If you consider yourself a non-Trinitarian believer in Jesus, do I have a challenge for you!
With the permission and support of Michael Patton, I am proposing a formal debate on this blog on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity, to be conducted over a six-week period (beginning sometime after the New Year; scheduling is flexible). I am looking for one individual to argue for a position contrary to the Trinitarian position, while I will argue for the Trinitarian view.
Here is how I propose we proceed:
Week #1: My opponent and I would set forth our understanding of the nature of God (his attributes, e.g., omnipotent or not, omnipresent or not, incorporeal or corporeal) to make sure everyone understands what, if any, differences we have on that subject.
Weeks #2 and #3: The two of us would each set forth our understanding of the identity/person of Jesus Christ.
Week #4: The two of us would each set forth our understanding of the identity, status (person or non-person), and/or nature of the Holy Spirit.
Week #5: The two of us would each set forth a case for our position with regard to the Trinity (I would be for it, my opponent against it).
Week #6: Each of us will post one closing statement, with those blog entries open for questions from anyone.
At each stage of the debate, each of us would have an opportunity to rebut the other’s arguments by commenting on each other’s blog entries, and each of us would be free to give a closing response defending our position and/or criticism of the other’s view. To prevent either debater from overwhelming the other with reams of material cut and pasted into the debate, we will each agree to keep our total word count per week (including rebuttals, etc.) to no more than 10,000 words. Note that each stage would be given one week except for the second stage, which will be given two weeks. The debaters may choose to continue Q&A with others beyond the sixth week at their discretion, but the formal debate will be over at the end of the sixth week.
During the sixth week, anyone who properly registers to leave comments will be able to ask both of us any questions pertaining to these issues relating to the Trinity. These questions are to be posted in response to our closing statements. The 10,000-word limit will not apply to the debaters’ responses to these questions.
After the formal debate is concluded, a poll will be posted on the blog asking four questions:
1. Setting aside your own opinion of the doctrine of the Trinity, how well did Rob Bowman, the Trinitarian, do in supporting his position?
A. Excellent defense of this viewpoint—could not have been much better
B. Good defense—reasonably well done defense
C. Passable effort—not bad, but not particularly good
D. Poor effort—did not represent this viewpoint adequately
F. Terrible defense—a disastrous embarrassment to this viewpoint
2. Setting aside your own opinion of the doctrine of the Trinity, how well did < Name to Be Determined >, the non-Trinitarian, do in supporting his position?
A. Excellent defense of this viewpoint—could not have been much better
B. Good defense—reasonably well done defense
C. Passable effort—not bad, but not particularly good
D. Poor effort—did not represent this viewpoint adequately
F. Terrible defense—a disastrous embarrassment to this viewpoint
3. In your judgment, who won the debate? Note: This question is not asking you which person’s viewpoint you think is correct, but whose viewpoint was better defended here.
A. Rob Bowman, the Trinitarian
B. < Name to Be Determined>, the non-Trinitarian
C. It was a draw
4. What is your own view with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity?
A. I am a Trinitarian
B. I am a non-Trinitarian
C. I am undecided
I am willing to debate anyone who agrees with the following terms:
1. The individual must use his or her real name. After all, I am putting myself on the line; I expect my opponent to do so as well.
2. The individual must defend a specific understanding of God, of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. That is, the individual must defend a specific theological alternative to the doctrine of the Trinity. It can be anything — Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine, Oneness Pentecostalism, Biblical/Evangelical Unitarianism, etc. — but it must be a specific, identifiable, existing belief system. No “Lone Ranger” who thinks he alone knows the truth; no “Theological Sniper” who attacks my doctrine but offers no alternative position that can also be evaluated and critiqued. In order to put this doctrinal alternative in context, my opponent must identify the specific religious denomination, sect, group, movement, or whatever, with which he or she associates as a believer. I must and of course will also do the same; I will defend a specific understanding of these matters, namely, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity common to evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, and traditional Orthodox believers. I am an evangelical Protestant, a member of a Baptist church, and will defend the Trinity within that theological context.
