Does the Bible substantiate that the HolySpirit is God via reasonable interpretation?

[BreadAlone]

1) The topic and title of the debate.

Does the Bible substantiate that the Holy Spirit is God via reasonable interpretation?

2) The members who will be participating in the debate and what positions they will take. Someone will usually affirm a position and someone else will oppose.

Affirmative: CaliforniaJosiah

Opposition: Packermann

3) The number of rounds within the debate. If each party makes three alternating posts, that would equal a debate with three rounds.

Unset (Affirmative says 1-2)

4) Whether the posts will be made concurrently or alternating and which party goes first. Generally the affirmative position goes first but this is flexible.

Affirmative

6) Time limit between posts. You may select any length of time (within reason) as a maximum amount your opponent may take to formulate a response. If the time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course.

1 Week (7 Days)

7) The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 1000 or even 5000 words for each post in a round. The length is the upper limit.

Unset (500 words give or take according to Affirmative)

8) Whether or not quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule but within the scope the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.

Of course..

9) And, finally, the start date of the debate.

ASAP

Let the debates begin! I wish both of you the best of God's blessings, and I have the utmost confidence that things will remain respectful..

Peanut Gallery: Peanut Galery: "Does the Bible substantiate that the Holy Spirit is God [. . .]" - Christian Forums

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


“Does the Bible substantiate that the Holy Spirit is divine via reasonable interpretation?”

That is the question before us. It is a debate on the divinity of the Third Person of the Trinity: I taking the affirmative and my respected opponent taking the negative. All debate requires a Rule/Canon and we have agreed to use the written words of Scripture as such (rather than Presbyterian Tradition or Lutheran Church Fathers, for example). Since printed words can be given ANY interpretation, we have agreed that such is to be reasonable, natural and again, in accord with the words of the text. It should be noted this is not a debate on the Trinity, the canon of NT books, Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia Roma and thus we will not discuss those or any other points: the topic is the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

I am honored to have been asked to take the affirmative position. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is an ancient and STRONGLY ecumenical view – embraced by literally thousands of denominations of all types and has been so embraced for many, many centuries. It is NOT a unique teaching to a few denominations or a new view. My humble attempt to support this view is an honor and I have prayed that I might be successful.


The Affirmative:


The Scripture:

Again, we have agreed to limit our Rule to Scripture. The Scripture I am putting forth is the one I already revealed to the opposition: Acts 5:3-4. I’ll begin with verse 1 for context: “Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge, he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the Apostle’s feet. Then Peter said to him, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before you sold it? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Now, let’s focus on the significant aspects of this, as I underlined. “You have lied to the Holy Spirit…. you have not lied to men but to God.” The Greek: “pheusasthai te to pneuma to agion,,,ouk epheuso anthropois alla to theo.”

The interpretation:

The Scripture is declaring that to lie against the Holy Spirit (verse 3) is to lie to God (verse 4). It is my argument, then, that this Scripture affirms the divinity of the Holy Spirit. It seems unreasonable to interpret “Holy Spirit” in verse 3 as other than Holy Spirit or God in verse 4 as other than God. It is my position that the natural and reasonable interpretation of this is that the Scripture is equating Holy Spirit with God. This interpretation does not impute any external thoughts or “tradition” or “implications” but is entirely textual, according to the written words of the text.

Some commentaries: “The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles” R.C.H. Lenski (Augsburg, 1934): “Peters words, taken together in verses 3 and 4, undeniably identifies the Holy Spirit as God.” (Page 200). “The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Acts” Editor: F.F. Bruce (Eerdmans, 1955): “The equating of Holy Spirit in verse 3 with God in verse 4 shows that the Holy Spirit is God.” (Page 113). “Commentary on the Holy Bible” Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott (Thomas Nelson, 1710): “This is plain testimony to the Godhead and to the Person of the Holy Spirit in such.” (Page 448). Other identical commentaries exist.

