You are on page 1of 96

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 1 of 96

Dixon-Olson Debate on the Doctrine of the Trinity

Resolved: The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy Spirit" is another name for God the Father. Conducted online at the Yahoo Group RelgiousDebates < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Religiousdebates/msearch?query=Dixon&submit=Search&chars et=windows-1252>

Between Danny Andr Dixon, M.A. and Dr. L. Olson

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 2 of 96

November 5, 2007 to January 18, 2008

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 3 of 96 Table of Contents Mr. Dixons First Affirmative .. 3 Dr. Olsons First Negative .. 9 Mr. Dixons Second Affirmative .... 16 Dr. Olsons Second Negative .. 32 Mr. Dixons Third Affirmative ... 50 Dr. Olsons Third Negative 68

__________________________________________ Dr. Olsons First Affirmative 80

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 4 of 96 This is part one of a debate on the Trinity between Danny Dixon and Dr. L. Olson. This debate is NOT complete inasmuch as it was originally intended to switch after what you will read to another debate of equal length that would have Dr. Olson taking the affirmative side. I withdrew from the debate after the first part was finished because I felt that there were ungentlemanly tactics used by Dr. Olson, not the least of which was the fact that Olson brought up many new arguments in his last presentation of Part One. Dr Olson does make his first affirmative in discussing the topic from the other point of view to which, to date, I have not responded. Mr. Dixons First Affirmative Greetings, Moderator, distinguished list subscribers, and polemical opponent brother Larry Bunch. My name is Danny Andr Dixon, I am a 1981 and 1984 graduate of Abilene Christian University. I spent about 10 years in various ministries in different congregations from Virginia to California working as a youth minister, college minister, or pulpit minister. I am presently a schoolteacher of English Language Arts and English as a Second Language in southwest Texas. My present views regarding the Trinity began probably around 2001 and have developed to their present expression. I am happy to debate the following topic with Lloyd Olson: Resolved: The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy Spirit" is another name for God the Father. Authority I accept as final authority in this debate the Christian Scriptures which are what we know as the Old Testament 39 books and the New Testament 27 books. I observe, in saying this, that these Scriptures are true in their original manuscripts and that we have every good reason to accept the progress of modern scholarship to provide significant developments in ascertaining what that text was and ought to be from the Septuagint and Masoretic text of Hebrew and Aramaic portions for the Old Testament. I accept the New Testament text as represented in the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. I believe that some passages and words are legitimately debatable, and due consideration should be given to scholarly discussion of what we read in the Bible as regards texts, exegesis, and hermeneutics (interpretation). Definitions

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 5 of 96 While many perspectives regarding the nature of God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit have developed over the ages, it is the typical view held in most churches that God is a trinityone God in three persons, or as stated in our resolution, three persons in one essence. These are philosophically "loaded" terms and do not necessarily mean what one would expect them to based on a casual consideration of the words. I would not limit my opponent Larry to thinking that "person" means a separate individual, which could lead to the idea that there are three different fellows who are all three God (three Gods). Nor is it important to me that we quibble much over the word "trinity." Given the brevity of space and speeches we have been allowed, I think it would be fair to say that the primary consideration in the discussion has to do with Jesus and whether he is equal in essence or "God-ness" with the Father. In saying that Jesus is 100% man and 0% God, I am denying that Jesus has a dual nature and is a God-man. Furthermore, I do not believe that Jesus is a Jekyll-Hyde schizophrenic who is sometimes is this and sometimes that. Essentially I am affirming that Jesus had his beginning as a person like you and me when he was miraculously brought into being in the womb of Mary; that he had no existence as an indiviual prior to that time; and that he is a literal descendent of David, king of Israel, through his lineage in Mary as his mother. I also maintain that his miraculous cominginto-being is not explained in Scripture except inasmuch as we read in Luke 1:35 that God's Holy Spirit (or holy spirit) caused Jesus to be conceived in the womb of his virgin mother Additionally, there is one individual who is God. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one and only one person described as Israel's Lord. He is the one Jesus spoke of in Mark 12:28ff, when he was asked by a scribe to identify the greatest commandment. He is Jehovah (or Yahweh), the one Lord (Adonai), who requires the love's fullness from our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. He is identified by Jesus honestly, who affirmed the Father's oneness without his fingers crossed behind his back in some sort of trick affirmation. Regarding what we would observe from Scripture about the Father, he is identified as follows: 1.The only God , according to Jesus in John 5:44 2.The only true God , according to Jesus in John 17:3 3.The one God who is the Father, says Paul in distinguishing the Father as one God from the one who is the one Lord, Jesus the Messiah in 1 Corinthians 8:6