3. The individual must agree (as I will) that for the purposes of the debate, everything the Bible says pertaining to God, and specifically pertaining to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is true and authoritative, and that the purpose of the debate is to determine which of our two doctrines is most faithful to the teachings of the biblical authors as a whole. The Bible is stipulated here to be the 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture. My opponent and I may cite any published translation of the Bible or refer to the Hebrew and Greek texts; if the translation of a particular passage is disputed for some reason, each of us will be free to offer whatever justification we think best in support of our view. I don’t mind if my opponent gets his or her doctrinal ideas from some other source, but the debate must be focused exclusively on which doctrine best reflects or represents the teachings of the Bible.
4. The individual must agree (as I will) that the debate will focus solely and directly on the theological issues pertaining to the Trinity specified above. Both of us will commit ahead of time to refrain from attacking the other person’s religion, its history (e.g., alleged scandals), its leaders, or its teachings on subjects extraneous to the issues directly impinging on the doctrine of the Trinity. This means, for example, that if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, I won’t be bringing up the Miracle Wheat scandal, Russell’s courtroom difficulties, Rutherford’s temper, the failed predictions concerning 1914, 1918, 1925, etc.; and likewise, my opponent will not be bringing up Constantine’s lack of baptism, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Michael Servetus’s execution, etc.
5. The individual must agree (as I will) that at least two weeks prior to the beginning of the debate, he or she will provide in this forum a list of resources, which may include as few as two books and as many as six books, that best represent the viewpoint he or she will defend. The list of resources may also include from one to three websites or web pages defending that viewpoint. Neither of us is expected to agree absolutely with everything in the resources we list; the purpose of the list is to give each other, and those following the debate, some understanding of the general perspective from which we defend our respective viewpoints.
With these stipulations, I am willing to debate anyone. If any of the non-Trinitarians here would like to go find someone to come debate for their side, that would be fine. If more than one non-Trinitarian offers to debate me, we’ll set up a poll and invite non-Trinitarians only to vote for their champion. To nominate yourself or someone else (with that person’s permission), just respond to this post with a comment, identifying yourself or your nominee by name and indicating your agreement to the terms stipulated above.
Some of you already know me, but for those who don’t, I am an evangelical Christian apologist and the author of a dozen books, including Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Baker, 1989) and Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel, 2007), which I co-authored with Ed Komoszewski. I have worked at several well-known apologetics ministries, have taught several elective courses in The Theology Program, and am currently the Director of Research at the Institute for Religious Research.
232 replies to "The Great Trinity Debate Challenge"
[…] those unaware, last November Rob Bowman issued a call for an opponent to debate the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, two months later, the call has been […]
Marko,
I think we need to be cautious about rejecting a doctrine or challenging its adherents just because the word commonly used as a kind of shorthand to describe, it doesn’t appear in any English versions of the bible. “Trinity” and “Tritheism” are sensibly used words to describe particular beliefs, and the fact that they are not biblical words does not prove that those beliefs are incorrect.
English-speaking Christadelphians may refer to “God Manifestation”, a phrase which doesn’t appear in the bible either, but is a basic, lofty scriptural concept and the true meaning of ‘that they may be one, even as we are one”.
The only test for correct doctrine is, “Is it in harmony with the WHOLE of God’s revelation concerning His past, present, and future dealings with humanity?”
The mainstream church doctrine of the Trinity is not: but this needs to be clearly demonstrated and understood from scripture as a whole – simply rejecting the doctrine on the basis of its label is not sensible.
I look forward to this debate, and hope it will be a clean argument from scripture, and not become bogged down in over-intellectual theology and esoteric terms of reference which someone like myself will find it hard to understand without explanation.
May this not be a debate where after many ‘strifes about words’ the outcome is only decided on point scoring, (the concern of post 199) but rather one where the result will be a clear shining forth of Divine Truth, with the confusions swept away, in the minds of those open-mindedly and honestly seeking after it, regardless of their previous position.
