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.


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    232 replies to "The Great Trinity Debate Challenge"

    • Nick Norelli

      I can’t wait! I’ve posted a link to this on my blog in hopes of finding you a challenger. I had suggested that perhaps the enigmatic figure known as Servetus the Evangelical might be interested seeing as how he’s set to reveal his true identity in a few days and has recently written a book arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity.

    • Rey Reynoso

      Oh boy, I wonder if there’s going to be any takers. I personally had done a thought test on Theologica by arguing against Trinitarianism (mind you, I’m thoroughly Trinitarian) and I made it easier for myself by not supporting any single option but that there are other options that make sense of the text.

      But it is a forum with single posts and doesn’t have the well thought out representation that you’re suggesting in this opening challenge.

      I hope you find a Sith Lord to duel with; it’d be awesome.

    • C Michael Patton

      Taught courses in The Theology Program! Sweet…this is going to be good.

      *wait, am I signed on as me?

      I seriously hope we can find a good representative from the other side. It would be very beneficial.

      Thanks Rob for all your commitment.

    • William Mayor

      Sir, I was enjoying the idea of a debate with you until you required me to hold to a recognized theological position. But I cannot at this time do so. I am currently trying to get a PhD thesis approved though so that I might have a sound basis from which to launch an alternative viewpoint. Quite briefly put though, I would submit that theology must be consistent with science as far as possible, as well as with history, and I think that traditional theology fails on these points. It is too closely linked to philosophical roots that contradict science, as well as having roots that actively buried some historical facts, at least to my view. I do look forward to the debate though, and hope that a worthy opponent does arise.

    • Patrick Navas


      I’d like to debate you on this subject. Unfortunately, I’m way too busy at present with work and school. I already emailed my friend Dave Barron at scripturaltruths.com to see if he might be interested. He might be a good candidate for this.

      I can debate you in the Summer if the offer still stands then.

      Patrick Navas

    • Jonathan

      Hi Rob,

      May I suggest an additional issue for your debate: “What is first-century Jewish monotheism?”

      If you focus solely on attributes or what is God’s “nature” you may well find that both you and your debating partner are much in agreement. However, by expressly detailing your understanding of what constituted Jewish monotheism in the NT period you’ll be laying bare all of the assumptions upon which both of you are building your later case (e.g., depending on your dialogue partner: variant high-god position; monistic assumptions etc). If the assumptions concerning monotheism are not set out, you’ll both find yourselves arguing past one another. I.e., superficially, the argument might focus on a specific text (e.g., John 1:1; 10:30; 20:28), but the actual basis for the arguments will not properly surface.

      Honestly, I think this additional topic is vital. We only have to consider contemporary scholarship. E.g., think about the differently nuanced views on 1st-C monotheism by comparing Bauckham with Hurtado or Dunn and how those different foundations lead to different christological proposals. I hope you’ll seriously consider this issue, though I know it will add considerably to your workload!

    • Jeff Downs

      “Quite briefly put though, I would submit that theology must be consistent with science as far as possible.”

      What does a statement such as this mean? I can only take away from this, that the scriptures are not your final authority.

    • collards


      A good idea but why the concern for whom won or lost. It isn’t one’s ability to cleverly debate that is important here. It is the presentation of the truth. Everything else is really ego.

      It is not a theological fencing match or another athletic contest. Knowing that the truth was presented and hopefully read is all that should matter.

      And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
      And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

      That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Paul

    • Wilson Hines

      I don’t “get it.”
      How can a person be a non-believer in the Trinity and a believer in Jesus as the Christ, at the same time. I’m befuddled.

    • David Barron

      Dear Rob Bowman,

      Hi I was recommended to come to your site. I am willing to reason this matter out and I would enjoy showing you that the trinity is completely unbiblical as well as the truth of the gospel as it is in the bible.

      I am a historic Seventh Day Adventist and if you go to my website you will find a list of what our pioneers believed. I’ve wrote several articles on the truth about God as well as many apologetics. We are not lone rangers believing one thing or another from one person to another. There are many of us who are completely united on who Gos is, who Christ is and the identity of the Holy Spirit in “unity of the faith and knowledge of the son of God”[Eph 4:13].

      If you are willing to reason this topic out I will be willing to also publish it on my website as well if you are open to that. As far as debate I personally prefer reasoning with humility and willingness to concede if God shows us by the word that we have misunderstood something. For further discussion and if you are open to the challenge, please add me on MSN Messenger. You have my email address.