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 6 of 96 4.The one God who, after Jesus is subjected to him after Christ's last enemy Death is destroyed, will be "all in all," says Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:25-28. 5.The one God and Father who, in distinction from the one Lord Jesus, is the one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all, according to Paul in Ephesians 4:5. 6.The one God who is above mankind who have a mediator between them and Godone of their own kind, the man Jesus, says Paul in 1 Timothy 2:5. The Son of God We ought very carefully to consider what it means to say that Jesus is the "Son of God." The biblical evidence will demonstrate that, "Son of God" often significantly means that Jesus is God's Ultimate Messianic King. And while it means other things as well, it does NOT mean that he is God the Son. On one occasion, king David told Nathan the prophet that he wanted to build God a permanent temple to replace the movable tabernacle. Nathan explains to him that this is not God's will for him, but that God would establish an eternal kingly dynasty from among David's descendants: The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever (2 Samuel 7:11b-16, emphasis added). The Eternal Dynasty Explained We see here that God purposed to establish a human dynasty, and that, while David had wanted to build a temple for God, the Lord had decided that not David, but David's son would do this (2 Chronicles 17:4ff). Second, notice that a succession of kings in Israel would begin with David's family. It would be an eternal dynasty of David's descendants, and whoever was the sitting king in this dynasty would be called, God said, "my son." This began with Solomon and was preserved in the kingly lineage of David's descendants right down to the last King in the

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 7 of 96 dynasty, God's final Son, Jesus the Christ (or Messiah). As the writer of Hebrews pointed out, although in former days he had spoken in the world giving his word to the various prophets, "in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the ages" (Hebrews 1:2). Beginning with David and continuing on, particularly down through time with the good kings that he blessed and even in the evil kings in David's dynasty whom he preserved, God showed his willingness to carry out his will through his appointed and anointed leaders in Israel, those who sat as his kings. It is through these kings that many statements that we have come to identify as messianic prophecies are applied in a fuller and final sense to the last Anointed One Jesus of Nazareth. Sometimes the most amazing things are said about those human kings. Sometimes some of the most amazing biblical designations are given to those kings. Sometimes the most amazing deference is shown toward those kings. And while there is no direct biblical reference comparing Joseph to those kings and to Jesus, one cannot help but notice that the language is significant and may accurately be used to describe the prerogatives that God assigned to his Anointed One. As Pharaoh says to Joseph after the son of Jacob correctly interpreted his dreams predicting the next 14 years of Egypt's history: "Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt" (Genesis 41:39-41). So Jesus is God's appointed agent, who is like Joseph who ruled in every way except with regard to the final authority of the throne that Pharaoh reserved for himself. How is this so? A. As did Israel's royalty of old, Jesus accepted the prostration of men before him (proskuneo, 1 Chronicles 29:20, see the Septuagint, hereinafter LXX). B. As was said of kings in the Davidic dynasty, appellations of absolute deity are ascribed to God's Anointed: 1. The human king, called God by Jehovah, is said to have an eternal throne as is Jesus (Psalm 45:6; Hebrews 1:8). 2. The human king, called Lord by Jehovah, is said to have established the foundations of the earth as is Jesus (Psalm 102:25; Hebrews 1:10-12).