To God be the glory.
Marko, my apologies, a misplaced comma in my opening sentence made it very confusing to read. It should read:
I think we need to be cautious about rejecting a doctrine or challenging its adherents just because the word commonly used as a kind of shorthand to describe it, doesn’t appear in any English versions of the bible.
Marko… The words “monotheism” and “monotheist” do not occur in the Bible, yet you would probably consider that the Bible teaches monotheism. Right?
Friends, please. I appreciate so much everyone’s zeal. What an important topic this is. But this is not the place to discuss the Trinity. It is only for the discussion/debate that is going to soon take place.
From now on all back and forth about the Trinity will be deleted.
Michael – thank you for facilitating this opportunity for everyone – really looking forward to the interaction and the benefit of a better understanding of both sides of this argument at the end.
It is good to see that you are able to control the enthusiasm to pre-empt this debate – on this blog – despite your clear instructions!
Can we log in anywhere to get notification of the timing etc of the ongoing debate, or do we need to just keep going onto this url every few days?
I have noted, as possibly many others have, that the Christadelphian element is predominately an online following. As a Oneness believer I would look forward to a debate on the issue of the Trinity but would be greatly disappointed to see it debated with a Christadelphian. My view is the minority here online. I have nothing against Dave Burke personally but would rather see the debate take place with a Oneness person. Mr. Bowman, I would ask you to peruse my Oneness apologetic website and see if I would be worth your time in an email discussion or dialogue at the very least. My website has a topical archive and has been going for about 5 years now. I am also good friends with Jason Dulle and could speak with him about a debate with yourself if you wish. I have noted your works and would be very interested in discussing this important topic with you. I am not associated with any Oneness organization but did hold license with the UPC for several years.
I just want to thank Rob and Dave for pledging their time and best efforts to this debate. It’s a big task and I know I would not be up to it. I am one of the Christadelphians watching this and am greatly looking forward to it. I appreciate it is us the observers who are the beneficiaries of your labours and I am sure you will both give us a great deal of food for thought. Thanks again.
James:
>>
I have noted, as possibly many others have, that the Christadelphian element is predominately an online following
>>
This is not true. Our sect has existed for more than 150 years, during which time we have established ourselves throughout 120 different countries. The global Christadelphian population is variously estimated at 80,000-100,000 believers and I believe we are currently the largest Biblical Unitarian sect in the world.
We did not begin to use the Net as a serious preaching tool until the late 80s and our online presence only reflects a tiny proportion of our real life community.
All of that aside, I am not sure what your point is, since this debate will be “Trinitarianism vs Biblical Unitarianism”, not “Trinitarianism vs the Christadelphians.”
James,
From the voting it is clear that you represent a minority of the on-line viewers looking forward to this event. However, according to the rules (which seem very fair to me) you get the chance to raise questions if you see either debater going off course from what you take to be biblical teaching and not already addressed by the other. “Anyone who properly registers to leave comments will be able to ask both of us any questions pertaining to these issues relating to the Trinity”. So if you feel some Bible verses are being neglected or taken out of context, just raise a question and I assume you will get a reply.
Dave and Mark, thanks for your replies. Dave, no offense meant and I apologize for the generalization. I would disagree that Oneness is Unitarian. There are distinct and vital differences (deity of Christ) and as far as I can tell the debate was to be with a non-Trinitarian not just a Unitarian. As I noted, and Mark also repeated, my opinion here, is obviously a minority. My point was that Oneness believers number close to 30 million globally and that is significant as they are adamantly anti-Trinitarian. I am partial too, and believe the Oneness view creates numerous problems for the Trinitarian view.
Hi James:
>>
Dave and Mark, thanks for your replies. Dave, no offense meant and I apologize for the generalization.
>>
That’s fine, no problem.