      2Jn 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

    • Andrew DeFord

      Hello Mr Bowman,

      I certainly am interested. However, I have no other qualifications other than a love for God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. I am strictly a layman who has been reading the bible for a long time. I have been a Christadelphian for 11 years. If you are interested in the debate, contact me.
      Love in Christ!

      P.S. I read Putting Jesus in His Place and thought it was a good defense for your side.

    • Patrick Navas

      To Wilson Hines,

      You wrote:

      “How can a person be a non-believer in the Trinity and a believer in Jesus as the Christ, at the same time. I’m befuddled.”

      There are many people, including myself, who do not believe the Trinity is a biblical doctrine, since it was not taught by Jesus and nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture. But we still believe that Jesus is “the Christ,” that is, the one whom God anointed, or in the words of Jesus, “the one whom the Father consecrated and sent forth into the world” (John 10:36).

      That is to say, we (non-trinitarians) believe that the “one God” is “the Father” (not the ‘Trinity’) and that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (not ‘God the Son, the second person of the Trinity’). –1 Cor. 8:6; Matt 16:15-17 1 John 5:1; Compare 1 Tim. 2:5; John 17:3

      Patrick Navas

    • Seth R.

      Since Jehovah’s Witnesses typically don’t go in for online debate, and most people don’t even know what “Oneness Pentecostalism” or “Biblical/Evangelical Unitarianism” even is, I think Bowman is pretty much throwing the gauntlet down for a Mormon to pick up.

      I agree with collards,

      The focus on “who scored the most points” seems pretty juvenile to me. This isn’t going to foster any better understanding of each others’ positions. The way Bowman has framed this – in terms of a schoolyard throw-down – ensures that the participants will be entering the debate primarily concerned with not looking stupid in front of “all these people.” The motivation to actually understand and explore each others’ positions will be minimal at best.

      This just seems like a dog-and-pony show to me.

    • Rob Bowman


      I already know who Servetus the Evangelical is. If he wants to debate, that would be fine by me.


      Both my debate opponent and I will be free to bring up the matter of how NT statements about Jesus cohere with “first-century Jewish monotheism.” I imagine it will come up.


      The poll I propose to have afterward gives everyone a chance to weigh in on how well they thought my presentation and that of my opponent supported our respective viewpoints and which side was better represented. It isn’t about ego.

      David Barron,

      It’s problematic that you would be defending a viewpoint rejected by your own denomination. I’m not saying no absolutely, but I’d prefer a debate opponent whose viewpoint is representative of the religion with which he associates. We’ll see who else steps up to the plate.


      I deliberately did not stipulate any requirements for my debate opponent in regards to education, ministerial status, etc. I appreciate your interest in participating. If we have more than one viable candidate, we’ll let the non-Trinitarians vote for the one they want. Feel free to consider yourself a candidate. And thanks for your gracious comment about my book.

    • Jeff Downs

      Seth, I may agree with you regarding the poll (i.e. having it) but please, it certainly has nothing to do with looking or not looking “stupid.” A lot of public debates (and that is what this would be) have these types of polls.

    • Rob Bowman


      I’d be very surprised if my debate opponent turned out to be a Mormon. I’m not at all targeting them with this challenge or expecting that to be the result.

      The “Biblical/Evangelical Unitarian” movement is stronger and more popular, especially online, than you might think.

      You misconstrue my motives for proposing this debate. I think it will be a wonderful opportunity to shed light on the issues.

    • Rob Bowman


      I have no problem waiting until summer. However, you would need to specify a recognizable, existing religious group with which you are actively affiliated and to commit yourself to a specific theological model. Up to now, you have been unwilling or unable to do so.

    • C Michael Patton

      People, no more comments about the poll. This is not the place to debate it!

    • Andrew DeFord

      Mr Bowman,

      I appreciate you considering me. Have a blessed day!

    • Seth R.

      I don’t know Rob, the whole thing just brings to mind those YouTube clips of you grilling some Catholic or Mormon that are floating around all over the place (I know – certainly without your endorsement). It’s the main association I get from it and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

      I suppose that Mormonism could offer someone up to the task of debating you (I know my limits – I’m NOT that person). Perhaps Daniel Peterson or Lou Migeley or Blake Ostler… someone like that. But I guess I’d be surprised if they took you up on this as well.