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 8 of 96 3. Just as the Father was honored, so should honor be laid before the Son (John 5:23). 4. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to the Son (Matthew 28:18). Nothing needs to be given to God (Psalm 50:10ff). 5. God has made Jesus both Lord and Messiah."(Acts 2:36) 6. Again, God has GIVEN the authority of divine prerogatives including the ability to forgive sins (Matthew 9:2-8); to receive prayer (John 14:13-14); to be worshipped (latreuo, Revelation 22:3). 7. Even so, according to plan, all that authority that the Son, a man, received as an honor from the Father, will be relinquished back to the Father, after Death, the Messiah's last enemy, is destroyed (cf. John 5:22-23; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28). Bottom line, Jesus has great power because he is God's appointed representative, given even miraculous prerogatives and authority simply because he is God's Anointed "Son," a designation that had a beginning ("You are my Son; today I have become your Father," Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33), and that will have an end when God the Father will be all in all with Christ Jesus subjected to him (1 Corinthians 15:27-28). For now, The Almighty Lord Jehovah (ASV) has had the lesser one known as "my Lord" sit at his right hand until all this is accomplished (Psalm 110:1). Jesus did sit down at God's right hand (Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34-35), and as Lord and Christ he rules the present expression of the kingdom of God into which the saved have been transferred (Colossians 1:13). Jesus Has A God Finally, for this presentation, I would affirm that Jesus is not God because he has a God, something that is not true of the Father. In John 17:3, Jesus refers to the Father as "the only true God." This should clearly set out for a careful observer that such makes perfect sense since with other passages which speak of Jesus as having a God, with no suggestion that the Father has a God. Romans 15:6 speaks of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3). The Father of glory is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:17; cf. Colossians 1:3). It is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has caused us to be begotten again, or born again (1 Peter 1:3). There is no way to avoid the distinguishing of one from another as two separate beings.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 9 of 96 Additionally, consider Jesus' announcement to Mary Magdalene: that he will ascend to the Father: "'I ascend [not "return" as mistranslated in the NIV] to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God" (John 20:17). To the extent that Mary had a God, the resurrected Jesus had a God. I look forward to Lloyd's First Negative presentation. Respectfully, Danny Andr Dixon

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 10 of 96

Dr. Olson's First Negative Greetings to the forum members, the moderators, and Mr. Dixon. I am a very conservative evangelical who believes in the total sufficiency of Jesus Christ. I've debated on this forum several times against those who would deny the total sufficiency of Jesus Christ in favor of human-centered water baptism and self-righteous obedience schemes. I hold a Ph.D. from Trinity College & Seminary. My book on Eternal Security will be offered to the public November 20th this year. I am a cost analyst with the Department of the Army, Program Executive Office for Space and Missiles. I'm happily married w 5 children and 7 grands. I hope to retire in 4 years. Mr. Dixon proposed the following: The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy Spirit" is another name for God the Father. However, he failed to address the aspect of the Holy Spirit as another name for God the Father. This unaddressed phrase should be deleted from the proposition unless he wishes to resign now for failure to support the original proposition. NEW PROPOSAL: The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God. Outline of Dr. Olson's first negative: I. Methodology II. Son of God III. Jehovah IV. The One True God. V. Mediator VI. Jesus and the Jews VII. Nica: Jesus and Redemption VIII. Conclusion I. Methodology