>>
I would disagree that Oneness is Unitarian. There are distinct and vital differences (deity of Christ) and as far as I can tell the debate was to be with a non-Trinitarian not just a Unitarian.
>>
I agree that Oneness is not Unitarian; I didn’t say that it was! And yes, the debate simply called for a non-Trinitarian, not a Unitarian. My point was that it will *now* be “Trinitarianism vs Biblical Unitarianism”, since a Biblical Unitarian has been chosen.
>>
As I noted, and Mark also repeated, my opinion here, is obviously a minority. My point was that Oneness believers number close to 30 million globally and that is significant as they are adamantly anti-Trinitarian. I am partial too, and believe the Oneness view creates numerous problems for the Trinitarian view.
>>
I appreciate what you’re saying.
One thing that’s always struck me as odd is the ferocity with which Trinitarians and Oneness believers attack each other’s respective Christologies. The funny thing is, you only disagree on the personhood of the Godhead. Everything else is exactly the same.
You both believe that Jesus is God; you both believed that he remained alive after his body died on the cross; you both believe that he re-entered his dead body and raised it to life again; you both believe that he is to be worshipped as the only true God. The points of convergence just go on and on.
With so much in common, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to join forces and unite against those of us who don’t believe in the deity of Christ?
James,
Do Oneness believers reject a Tri-personal/Trinitarion conception of God’s being and believe in a Uni-personal God? That would, by default, make them unitarians of a different sort than biblical unitarians!
Troy, yes they do reject the Trinity and no they are not Unitarian since to use that word outside its historical meaning would mean we should use another word altogether. Oneness is good. Some mistakenly label us Modalists but I have found that labels fit better on jars and not people.
Interesting, but is there a scheduled start date for the real debate?
Hi all,
I have emailed Dave Burke privately to begin discussing the dates for the debate and other details. I will announce the start date when we have everything in place.
For more on Anthony Buzzard see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_F._Buzzard
I’ve had an email from Rob and sent two in reply. There’s a few aspects of the debate that I’d like to clarify and negotiate.
How profitable is it to put the Word that was made flesh into words?
Isn’t it more important to follow the Word that was made flesh, and live out the example of Jesus in our lives, than to invest a lot of time and effort in writing words about what Scripture calls “the mystery of godlinesss”?
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3v16
I nominate Dave Burke
Miriam
The profitableness is in our salvation from sin. –
1Co 15:17 “and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”
– if Christ didn’t die (ie. he was tranlated directly into spirit) then neither was he raised from the dead (ie. he was translated back into his body) then 1Cor 15:17 applies.
The fact that he did die (not translated into spirit) and was ressurrected from the dead (not translated back into his body) makes him the perfect sacrifice for our salvation from sin and gives us the hope of our still future restoration to a full relationship with our Father with Jesus as our “brother”. –
1Co 15:28 “And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.”
How much more do we need to know about death & ressurrection (both Christ’s & our’s) & the restored relationship with God that was lost in Eden, than what is written in 1Cor15?
Rob & Dave
Looking forward immensely to the debate guys. May it proceed to the glory of God & of his Son, our Lord Jesus, whose coming we await.
Geoff – I’m not sure what you mean by “translated” in spirit/back into body. I wasn’t aware trinitarians believe that?
I am “atrinitarian” (as in the sense of “apolitical” ie: totally neutral about it) and I am neither trinitarian or non-trinitarian, since they are man-made doctrines.
I wondered why it is necessary to define Christianity by debating two man-made doctrines which were essentially formed by reacting to each other. Is debating reactionary man-made doctrines profitable for godliness? Possibly. I guess there is only one way to find out!
Dave Burke and I have agreed to a six-week debate that will begin April 11, 2010. We have also agreed to limit ourselves to 5,000 words each week instead of 10,000.
I am going to post this message also as a new post, just to make sure everyone sees it. In that post I will also list the pro-Trinitarian works I recommend for the purposes of this debate. After Dave posts his recommended works, I will add his list to that new post so it will appear on equal footing with my list.