    • David Barron

      Hi Rob,

      You said “it’s problematic you would be defending a viewpoint rejected by your own denomination”.

      Didn’t Jude prophecy about this type of thing:

      Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
      Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

      So what’s problematic about debating someone who believes that men crept in and changed the faith delivered to the saints? Jews who say they are and are not. There is a whole movement of us who still hold fast to the fundamental principles delivered to this church. But I would think that talking about what the bible says about the father, son and the holy spirit would be the interest of the thread. Hath a nation changed their Gods. Is it problematic that Elijah’s nation believed in BAAL and he had to come and teach them who the true God was? The thing that has been is the thing that is today and there is no new thing under the sun.

      Don’t shy away because of that.

      God bless.

    • EricW

      9. Wilson Hines on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:05 am #
      I don’t “get it.” How can a person be a non-believer in the Trinity and a believer in Jesus as the Christ, at the same time. I’m befuddled.

      If you read The Book of Acts or The Didache without any predetermined doctrines of the Trinity, I think you will see exactly that – i.e., Jesus proclaimed as the Christ with no overt identification of Him as a second member/Person of a “Trinity.”

      God’s servant/child, the Christ/Messiah, the Son of David, the Savior, etc.? Yes. But “Light from Light, True God from True God, of one substance with the Father”? No.

      Or this thing/being/substance/power called “Holy Spirit” being “the Lord(ly One)” and “worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son”? No.

      Any explicit declarations that “God exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three have distinct personalities and yet are of the same substance, one God. ” as many churches say in their “What We Believe” statements? No.

      IMO, Acts displays what I would call a lower Christology in that regard. YMMV.

    • Sam Coulter


      “Sith Lord” to “duel with”? Seriously man, what is that all about?

      Mr. Navas,

      I was delighted to see your post. In fact when I first read Mr. Bowman’s challenge, I immediately thought you would be a great candidate for this debate. I hope he can wait on you, I will be disappointed if he can’t.

      By the way, I have a copy of your book and it is one of my favorite volumes. It has been an invaluable tool, and a great blessing, in my search for the truth about the doctrine of the Trinity.

      Thank you,


    • C Michael Patton

      Don’t turn THIS thread into a debate about the Trinity (or anything else for that matter). I will start deleting comments that go in that direction (because that is just the kind of guy I am!)

    • EricW

      My apologies, CMP. (I.e., my response 22. to Wilson Hines could be the springboard to such.) Feel free to delete my response.

    • C Michael Patton

      Any discussion about this particular debate, needs to be taken here: http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/trinity-debate

      Otherwise, let’s leave this post for clarification directed to Rob and for people who respond to the challenge.

    • William Mayor

      Jeff Downs questioned my remark about including scinece with theology, and whether that implied that scripture is not the final authority. For none of us is scripture the true final authority, for we each interpret scripture ourselves, making ourselves the final authority. I merely include the well established findings of science as an additional filter through which I seek to understand scripture, and one that can supercede tradition if the evidence so indicates.

    • Patrick Navas


      You wrote:

      “I have no problem waiting until summer.”

      I am willing. Just let me know if the invitation remains open at that time.

      “However, you would need to specify a recognizable, existing religious group with which you are actively affiliated and to commit yourself to a specific theological model.”

      To specify, I regard myself as a “Christian” and feel no need to take on any other religious or denominational label. By “Christian” I mean that I am a person who recognizes Jesus as the Christ and I am actively trying to follow the teachings and way of life laid down by him specifically, not any denomination, organization, institution, or religious tradition (whether Catholic, Protestant, Watchtower or Mormon).

      I am actively affiliated with all those who recognize Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and who recognize the one God as “the Father,” and who accept me into their fellowship for the same reasons.

      Although I believe the Trinity is a false teaching, I don’t necessarily think that Trinitarians are disqualified from being true Christians. I tend to think of most Trinitarians as true Christians who have simply been mislead by human tradition.

      My “theological” position is that the “one God” is “the Father” (not the Trinity) and that Jesus is, genuinely speaking, God’s beloved Son, the Messiah, and that the holy Spirit is, in fact, God’s Spirit, the means through which God himself takes up residence in the individual and communal lives of Christian believers (1 John 5:24).


      Up to now, you have been unwilling or unable to do so.

    • Patrick Navas


      Thank you for the kind and encouraging words regarding my book. I’m definitely willing to take up Rob on this challenge in the summer, if he is willing to wait for me.