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 11 of 96 Mr. Dixon made a catastrophic mistake in his first affirmative. Given that orthodoxy holds that Jesus is both human and divine, much of Mr.Dixon's first affirmative was wasted in affirming the orthodox position of Jesus' humanity. However, affirming that Jesus is human is no proof that Jesus is not Himself true God. Mr. Dixon says that Jesus is God's chosen representative. This is a worthless proof for it is affirmed by every mainline denomination. It is no proof that Jesus is not Himself true God. That Mr. Dixon can find passages where Jesus claims God as His Father only shows Jesus as a fully functioning representative of humanity. This is yet another invalid argument. It is no proof that Jesus is not Himself true God. Mr. Dixon can find many passages where fully human Jesus talks as a human, is described as human, and acts as a human. None of these are legitimate proofs that Jesus is not Himself true God. Mr. Dixon wasted much of his first affirmative with statements affirming the orthodox position of Jesus' humanity. Affirmations of Jesus' humanity are not compelling proofs that Jesus is not Himself true God. Mr. Dixon has failed to provide biblical statements showing that Jesus is not true God. Proving Jesus is fully human is not a defensible proof that Jesus is not God. II. Son of God. That Mr. Dixon can show that the title "Son of God" is related to the Messianic Jesus is affirmed by every mainline denomination. It is no proof that Jesus is not Himself true God. Furthermore, Mr. Dixon's comments only show his deplorable lack of understanding of this key phrase. The Psalmist (Ps 2:7) points to the legitimate Davidic king who would one day be the Messiah. Thus the words "Today I have begotten You" speak of the day of coronation of King Jesus. It has nothing to do with the temporal begetting of procreation. Jesus is not a created being. The NT refers to Christ's exaltation via the resurrection to show that He truly was the "Son of God" (our Lord) as Paul declares in Romans 1:4. In addition, Mr. Dixon apparently does not understand that the phrase "son of" also carries the meaning "of the order of." Thus, "sons of the prophets" is a reference to the order of prophets (I Kings 20:35) and "sons of singers" means the order of the singers (Neh 12:28). The "Son of God" when used of Jesus refers to the order of God and is a strong clear claim to full deity.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 12 of 96 [Bible.org] III. JEHOVAH Mr. Dixon is confused about the identity of JEHOVAH. The title JEHOVAH (Yahweh) is translated as "LORD" (all caps) in most English Bibles. It is quite different from Adonai which is translated as "Lord" (lower case). Mr. Dixon's case is destroyed if we find any one passage where the title JEHOVAH is applied to Jesus Christ Application #1. Thus saith JEHOVAH the King of Israel, and his redeemer JEHOVAH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isa 44:6 How can there be two JEHOVAH'S?? <with> I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. . . . I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Rev 1:8,11 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. . . . I am the root and offspring of David. Rev 22:13,16 Application #2. JEHOVAH is my shepherd. Ps 23:1 <with> Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep. Heb 13:20 I am the good shepherd. John 10:11 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. I Pet 5:4 Application #3. Isaiah was in distress for his eyes saw "the King, JEHOVAH of hosts." Isa 6:5. Yet John, referring to this very passage, writes of Jesus: "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him." (John 12:41, cf Isa 6:9-10). Application #4. Jeremiah introduces a new name for God: "JEHOVAH our righteousness." (Jer 23:6) Context shows that this is a Messianic prophecy. God will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King over Israel. Clearly, Jesus is this human King who is none other than JEHOVAH.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 13 of 96 Application #5. "I, even I, am JEHOVAH; and beside me there is no Savior." Isa 43:11 Paul applies the name God and Savior both to Jesus Christ. "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13. In Greek grammar, this verse is a rare application of the Granville Sharp rule [Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 272]. There is no doubt that both "God" and "Savior" are applied to Jesus Christ. This is not a double reference: one to God and a second to Jesus. Application #6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6 Although this is not technically related to JEHOVAH, it is a most amazing prophecy. The child can be none other than Jesus for the very next verse speaks of His earthly father David. Yet look at the names and titles ascribed to this child! Note especially that He is called "the everlasting Father!" Certainly the phrase "the everlasting Father" is far stronger than a reference to JEHOVAH. This is one of the strongest passages affirming Christ's full equality with the Father. Conclusion: Any one of these applications of JEHOVAH in the OT to Jesus in the NT is sufficient to demolish Mr. Dixon's heresy. I've presented six such passages and there are many more such applications. Clearly, Mr. Dixon does not know Who JEHOVAH is. As a result he has violated these passages by redefining terms to support his heresy. IV. Declarations of the One True God. Mr. Dixon claims to accept the Christian Scriptures. Why does he not accept the biblical declarations that Jesus is the One True God? 1. John's epistle: And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (I John 5:20)