Other Scriptures support this conclusion, although I do not present them here. They would include the 22 mentions of Spirit in the OT and 39 in the NT – most associated with divine attributes. If space permitted, I’d love to explore these in a supportive role.




My respected opponent now has the negative statement to present.



May the Holy Spirit use these words for the granting and strengthening of faith. Amen.


- Josiah




.

 

[packermann]

First of all, I want to express my thanks that my opponent has accepted my challenge and also to express my thanks to the moderator, who has devoted his time to moderate debates such as this one. My prayer is that we will open to the truth wherever it may lead us. God is the source of all truth, so we should never be afraid of an open, sincere debate.

Second, I want to make this very clear. I fully believe that the Holy Spirit is God. But I believe this because the Catholic Church teaches so, and I believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. But without the Church, I can understand a reasonable person looking at the Bible and not seeing the Holy Spirit as God. So my issue is not with this doctrine, but how my fellow Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ arrive at this doctrine – through the Bible alone.

Now, let’s look at what this passage has said:

Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the HOLY SPIRIT and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of such a thing? You have not lied to men but to GOD!"

Acts 5:3-4

The first thing that I notice, is that this passage is not actually teaching that the Holy Spirit is God. It may be implied, and it may even be strongly implied, but that is not what this passage assertively teaches. But it is still only an implication. This passage does not actually assert that the Holy Spirit. This has to be arrived by deduction. But am I sure we will cover more later on the difference between an explicit assertion and an implication in the next round.

But even if an implication was valid, I am not so sure it can even be said that the passage strongly implies that the Holy Spirit is God. I can see how a reasonable person can disagree with the premise that since Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and that he lied to God in verse 4, that the Holy Spirit must be God. That seems to me to be a non sequitur.

In the previous verses, it says that Ananias and Sapphira deceived the apostles. Also in verse 8, it shows Sapphira lying to the Peter. They had the intention of lying to the apostles. So from this chapter, we see that Ananias and Sapphira to three persons – they lied to the apostles, they lied to the Holy Spirit, and they lied to God.

Now, if we use the logic that since they lied to the Holy Spirit and they lied to God, then the Holy Spirit must be God, then we would have to be consistent and say that since they lied to the apostles and they lied to God, then the apostles must be God as well! I don’t think that anyone here wants to make the conclusion that the apostles are God! So the logic does not hold.

There is an alternative interpretation that is just as reasonable, if not more reasonable, that avoids the conclusion that the apostles and the Holy Spirit must be God. It could be, just based on this text, that the Holy Spirit serves as a messenger of God, and to lie to God’s messenger is to lie to God, since the Holy Spirit would be a representative of God. The same could then also be said of the apostles. Since the apostles are ultimately representatives of God, to lie to the apostles is to lie to the One they represented. In the same way, Holy Spirit was sent by God (“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” John 14:16; “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things John 14:26). And then the Holy Spirit sends out (“And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” Acts 13:2). So to lie to the apostles is to lie to the Holy Spirit. And to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God. To say this proves that the Holy Spirit is God makes as much sense as saying that this prove that the apostles are the Holy Spirit, and God as well.


There is another example from the very same writer to show what I am arguing.

1(A)Now Saul, still (B)breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,
2and asked for (C)letters from him to (D)the synagogues at (E)Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to (F)the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and (G)suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;
4and (H)he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"

Acts 9: 1 – 4

The passage is about the conversion of Saul (later know as Paul). In verse three, it says “Saul was breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord”. But in verse 4, the Lord says “why are your persecuting ME”. So in one verse it says that Saul was persecuting the disciples. In another verse it says that Saul is persecuting Christ. Should we conclude from this then, that the disciples are Christ in the same way that the Holy Spirit is God! I hope that no one here would hold to that type of New Age thinking – that we are Christ!