      Best wishes,

      Patrick Navas

      P.S. Rob, would you be interested in debating Stafford again?

    • Afework Kara

      Hi Rob,
      It is very nice to have such debate. Thank you for that.I am an evangelical protestant and I am eager to hear from the Non-Trinitarians especially from Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah Witnesses(if any comes to the debate forum) why they hold their position without any biblical evidence. I hope and believe,if they come and critically think about it,they would get answers to their frequently asked questions and finally would put Jesus in His Place(i.e God,distinct from the Father,worthy of worship).

    • Daniel Eaton

      I think this will be a great event, Rob. Will it be published at all once it is concluded?

    • Mike Felker

      Having debate David Barron myself (visit http://www.theapologeticfront.com for the transcript), I would very much like to see you two debate. The reason being, I feel that he is one of the most knowledgeable proponents of his position that i’m aware of. And he’s also a very respectful guy that sticks to the issues.

      But I see your point in desiring to debate someone who is associated with a particular group.

      Though i’d love nothing more than to see you debate a “Watchtower JW,” I think a snowball in a blast furnace has a better chance than this happening. Quite unfortunate.

    • EricW

      FYI, in addition to Navas’ book, which I’ve not seen or read, there is The Doctrine of the Trinity by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, 1998, International Scholars Publications, which I found in a used bookstore. Buzzard has Master’s degrees in languages and theology (University of Oxford; Bethany Theological Seminary, Chicago) and teaches at Atlanta Bible College. Affiliation – Church of God General Conference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_General_Conference

      I don’t know how much, if any, of the particulars of his faith confession (e.g., beliefs about the second coming, resurrection of the dead, salvation) affects the book’s arguments, as I haven’t read it. I mention it because the book may be a source/collection of anti-Trinitarian arguments/proofs that either side might want to read for this debate.

    • Rob Bowman


      You wrote: “I don’t know Rob, the whole thing just brings to mind those YouTube clips of you grilling some Catholic or Mormon that are floating around all over the place (I know – certainly without your endorsement).”

      Huh? Maybe you have me confused with James White (no offense, James) or someone else.

    • Rob Bowman


      I’m all for someone debating you, but it sounds like a Seventh-day Adventist needs to step up to the plate.

      My concern here is that I don’t want to debate someone that practically *everyone* can later dismiss as not representative of their position. This is why I would even be hesitant about agreeing to debate Greg Stafford again (been there, done that anyway), since he no longer represents Jehovah’s Witnesses. (If the non-Trinitarians here drafted him, though, I would probably agree to it.)

      In any case, I made my stipulations known up front, and I think I should try to stick by them.

    • Seth R.

      Always possible I guess. i wouldn’t be the first time I’ve failed to keep my internet personalities straight.

    • Rob Bowman


      Your response confirms that my assessment of the situation was correct. You represent no one but yourself. You have no clear theological alternative to the Trinity except repeating select phrases from the Bible as if their meaning was obviously non-Trinitarian. You are Lone Ranger and Theological Sniper rolled into one. That is why you are disqualified.

    • Rob Bowman


      The recent comment by collards, posted in clear violation of Michael Patton’s decision (not mine), is being deleted. Thank you for your understanding.

    • Patrick Navas


      You wrote:

      Your response confirms that my assessment of the situation was correct. You represent no one but yourself.

      Not at all. I represent the views of many people throughout the world and of those in my fellowship, when it comes to the belief that the one God is the Father and not the Trinity.

      “You have no clear theological alternative to the Trinity except repeating select phrases from the Bible as if their meaning was obviously non-Trinitarian. ”

      I explicitly said that my view of God is that he is the Father not the Trinity, and that Jesus is God’s Son, not God the Son the second person of the Trinity.

      “You are Lone Ranger and Theological Sniper rolled into one. That is why you are disqualified.”

      I’m not a “Lone Ranger” in any sense nor a “Theological sniper.” It’s a great dissapointment to me that you would use this kind of disrpespectful language/name calling. I fellowship with Christians in my home, at various conferences and Bible study groups, and I don’t even know what a “theological sniper” is or why you would use such language.

      I respectfully accepted your challenge to debate (for the summer), but you resorted to calling me weird names that misrepresent who I am. None of this was necessary.


    • Patrick Navas

      I forgot to mention: I have publised a 600 page book in which I explicitly offer a very clear “theological alternative” to the doctrine of the Trinity.