The following list comprises a collection of books and articles which accurately reflect my Christology. None of them were written by me.
Where possible, I have provided hyperlinks to online versions of the books as well as the articles.
_____________
The Racovian Catechism (1605) Polish Brethren: http://tinyurl.com/ygmo936
Lectures on the Principles of Unitarianism (1824) Hyndman, J S: http://tinyurl.com/yhjz46g
The Doctrine of the Trinity: Analytically Examined and Refuted (1937) White, Percy: http://tinyurl.com/ybvsfut
Wrested Scriptures (1964) Abel, Ron: http://tinyurl.com/ycodx2t
What Are the First Principles? (1990) Booker, George: http://tinyurl.com/yb9j3br
The Trinity: True or False? (1995) Broughton, James & Southgate, Peter: http://tinyurl.com/md3o3l
The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound (1998) Buzzard, Anthony & Hunting, Charles
Before He was Born (2007) Perry, Andrew
The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2009) Zarley, Kermit
“What do Biblical Unitarians Believe?”: http://tinyurl.com/39qu8o
“Who is Jesus Christ?”: http://tinyurl.com/yg7e47w
“Interpreting Jesus’ Birth”: http://tinyurl.com/y85gvqq
“The Two Adams”: http://tinyurl.com/yhvaglh
I may have missed one or two of the posts/comments/lines in this blog post but have both parties expressed their initial statement as to their belief as to what they understand the relationship of God Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be? Given that this debate is about the trinity, I think that it would be necessary to have a base-line to work from.
OK, less than a week away now. No correspondance for a month now; must be time to start generating the interest. Dave/Rob are we still on track for the 11th? Is the debate going to be conducted through this current link? Any update on the format?
Ron, the debate will commence on the 11th. A new thread has been started here: http://tinyurl.com/y25akpo
[…] can read Rob’s introduction to the debate challenge here. And also worth reading is Rob and David’s list of resources that are relevant to the […]
From a gadfly:
As I have a fear to go through, spending time and enjoying reading in this important topic, I hope someone has clearly set what is the proposition of the doctrine we are going to debate and discuss.
When I have to go through hundreds and hundreds pages of books and hundreds and hundreds web-pages piled and waiting to be read up, I find that most of arguments are wasteful of my time because they fail to have all the words appearing in the proposition precisely defined at the start. [e.g. are they still using such inadequate term ‘person’ without having it defined? If they do, it will be a clue for something to follow.]
As far as I’m concerned this doctrine of Trinity is the only doctrine as such any Christian needs and it will survive and be defended until everything ends, including the whole Torah, at the Consummation.
Are there any other things to be called ‘doctrine’? Maybe, but I bet, it’s all theological phrasing of what the Bible says, no more, no less. My understanding of the doctrine may be different from the ‘traditional’ one, but I’m die-hard on this. If I have to die on a doctrine as such, this might be it. (Of course, no one dies for any doctrine. Even if someone dies for the ‘truth’, the truth cannot be a vague idea or doctrine. It has to be the divine reality, God himself. For that, one has to die when called for.)
I note that the debate threads have been closed before Dave Burke was able to post his final counter-rebuttal. Was there a reason for this?
Furthermore, I haven’t seen anything about the poll which was to be held. Is this still going ahead?
Fortigurn,
After 33,000 words of comments dumped all at once, are you saying that your twin brother is still not done rebutting? I stated in my comment after that onslaught that it seemed only fair that I be given the last word. But then you kept posting comments, essentially in his place. Since your comments (like his) repeatedly misrepresented the facts (including the facts about what I said), I felt that there was no point in allowing it to continue. Therefore, against my own preference to have continued posting comments replying to your brother’s comments, I decided it would be best to close the comments.
As far as I know, we are still going to do the poll.
[…] on November 14, 2009 by Louis| Leave a comment Robert Bowman at Parchment and Pen has issued a challenge to debate someone who does not believe in the […]