It is true that when we become Christians we are united to Christ. We are in Christ and Christ is in us. But we still remain beings distinct from Christ. Christ may identify with us strongly, so that he who persecutes us persecutes Christ. But we never ARE Christ. In the same way, the most that Acts 5 can say it that there is a strong union between the Holy Spirit and God, so that what we do to the Holy Spirit we do to God. But it does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is equated with God.

Here is another verse:

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Luke 10:16

Here, our Lord Jesus says to His disciples that he who hears them hears the Lord, and he who rejects the disciples rejects the Lord. So hearing and rejecting the disciples is equal to hearing and rejecting the Lord. Should we conclude then that the disciples of Christ are the same as Christ? If not, why should we then conclude that lying to the Holy Spirit and lying to God means that the Holy Spirit is God?

This fits in to what I wrote earlier – what you do to one’s representative is the same as doing that to the person who sent him. To illustrate this suppose country A insults an ambassador from country B. Country B would get upset, because Country A is insulting Country B by insulting its ambassador. This is because the ambassador is a representative of the country that sent him. The ambassador is not the same as Country B, but since he was sent from Country B, he presents Country B.

What we do to one who is a representative of God is the same as doing it to God. To reject the apostles is to reject the One who sent them. To lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to the One who sent him.

Acts 5 does not prove that the Holy Spirit is God. It only shows that lying to the apostles and to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God. It could very well be because the apostles and the Holy Spirit have been sent by God, and so they represent God.

In my humble opinion, your quoting of Protestant scholar does not bear much weight to this debate. Of course Protestant who believe in sola scriptura would see this verse as supporting a dogma believed by most Christians. I would not expect anything other than that.
They must find this dogma in the scriptures or else either sola scripture of this dogma is discredited.

So my argument is first twofold:

1. This passage at its best only implies that the Holy Spirit is God. It does not pass the muster of being a passage that explicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God.

2. Even as an implication, it can just as easily imply that lying to the apostles is the same as lying to the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is the one who sent them, and lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God since God is the One who sent the Holy Spirit. In fact, I think this is a better interpretation.

I hope my opponent is not resting his whole argument on this passage alone. There are other passages as well, some of them I think are even better than this passage. I noticed in the peanut gallery some other scripture verses were cited that I think would be interesting to look at. It would be unfortunate to pin a dogma embraced by so many Christians on just one passage

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Rebuttal to Opposition Opening Statement:



"Does the Bible substantiate that the Holy Spirit is divine via reasonable interpretation?" That is the question before us. The debate concerns the divinity of the Third Person: I taking the affirmative, Packermann taking the opposition. The issue of our opening statements, then, is did we accomplish the goal: To reveal an affirmative to the question or to reveal a negative. Both of us now have an opportunity to give a rebuttal to the opening statement of the other.



Ironically, the Opposition's opening statement seems to not support an opposition at all, but actually seems to substantially agree with mine! It begins with this stunning admission: "It may be implied, it may even be strongly implied." The issue is: is it a reasonable interpretation from the words of the text that the Holy Spirit is divine? The Opposition begins its Opening Statement by essentially saying, "Yes."

The Opposition Statement is entirely built on the premise that there is a BETTER, MORE reasonable interpretation of the words in the text which denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit and teaches instead that the Holy Spirit is but a representative or messanger of God - as is Peter. Here is the crux of the position: "It could be that the Holy Spirit serves as a messenger of God, and to lie to God's messenger is to lie to God, since the Holy Spirit would be a representative of God. The same could then also be said of the apostles. Since the apostles are ultimately representatives of God, to lie to the apostles is to lie to the one they represent."

My reply:

1. It was never established that the Holy Spirit is a messager or representative of God at all - from this text or any other. It's just put out there as "could be...." It should be noted, if only in passing, that "It could be..." is a violation of our debate. We mutually reject that any possible interpretation ("could be") would be allowed.

