Trinity Debate
Hopefully, if you are reading this, you have already read most of, if not all, the exchanges in the debate on the Trinity that I have on Debate Center. The following is my assessment of the exchange.
First, for my first "formal" debate (though via email), I would have to say that it went fairly well. I admit that the start was a bit rough being that I started with a whole reasoned out argument and all I got from them was "I wasn't expecting a lesson" and what not. But, I was able to finally get out of the participants statments saying what they believed and to some extent, why they believed as they did. I wasn't really pleased with most of their response tactics as they just added onto my papers that I worked pretty hard on they didn't seem to take the time to put as much effort. But, I have to admit, they were probably not expecting me to write so much.
Second, I really don't know what to make of their arguments. Perhaps you already noticed, responding to most of their points was difficult in some cases because they would respond with things like, "wow, you really believe that?" or "I can't believe that you believe that." Also, they did not have the grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity that I thought they had and that they claimed to have. Their arguments seemed to be pitted against TriTheism, which I was not arguming for at all.
Third. YOu know what was the most interesting about the whole exchange? The charges of eisegesis that were flying at me. Personally, I take this charge very seriously since those who twist God's word do so "to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16). Its amazing because I was so meticulous to provide them with grammar and syntax and context and even simply a Scripture. But they, in their responses, scarcely exegeted a text of Scripture or even attempted to handle the text at the grammatical and syntactical level. I found that really disturbing especially since some of their arguments hinged on presuppositions that they had done the exegesis.
Fourth: Greek. Greek was so important here. In many ways, they demonstrated that they had absolutely zero knowledge of the Greek language nor of the Greek Scriptures which are the foundation for their English Bibles (at least we hope they were credible translations!). So many times they used different declensions for nouns and tried to understand all the forms of a noun based on one declension that can have so many implications. The same goes for verbs in the Greek with all the different tenses. I didn't even want to start mentioning rules of grammar and syntax like the "Granville-Sharp rule".
Fifth, and I think most important. I think these people demonstrated that they cannot refute the truth of Scripture that God is indeed a Trinity. Absolute none of the SCriptures and arguments offered were refuted by them. I don't think they even made a serious attempt to refute the arguments. NoTrinityInBible tried somewhat, but I think he was easily refuted from the text of Scripture which is God-breathed. I remember Charles Spurgeon saying something to the effect of how Scripture is a like lion that when let loose, it is able to defend itself. I hope that what was seen by these individuals and all who read the debates was that it was not Moses Flores defending the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, the Scriptures themselves defending a most blessed and revealed doctrine of God and from God. The SCriptures did not need my help to declare the truth of God, they were sufficient in what they asserted themselves. I was only repeating and declaring what Scripture said was true.
I hope that these debates will be fruitful to all who come across them. I hope that these will serve as stepping stones for others to search the SCriptures for what they teach on the doctrine of the Trinity as well. It is a topic not easily engaged in and one that is easy to passover because of its complexity sometimes. God bless.
First, for my first "formal" debate (though via email), I would have to say that it went fairly well. I admit that the start was a bit rough being that I started with a whole reasoned out argument and all I got from them was "I wasn't expecting a lesson" and what not. But, I was able to finally get out of the participants statments saying what they believed and to some extent, why they believed as they did. I wasn't really pleased with most of their response tactics as they just added onto my papers that I worked pretty hard on they didn't seem to take the time to put as much effort. But, I have to admit, they were probably not expecting me to write so much.
Second, I really don't know what to make of their arguments. Perhaps you already noticed, responding to most of their points was difficult in some cases because they would respond with things like, "wow, you really believe that?" or "I can't believe that you believe that." Also, they did not have the grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity that I thought they had and that they claimed to have. Their arguments seemed to be pitted against TriTheism, which I was not arguming for at all.
Third. YOu know what was the most interesting about the whole exchange? The charges of eisegesis that were flying at me. Personally, I take this charge very seriously since those who twist God's word do so "to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16). Its amazing because I was so meticulous to provide them with grammar and syntax and context and even simply a Scripture. But they, in their responses, scarcely exegeted a text of Scripture or even attempted to handle the text at the grammatical and syntactical level. I found that really disturbing especially since some of their arguments hinged on presuppositions that they had done the exegesis.
Fourth: Greek. Greek was so important here. In many ways, they demonstrated that they had absolutely zero knowledge of the Greek language nor of the Greek Scriptures which are the foundation for their English Bibles (at least we hope they were credible translations!). So many times they used different declensions for nouns and tried to understand all the forms of a noun based on one declension that can have so many implications. The same goes for verbs in the Greek with all the different tenses. I didn't even want to start mentioning rules of grammar and syntax like the "Granville-Sharp rule".
Fifth, and I think most important. I think these people demonstrated that they cannot refute the truth of Scripture that God is indeed a Trinity. Absolute none of the SCriptures and arguments offered were refuted by them. I don't think they even made a serious attempt to refute the arguments. NoTrinityInBible tried somewhat, but I think he was easily refuted from the text of Scripture which is God-breathed. I remember Charles Spurgeon saying something to the effect of how Scripture is a like lion that when let loose, it is able to defend itself. I hope that what was seen by these individuals and all who read the debates was that it was not Moses Flores defending the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, the Scriptures themselves defending a most blessed and revealed doctrine of God and from God. The SCriptures did not need my help to declare the truth of God, they were sufficient in what they asserted themselves. I was only repeating and declaring what Scripture said was true.
I hope that these debates will be fruitful to all who come across them. I hope that these will serve as stepping stones for others to search the SCriptures for what they teach on the doctrine of the Trinity as well. It is a topic not easily engaged in and one that is easy to passover because of its complexity sometimes. God bless.
posted by prchdaword at 2:12 PM
3 comments