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 14 of 96 2. Thomas' declaration: My Lord and my God. (John 20:28) If Jesus were but a human representative, He should have chastised Thomas for this. But as fully God, Jesus accepted Thomas' worship. 3. Jesus' declaration to Satan: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Matt 4:7 4. Jesus' declaration to Philip: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9 5. Stephen's declaration: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Acts 7:59 6. Peter's preaching: The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: He is Lord of all. Act 10:36 7. The angel's: Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. (Rev 4:8) Refer also to Rev 1:8 where the Almighty is also called the Alpha and Omega and it turns out to be none other than Jesus Christ! V. Mediator Mr. Dixon claims that Jesus, our mediator, is "the man Jesus" pointing to 1 Tim 2:5. In this he is again but half right. It is orthodoxy's proud declaration that Jesus is 100% human and fully qualified to represent us before God in mediation. There is no dispute here. But that Jesus is a human representative in the mediation process is no proof that He is not God. Furthermore, Mr. Dixon has confused what a mediator really is. "The perfection of a mediator is measured by his influence with the parties he has to reconcile, and this power flows from his connection with both" [Catholic Encyclopedia]. Thus, Mr. Dixon has failed to see that as Mediator, Christ must also be fully divine in order to represent God in the process of mediation.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 15 of 96 While a human can represent other humans, no human can represent God in mediation. Please don't confuse a mediator with a prophet. A prophet can only speak for God. A prophet can never mediate with God on behalf of humans. The only person qualified to mediate with God must be fully God Himself. Mr. Dixon only sees in scripture the parts that seem to support his heresy. He is blind to the parts that support orthodoxy. VI. Jesus and the Jews. Jesus declared that He and His Father "are one" (John 10:30). The Jews around Jesus fully understood that to which Mr. Dixon is blind. They knew that His amazing claim made Him fully equal to God and thus made Himself God. They took up stones to kill Him for this apparent blasphemy (v31). For Jesus to say, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36) was understood by the Jews of His day as His claim to equality with the Father, in an unqualified sense. Every doctrine supports every other doctrine in theology. When the phrase "Son of God" is perverted then other perversions necessarily arise. VII. Nica: Jesus and Redemption. Mr. Dixon's position is not new to Church history. His position is a repeat of the heresy proposed by Arius (250-336) where he claimed that Jesus was the Father's first fiat. This heresy was denounced by the Council of Nica (325). The outstanding spokesperson against Arius was Athanasius who showed that the real issue was redemption in Christ; i.e. salvation. Since only a divine mediator could reestablish fellowship with God, the rescue from sin could only be done by God Himself. The council's statement read as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten Son, first-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousias) of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten (gennthenta), not made (oupoiggenta), of one substance (homoousion) with the Father, through whom also all things came to be, those things that are in heaven and those things that are on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and was made man, suffered, rose the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 16 of 96 Note how the creed denounced Arius' and Dixon's heresy. First, the creed inserted the phrase "Son of God" to show that Jesus was "of the order" of God not that He was a created being. Second, the creed used "ousias" to show that Jesus was of the same substance of the Father. Third, the creed used "homoousion" (same substance) not "homoeousion" (similar substance) to show absolute equality with the Father. The two words "ousias" and "homoousion" covered every conceivable way to visualize the relationship. Fourth, the creed contrasted "begotten" with "made" to denounce any attempt to make Jesus a created being. Fifth, the creed showed that our salvation depends on a fully divine Jesus who will come to judge the living and the dead. VIII. Conclusion: Negatively, Mr. Dixon has embarked upon an insufficient method of proof. Since he agrees with orthodoxy about the humanity of Jesus, any references to Jesus as human are invalid arguments for this proposition. Positively, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the True God. He is to be worshipped as God, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Jehovah of the OT and the everlasting Father. The NT clearly declares Jesus to be fully God and fully equal to God the Father. He is the only qualified mediator between God and humanity because He is both God and humanity. No mere human can mediate with God. The Council of Nica condemned Arius, burned his books, banned him from his position of authority, and banned his supporters from their positions. We, today, should do no less to this well-known heresy! Thus, the mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically CORRECT since Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. May Jesus be the totality, center and sufficiency of our worship and theology! Dr. Olson

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 17 of 96

Mr. Dixons Second Affirmative Fraternal regards to the forum members, moderators, and Dr. Olson. I respectfully decline Dr. Olson's suggestion that we adopt a new proposal. I am confident of his ability to respond to my choice to develop my affirmative case as I wish, particularly as regards the Holy Spirit. Markedly, as Christendom developed the doctrine of the Trinity over time, post New Testament church fathers fail to say anything about the Spirit being an individual within the godhead. Even the last paragraph of the Nicene Creed, which says, "I believe . . . in the Holy spirit, the Lord and giver of life; who proceeds from the Father; who with the father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets" did not have these words until 381 A.D., some 56 years after the original creed. Note some interesting facts: 1.The Scriptures do not speak of the Holy Spirit, as a separate entity as being pTrayed to or worshipped. 2.The Scriptures do not speak of the Holy Spirit being praised in songs. 3.The Scriptures do not have the Holy Spirit send his personal greetings with those of the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to the churches when the apostles write their letters. 4.The Scriptures do not give the Holy Spirit a personal name. 5.The last book of Bible, Revelation does not give the Holy Spirit a seat of authority on the final throne, notwithstanding "the seven Spirits who are before His throne" (Rev. 1:4), which can easily be seen metaphorically as "seven lamps of fire burning before the throne" (Rev. 4:5), to the seven horns and seven eyes of the Lamb who had been slain (Rev. 5:6). There is Hebrew background to demonstrate that Jesus is the Spirit-anointed Messiah who was spoken of in the Old Testament. Isaiah prophesies that the Messiah would have a seven-fold anointing when the Spirit of Jehovah rests on him, producing (1) wisdom, (2) understanding, (3) counsel, (4) strength, (5) knowledge, (6) righteousness and (7) the fear of the Jehovah (Isa. 11:2). Disappointingly, Dr. Olson seems to accept creedal authority to decide right doctrine. Readers here should be impressed that Trinitarian doctrine has no unbroken history from the time of the apostles, down through history. And Dr. Olson assumes too much when he describes my position as "a repeat of the heresy proposed by Arius (250-336 [A.D.]) where he claimed that Jesus was the Father's first fiat" and that "this heresy was denounced by the Council of Nicea