2. The Opposition's supposed "more reasonable" alternative interpretation of Acts 5:3-4 is that the Holy Spirit merely REPRESENTS God or is a MESSENGER of God. This was never in any sense supported from the text or anywhere else - it is simply the Opposition's imputed unsubstantiated theory interjected into the text as a "could be." The text says nothing of "represents." Thus, the entire interpretation (and thus Opposition Statement) rests entirely on what the text does NOT say rather than on what it does.

3. The Opposition's "more reasonable" interpretation of Acts 5:3-4 requires that Peter and the Holy Spirit be equated so that what is said of PETER elsewhere may be imputed here to apply to the Holy Spirit. To accomplish this, the Opposition must re-arrange the verses so that verse 8 comes before verse 3 and then verse 4 references also verse 8, thereby indicating that Anaias was lying to BOTH Peter and the Holy Spirit. This is not what the text says. In verse 3, Anaias has not told Peter ANYTHING. To whom has he lied at this point? To the Holy Spirit, we are told; then, in the same sentence, it continues by insisting, "you have lied to God." Textually, who is the ONLY one he has lied to at this point? The Holy Spirit. Thus, "lied to God" can here refer only to the Holy Spirit. The words of the text say Anaias lied to the Holy Spirit (no other is mentioned) and it says he lied to GOD.

The Opposition desired to blend all this with something FIVE VERSES LATER, in another paragraph, in another situation sometime later, with othe characters. In verse 3, Sapphira lies to PETER. But there's NOTHING here about lying to God! There is no connection between Peter in verse 8 in that situation, and with the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and the statement that Anaias had lied to GOD.

For the "more reasonable" interpretation to even be possible (much less, more reasonable), verse 8 would need to be placed before verse 3 and Peter's teaching in verse 4 would need to link to Saphira's lie to him (which textually hadn't happened) with Anias's like to the HOLY SPIRIT. But, indeed, verse 8 follows verse 3 - so the whole basis falls apart. Along with the interpretation. Along with the Opposition Statement.

Again, Acts 5:3-4 says that Anaias lied to the Holy Spirit.... God (see my Affirmative Opening Statement). There's nothing about Anaias lying to Peter and certainly nothing anywhere about Peter being God. The associating of the Holy Spirit with Peter in the text is pure theory ("could be...") without a shred of anything textually to support it. It is not "more reasonable," it is baseless. Now, the Opposition brings forth some Scriptures to suggest that PETER is a non-divine representative of God, but that's entirely moot to the Opposition's entire argument vis-a-vis Acts 5:3-4: that this verse indicates that because PETER is a non-divine representative of God therefore the Holy Spirit is, too. In my Scripture, it's not Peter but the Holy Spirit who is lied to, and that Spirit is NOT referred to as a representative as Peter elsewhere is but as God.

The Opposition's "better, more reasonable" interpretation is nothing more than a jumbling of the order of things and an interjection of an entirely unsubstantiated "could be." It is certainly not textual or reasonable.



The Opposition states, "In the previous verses it says that Ananias and Sapphira deceived the Apostles." No. It says that Anaias lied to the Holy Spirit (NO other is mentioned) and Peter says therefore Anaias lied to God. The Opposition continues, "In verse 8, Sapphira is lying to Peter. So we see that Ananias, Sapphira to three persons - they lied to the Apostles, they lied to the Holy Spirit and they lied to God." No. Read the text. In the first situation, Anaias is stated as lying to the Holy Spirit - God. NO other is mentioned. Later, in a different paragraph and different situation, Sapphira lied to Peter but here there is NO mention whatsoever of God. The entire basis of the Opposition rests on mixing up these situations so that it can somehow put Peter with the Holy Spirit - and thus God. But it is textually baseless. The Opposition: "Now, if we apply the logic that since they all lied to the Holy Spirit and they lied to God then they lied to God, then we would have to be consistent and say that since they lied to the Apostles they lied to God." Again, the "logic" has a false premise - that Anaias and Sapphira BOTH lied to the Holy Spirit AND to Peter and that this was before verse 4 so that BOTH Peter and Holy Spirit are referenced as God. We have shown how this contradicts the text; it is baseless. It is not a better, more reasonable interpretation, it is a baseless one.