      Of course I attempt to limit my beliefs and creeds to the biblical language (viewing the language as inspired, satisfactory, and effective in communicating the truth about God, God’ Son, and God’s Spirit), but I have always made quite clear what I understand the biblical language to mean, based on logical reasoning and scriptural precedents.


    • Rob Bowman


      Perhaps you did not read the initial blog entry, which you can find at the top of this page. It details the terms or stipulations of the debate and explains what I meant by “Lone Ranger” and “Theological Sniper.”

      Your affirmation that the one God is the Father and not the Trinity does not make clear what your view is. A Greg Stafford, Dave Barron, Anthony Buzzard, or Servetus the Evangelical could all say the same thing, but their theologies and religious affiliations are all different. Your 600-page book does not clear up the matter.

    • Patrick Navas

      My views are clearly articulated in my book, in contrast to the Trinitarian: They are as follows:

      Trinitarian: The “one God” is the Trinity—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons, one God.
      Mine: The “one God” is “the Father” (not the Trinity)—1 Cor. 8:6; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9, 10; 1 Tim. 2:5
      Trinitarian: God is three-in-one
      Mine: God is one (not ‘three-in-one’)—Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:28, 29; Gal. 3:20; James 2:19
      Trinitarian: Jesus is “God the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity”
      Mine: Jesus is God’s Son (not ‘God the Son, the second person of the Trinity’); He is not eternal (without beginning) since he was born of God and because the kind of life that he has, as God’s Son, was “granted” to him by his Father—John 5:26; 1 John 5:18
      Trinitarian: The Father and Son are “coequal”
      Mine: The Father is “greater” than the Son—John 14:28
      Trinitarian: It is essential to believe/confess faith in God’s three-in-oneness and that Jesus is the eternal, second person of the Trinity
      Mine: It is essential to believe/confess faith in God’s oneness and that Jesus is Lord, Christ, and the Son of God—Mark 12:28, 29; Rom. 10:9; 1 John 4:15; 5:1
      Trinitarian: Jesus is “of one being” with God the Father
      Mine: Jesus is “the exact representation” of God the Father’s “being” (not of the same being as God the Father)—Hebrews 1:3
      Trinitarian: Jesus is the “God-man,” fully God and fully man at the same time
      Mine: Jesus was a man accredited by God (not a ‘God-man’)—Acts 1:22; John 8:40
      Trinitarian: The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity
      Mine: The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit and is holy because God is holy (The Holy Spirit is not a ‘person’ of a Trinity but the Spirit of a person, namely, the spirit of God the Father which the Father gives to the Son without measure)—Gen. 1:2; Isaiah 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 4:30; John 3:34

    • Paul Leonard

      Deleted by mod.

      I look forward to the debate

    • David Barron

      Hi Rob,

      Thanks for the consideration and many Seventh Day Adventists would love to see this take place since many of them have turned to the Trinitarian view. They would love to see you show me the truth so to say. Most of them believe that their leaders have the answers. I look forward to it if you wish to reconsider.

      Here is an article that explains how we are the Elijah Message in this last hour and we are restoring the truth about God and his son.


      Anyway, whenever you’re ready brother. This would be a great debate.

    • Rob Bowman


      Give it up, please.


      I’ll consider it, since you do seem to represent a significant faction within the SDA tradition.

    • […] Challenge to Debate on the Trinity 2009 November 14 tags: debate, Rob Bowman, Trinity by JohnDave Medina Rob Bowman issued a challenge to debate on the doctrine of the Trinity. I wonder who might take him up on the offer. The terms are set here. […]

    • C Michael Patton

      I am deleting comments left and right folks.

      This is not to be a debate about Rob’s challenge or about the doctrine of the Trinity.

      All you should do here is 1) have Rob clarify or 2) submit a name. That is it.

      I appreciate all the passion. It just goes to show how needed this always it.

    • Seth R.

      Michael, those were not the ground rules you set up from the start.

      There was nothing in my post that was violating any previous warnings. And if this is not the place to raise the concerns I just raised, what is?

    • C Michael Patton

      Not here Seth. You can go to the Theologica forum and voice your concerns, but in this post we are not debating or, even, discussing anything. I am sorry, this blog can get out of control very quickly.

      Yours is not the only comment that has been moderated.

    • C Michael Patton

      BTW: No discussion or debate about 48!

Comments are closed.