into the disciples that both the Father and the Son abide within them. Furthermore, it is by this Spirit that the believers also dwell in the Father and the Son, according to these verses and others respectively (Rom. 8:9; 11; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col.1:27; John 15:4; 17:21; Rom. 8:1; 1 Cor. 1:30)

Now, concerning the Person of the Holy Spirit, John 16:13 says, "But when He, the Spirit of reality, comes, He will guide you into all the reality; for He will not speak from Himself, but what He hears He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are coming." Again, the Holy Spirit here is identified as a Person with language that is unmistakable in the Greek. The Spirit in this verse is personified: He hears, He speaks, He guides, and He declares. These are unmistakable factual parts of language that could never have been denied, changed, or marginalized by persons reading the gospel of John.

So first let

[Brother Chad]

I would like to first tackle the thought of Ovedya that I am a modalist. I would first like to say that in some ways my theology is closely related to the modalist point of view and in others it is not. So that no mysteries are left for those reading this discussion I will explain what I believe: 1) I believe that the Bible is the true Word of God and is without error. 2) I believe in strict monotheism- that God is numerically one. 3) I believe that the one God of the Old Testament, whose name is Yahweh, became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, is both fully God and fully man, being the visible image of the one invisible God. Jesus' deity is none other than that of the Father. As it pertains to His humanity, Jesus was born of a virgin in time. 4) I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself, primarily as He relates to mankind in our adoption as children of God and in our sanctification. The Spirit is the actions or works of God. 5) I believe that salvation is based solely on the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ and is completely an undeserved gift of God. The Biblical experience of salvation consists of: faith, repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. 6) I believe that Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected and ascended into heaven where he presently reigns. We also believe in a literal, bodily return of Jesus Christ after a time of Great Tribulation, both to claim his bride and to execute vengeance on an unbelieving world. 7) I believe there is coming a time when all who ever lived will stand before Jesus Christ to be judged and that all who are not saved will be cast into the lake of fire. I cannot say that I believe the three roles of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are consecutive because the Spirit of God was doing work at the creation. However, I do see that the Son is not shown until after the Incarnation and that God the Father is not used until after this event as well. All verses in the Old Testament that speak of the Son are prophetic and had not happened when they were written. I hope this clears up any questions as to what I believe before I go on.

You also completely ignored my exposition of the verses that I gave, and the point of that exposition, which was that He existed in eternity past with the Father, as a separate distinct divine Person of the Godhead, and not a mere thought, plan, or idea.

I did not ignore what you said about Jesus existing in eternity past with the Father. I don

[Ovedya]

Brother Chad,

I want to address a few of your comments here. But I also want to address the issue of what modalism is, and what it is not. When we began this debate I was under the impression that you were a strict modalist, but now you only appear to be leaning toward modlism in your theology.

To be honest, it is hard to argue against modalism without being mistakenly thought of as a tritheist. Because modlism focuses strictly on the oneness aspect of the truth of God, one has to point out the threefold aspect of God in order to refute that error. The same is opposite when arguing against tritheism. It is not surprising, in fact, that this same problem arose with a few of the most dedicated contenders of the faith in the third century. When one argued against Sabellianism that person was likely accused of holding the error of Arius (tritheism), and when one argued against Arianism he was accused of holding to Sabellianism. The truth is actually somewhere in middle - where neither the truth concerning the oneness of God and the threefold aspect of His divine nature are sacrificed or compromised.

Therefore, I think it would help this discussion a little bit if I added a little history of how modalism began, and by whom it began; and to specifically discuss what modalism is and what it is not. This will take some time, however; and I don't expect to get to it all today. So let's do this: I'll answer what few issues I saw in your last post - trying to be as brief as possible, and then I will add a very short summary of what modalism is, how it began, and where it sacrifices some essential truths of the Scriptures.

Sound okay?

[Brother Chad]

Brother Chad,

I want to address a few of your comments here. But I also want to address the issue of what modalism is, and what it is not. When we began this debate I was under the impression that you were a strict modalist, but now you only appear to be leaning toward modlism in your theology.

To be honest, it is hard to argue against modalism without being mistakenly thought of as a tritheist. Because modlism focuses strictly on the oneness aspect of the truth of God, one has to point out the threefold aspect of God in order to refute that error. The same is opposite when arguing against tritheism. It is not surprising, in fact, that this same problem arose with a few of the most dedicated contenders of the faith in the third century. When one argued against Sabellianism that person was likely accused of holding the error of Arius (tritheism), and when one argued against Arianism he was accused of holding to Sabellianism. The truth is actually somewhere in middle - where neither the truth concerning the oneness of God and the threefold aspect of His divine nature are sacrificed or compromised.

Therefore, I think it would help this discussion a little bit if I added a little history of how modalism began, and by whom it began; and to specifically discuss what modalism is and what it is not. This will take some time, however; and I don't expect to get to it all today. So let's do this: I'll answer what few issues I saw in your last post - trying to be as brief as possible, and then I will add a very short summary of what modalism is, how it began, and where it sacrifices some essential truths of the Scriptures.

Sound okay?

That will be fine. However, after your post I would like the chance to add some history of the Trinitarian doctrine and show where it sacrifices some essential truths of the Scritures.

I am however very reluctant to be labeled as a modalist as I have said before. I am a man of God and thus go by what the Bible tells me. Any man-made names given to me are just that. I believe in the "Oneness" of God and the Bible reveals this truth to me. Instead of labeling what we believe, I think the best way to go about this debate is to show the Word of God by using the Bible as the foundation of our arguments. By taking the time to dwell on the history of man's doctrines, I fear we are getting away from what needs to be discussed here. However, if you believe this will shed light on anything by all means feel free to do what you will. You may also feel free to label my doctrine whatever you wish because I intend to show that God is one in nature, essence, and character and nothing you say will detract from these truths. So go on and show some history.