In conclusion:

In the Affirmations Opening Statement, it was revealed that even though space permitted a discussion of only one Scripture, reasonable interpretation of the words is that the Holy Spirit is divine.

The Opposition actually essentially yielded the point but then tried to offer an "alternative" interpretation as "more reasonable." As has now been shown, this is nothing more than a pure, unsubstantiated theory ("could be...") interjected into the text with nothing textual to support it. Indeed, it requires a twisting of the order of the verses, a blending of separate instances, and a confusion of declarations. It is not a "better, more reasonable" interpretation of the words of the text, it's not even a pure "could be" as suggested, it is baseless.



This ends my one permitted rebuttal. My sincere prayer is that God will use the Affirmation side here to strengthen faith. My thanks to the Opposition for a polite, articulate and thoughtful presentation, and to the Staff for their serving in making this possible. I look forward to the Opposition's closing rebuttal and then, perhaps, to a discussion in the Peanut Gallery.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[packermann]

My opponent misinterpreted me entirely. First, I said that it MAY be strongly implied. And there may also be unicorns on the moon. My opponent seems to have a problem in understanding the difference between what is possible and what is probable. Anything is possible. BUT, I then went on to say that I believe not strongly implied. On the very next paragraph, I wrote “But even if an implication was valid, I am not so sure it can even be said that the passage strongly implies that the Holy Spirit is God.” So I was not conceding anything.

But I do find it interesting that nowhere did my opponent contest that this is only implied. It is not explicitly taught. This is important. When I made this initial challenge I said the challenge was to prove that the Bible explicitly taught the Holy Spirit is God. Then my opponent was able to water down the challenge so that he only need showed that the Bible indicated that the Holy Spirit is God. I PMed the moderator of my concern, that the title was changed without my approval. The moderator responded back with this:

It will be his burden to prove that the Bible actually does teach it, not just a supposed "implication." If he tries to pull that one, he will be left unaccomplished in this debate.

I thought on what the moderator wrote here. There is something far more important here than who wins a debate. This is not just a game we are playing here. What is important here is the truth! Traditional Protestantism teaches that all our doctrines must be explicitly taught in the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches that all our doctrines must be taught explicitly or implicitly in the Bible. What I hoped to accomplish is that there are some very basic doctrines of Christianity that are not explicitly taught in the Bible – one of them being the deity of the Holy Spirit. This is what was important to me – not whether I won a debate. So, even though I felt that my opponent was being disingenuous to change the title, I decided to let it go. The title was watered down to the point that a strict adherence to the title proves absolutely nothing. The Catholic Church does not dispute that all doctrines can be reasonably interpreted from the Bible to some degree. But traditional Protestantism goes much farther than that – all doctrines must be explicitly taught in the Bible. It cannot just be one of many reasonable interpretations. It must be THE reasonable interpretation.

So by letting my opponent keep the title the way he changed it, he was actually accomplishing my goal! Ironically, he, a Protestant, was then arguing for the Catholic position! He showed that the Holy Sprit is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Which means that there were some doctrines that Christians hold to that are merely implicit in the Bible. And he showed that he himself knows that. Otherwise he would never have watered down the title for this debate


Just so there is no confusion. Here are the dictionary terms:

Implication –
1. something implied or suggested as naturally to be inferred or understood: to resent an implication of dishonesty.
2. the act of implying: His implication of immediate changes surprised us.
3. the state of being implied: to know only by implication.
4. Logic. the relation that holds between two propositions, or classes of propositions, in virtue of which one is logically deducible from the other.
5. the act of implicating: the implication of his accomplices.
6. the state of being implicated: We heard of his implication in a conspiracy.
7. Usually, implications. relationships of a close or intimate nature; involvements: the religious implications of ancient astrology.
implication definition | Dictionary.com

implied –
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment
implied definition | Dictionary.com


explicit –
1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.
6. Mathematics. (of a function) having the dependent variable expressed directly in terms of the independent variables, as y = 3x + 4. Compare implicit (def. 4).
explicit definition | Dictionary.com


Equivocal -
1. allowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or phrase, esp. with intent to deceive or misguide; susceptible of double interpretation; deliberately ambiguous: an equivocal answer.
2. of doubtful nature or character; questionable; dubious; suspicious: aliens of equivocal loyalty.
3. of uncertain significance; not determined: an equivocal attitude.
equivocal definition | Dictionary.com


So for these definitions we see that an implication is something that is implied, something to be inferred (see #1 for implication). It is logically deduced from a proposition (see #4 for implication). The word implied means something that is not directly or explicitly stated. The word explicit mean something that is fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated, leaving nothing merely implied (see #1 for explicit). It is also unequivocal (see # for explicit). The word equivocal means the allowing of different meanings (see #1 for equivocal).

So let’s look at Acts 5. The passage never expressly, directly, or explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is God. That is a deduction from the passage. In the definition for implication, #4, it says that an implication is coming up with a proposition based on the deduction of a proposition. The stated proposition is the they lied to the the Holy Spirit and they lied to God. The deduction from this is that the Holy Sprit is God. This is an implication.

 

[packermann]

Also, my opponent argues that I only gave an alternative interpretation that is only possible. But even if my interpretation is merely reasonably possible, that is enough! An explicit teaching is unequivocal – which allows the possibility of several different meanings. So just this passage being able to be interpreted differently shows that it is equivocal, and if equivocal then it is not explicit, and not if explicit, then it is implied, and if implied it is an implication.

To show what I mean by something being explicit and not an implication, let’s look at the Council of Constaninople in 533-534 AD:

If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema

Canon 5

See how there is no equivocation at all with that verse. There is no possibility to interpret this verse other than that the Holy Ghost along with the Father and the Son makes up the Godhead. It says what it means. There is no room for any other reasonable interpretation.

Now, I am not saying that Protestants do not also have their creeds that explicitly define the Holy Spirit. But even Protestants do not see their creeds as being infallible. By contrast, Catholics (and also the Orthodox) see that the Holy Spirit guided the Councils so that what is taught is infallible as well as explicit.


My opponent said that I never established that Holy Spirit is a messenger or representative of God. Yes I did. I gave this verse:

But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things
John 14:26

This verse says that the Father sent the Holy Spirit in Christ’s name. When someone is sent in a person’s name, does that not mean that he is sent as a representative of that person? So if the Holy Spirit is sent in Christ’s name, that would mean that the Holy Spirit represents Christ, and since Christ is God, that would mean that Holy Spirit is God.

Also, this verse says that the Holy Spirit “shall teach you all things”. If God the Father sent the Holy Spirit to teach, does that not the Holy Spirit a messenger of God?

My opponent argues that I only showed that the my alternate interpretation is mere a more reasonable interpretation. Since when is it a bad thing for one show that his position is more reasonable? The Protestant position is that all doctrine is explicitly taught in the Bible, without any other reasonable interpretation. It matters little to me that giving a more reasonable interpretation violates the “rules of the debate” that he tricked me into. If he wants to say he won the debate for that reason, I am happy for him. But this shows that the Protestant position is untenable. So maybe my opponent won the debate, but he won it for the wrong team. He won it for Catholicism.

As the moderator informed me, “It will be his burden to prove…” . The burden of proof fell on him, not on me, if he meant to show that Protestantism was the truth over Catholicism. That means that if I can come up with a reasonable alternative, then that proves that sola scriptura is untenable.


It is like a criminal trial. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. If the defense shows that a reasonable alternative is possible then the prosecution did not make its case. If the defense can show that it is reasonably possible that some one else could have committed the crime, then prosecution did not make the case. Even if is more likely that the accused did the crime than not, the jury should find the accused not guilt, because they must find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what it means to have the burden proof.

But my opponent is trying to turn the tables. He is trying to make the burden of proof fall on me, instead of on him. He writes “The Opposition's "better, more reasonable" interpretation is nothing more than a jumbling of the order of things and an interjection of an entirely unsubstantiated "could be." So according to my opponent, it not enough for me to even have a more reasonable interpretation. So then, I can only assume that he feels that I must prove his position is wrong! But if that is the case, then the burden of proof would be on me, not on him. And yet how do I prove a negative? I cannot prove that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is not God anyone that I can prove that the Bible teaches that unicorns do not exist!

My opponent then comments on my use of verse 8.I am not assuming verse 8 came before verse 3. I am saying that verse 8 indicates in retrospect what happened before verse 3. It is just using logic. Saphira lied to Peter in verse 8. It just does make any sense at all that she would lie unless she knew that her husband lied also. She would look pretty foolish to lie after Ananias told the truth. She must have been confident that her lie would be undetected. She could only have assumed that if she and her husband conspired beforehand that they were going to deceive the apostles. Actually, I think it is so obvious that they lied to the apostles and whole church, that I am surprised that my opponent disputes this. How else did they lie to the Holy Spirit? Does anyone out there really believe that they were honest to the apostles and to the church, but somehow they lied to the Holy Spirit? How does one even do that? Did the tell the Holy Spirit one thing and the apostles something other? Did they whisper in Peter’s ear and tell him the truth but told him to keep it quiet because they were trying to pull a fast one on the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is spirit. How do you exclusively lie to a spirit?

Not only that but you also have verse 4 – “you have not lied to men, but to God”. On the surface, this may seem to support my opponent’s argument. They did not lie to the apostles at all, only to God. But that is not what it really is saying. If Peter said “you have not lied to men” because they actually did not lie to the apostles, that would be a totally meaningless statement. It only makes sense if Ananias and Saphira intended to deceive the apostles. They thought it was no big deal, they were just lying to mere men. But Peter was basically saying “You may think that what you did was a minor thing, because you thought you were just lying to us. But you were not really lying to us, you were lying to God”. To understand it that way explains why Peter would say it. He said that they really did not lie to men but to God because they thought they were just lying to men and not to God.

But my opponent may argue that it does not say “you have lied to men, but more so to God”. Instead, Peter said “you have not lied to men”, meaning they have not lied at all. This is a problem with us reading something that was written in a totally different culture. The Jews would often talk in black and white, even when they meant shades of gray. For instance, King David once had committed adultery with Urriah’s wife, and then had Urriah killed. When Nathan the prophet confronted David about this, David repented and prayed to God for forgiveness. He prayed “Against you, you only, have I sinned”. He just committed adultery with Urriah’s wife, and had Urriah killed! Did he not commit some wrong against Urriah? Yes. David was saying that he did not do anything wrong to Urriah. He most definitely did wrong him. But what meant by saying “Against You, you only, have I sinned” is that ultimately the one he really sinned was God. It was God whom he ultimately offend. In the same way, in Acts 5:4, Peter is not saying that they did not lie against the apostles. What he is saying is that when they lied to the apostles, they really lied to God.

 

[packermann]

I noticed my opponent saying this before the debate started in the Peanut Gallery:

Anyway, either he agrees that I've presented Scriptures that support the divinity of the Holy Spirit via a "reasonable" interpretation - or not, so his counter may just be "no" and that will end the "debate." I suspect it will be up to the readers whether I succeed or not.

It seems to me that all my opponent thought he was going to do was to present A reasonable interpretation of scripture that the Holy Spirit is God. It did not have to be the ONLY reasonable interpretation. It did not even had to the MOST reasonable interpretation. In other words, he only needed to show that it is reasonably possible. And he expected me to offer no reasonable alternative, since he in his view only needed to show that his interpretation is reasonable. I would just respond with a “no”. Wow! That would have been a very short debate. No wonder he only felt two rounds was only necessary. After all, how many ways could I find just to write “no”? No reasonable alternatives were acceptable on my part, according to my opponent.


So what if my opponent showed that the there can be A reasonable way to interpret the Bible that the Holy Spirit is God? I never disputed that in the first place. Sure, the Bible CAN be interpreted in a way to show that the Holy Spirit is God. But that is not good enough! This is a basic doctrine of all Christians! We should not be satisfied that is just reasonably possible that this is true. It must be categorically, undeniably true! Not my opponent not only failed to prove this, he did not attempt to prove it. Instead, he was content to merely show that it is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more than that. He had the opportunity to show us that sola scriptura works – that one can take a basic doctrine of Christianity and show that this doctrine can be explicitly and unequivocally supported from the Bible alone. But instead, he showed us the exact opposite – that the Bible alone does not explicitly and unequivocally teach a basic doctrine. He did not even bother to try to prove this.

This was something I learned at my Protestant seminary. It was a conservative, interdenominational seminary – Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. It is ironic that my biggest attack on my faith was not from atheists, or secular humanists, or liberals, but from this conservative seminary. Being interdenominational, the seminary had professors and students from all different denominations with different doctrine, and they are could use the Bible to support their positions. There was a joke about our seminary. Pastors who graduated from our seminary preached “This is what the Bible says in this verse!” , but instead said “Well, there are five different ways that theologians interpreted this verse.” My faith was shaken tremendously. If the Bible was so clear, why were there so many different interpretations of the Bible by sincere people who loved God?

This is what I wanted to show in this debate. I wanted to show that even a very basic doctrine such as the Holy Spirit cannot be proven by the Bible unequivocally. We need more that the Bible in order to know that this is true. We need the tradition of the Church. We need the Councils throughout the history, such as the Council of Constaninople. But in order to do that, we must be courageous enough to look critically at the doctrine of sola scripture. I know as a Protestant it was hard for me to let go of sola scripture – to me it was security blanket. But my seminary experience made me realize that I could no longer rely on it. So fearfully, I started to investigate this doctrine.

It is through this the Bible and tradition that we receive the truth. In fact, without tradition, we do not have the Bible. We do not have any of the original new Testament documents. We only have copies, and copies of the originals. A scribe made a hand-written copy of the New Testament. In the next generation an unknown scribe makes a copy of that copy. And so on, and so on. So the Bible itself is part of tradition. Tradition is the passing on of one tradition to another. Copies of the Bible also passed through tradition. So if we do not believe in the accuracy of tradition, then we cannot even be that Bible we read is the same as the Bible that was originally written. If the Church tradition corrupted the gospel of Christ, why should we then trust the Bible? How do we know that the Church did not corrupt the Bible also when it transcribed all those copies?

All of this made me realize the value of tradition. And the earliest tradition showed a deep reverence of the Councils of the Church and the Roman bishop, later called the pope, which made up the Magisterium.

The Bible teaches us all the doctrine that we need to know explicitly OR implicitly. My opponent himself seems to concede this point by his watering down the goals of this debate. When I presented another reasonable interpretation, it mattered little to him how many ways the passage can be interpreted, as long as his interpretation was listed as one of them. That means that some doctrines can only be reasonably interpreted from the Bible among other equally reasonable interpretations of the Bible. So how do we know which reasonable interpretation is the right one? That is why we need the tradition and the magisterium of the Church, to guide us to the only true interpretation. If not, we will make truth relative to our own interpretations. We will exchange “Thus saith the Lord!” to “Well, let’s see. There are five different ways we can interpret this passage.”