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 18 of 96 (325)." Christians are not bound by the prerogative of church councils, where there was anything but consistency to the doctrines decided especially with regard to the Trinity. Note the following events: 1.328Constantine recalled Arius from exile in Illyria. 2.335Constantine sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius (Dr. Olson's "outstanding spokesperson against Arius") to Trier. 3.336The eastern bishops met at Constantinople with the emperor present in a fourth council since Arius returned from exile to declare his theology orthodox. 4.337The new Emperor Constantius orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria where he had been bishop. 5.339Athanasius flees Alexandria having learned his is about to be expelled as a heretic. 6.341In two councils held in Antioch at that time, the First, Second and Third Arian Confessions are written attempting to create a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed. 7.343At the Council of Sardica, eastern bishops demand the removal of Athanasius 8.346Athanasius is restored to Alexandria. 9.351A council is held at Aries during autumn that is directed against Athanasius. 10. 355A council is held in Milan which again condemns Athanasius. 11. 356Athanasius is deposed on February 8 and begins his third exile. 12. 357The Third Council of Sirmium is convened where it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate son. 13. 359The council of Seleucia affirms that Christ is like the father without specifying how the Son is like the Father. 14. 361A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' position. 15. 380Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the Empire. 16. 381The First Council of Constantinople reviews the controversy since Nicea, reevaluates and accepts the Nicene Creed adding clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 19 of 96 Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire records the confused, but honest, statement by Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, who wrote: Every year, nay, every moon we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin.[1] Church history on demonstrates that the Trinitarian side won at the end of the day, not because they were right, but because, in due time, they were able to punish dissenters with the secular sword which enforced ecclesiastical prerogatives. As in a school yard brawl, the bigger theological boy won, got to root out and destroy any influences to the contrary, and on the basis of fear, down through history truth was suppressed on pain of being roasted at the stake. The Holy Spirit The Old Testament makes it difficult to hold up the idea of God's Spirit being a distinct member of a godhead. We can see that it is God's power or his active force that proceeds from him and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7). When, for instance, we read that "the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul" (1 Sam. 16:14), we can understand that "the Lord" had departed from Saul (1 Sam. 18:12). Also in Isaiah 30:1 and 40:13 "My Spirit" and "the Spirit of the Lord" equate with "I"the Lord. "The Spirit = "the hand of the Lord" in Ezekiel 3:14; 8:1-3; 37:1. Certainly it is easy enough to see passages like this, and other places (Gen. 1:2 where "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters" or " or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters"), and assume, based on centuries of preconditioning, that such passages are talking about the Spirit as an individual apart from the Father. But such passages do not have to bee seen that way, and make equal or better sense not to do so. The parallelism in Psalm 139:7 is telling and defining: Where can I go from Your Spirit? / Or where can I flee from Your presence?" The writer understands the Spirit to be the presence of the God, not another person who is a member of a divine godhead. Such a thought was foreign to the Jews. Additionally, consider how carefully Luke chooses his words in three significant passages that show how spirit and power are interchangeable terms: First, John the Baptist will go as a forerunner before the Messiah "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). Second, when the

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 20 of 96 Son of God is conceived the angel tells Mary that "holy spirit [there is no article in the Greek before the word "holy"] and the power of the Most High will over shadow you" (Luke 1:35). And third, when Jesus announces the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost he says that he intends to send forth the promise of my Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). "Spirit of God," in one passage, is replaced by "the finger of God" in the synoptic parallel passage (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20). Is the "finger of God" adequate to describe a person? There's no need to consider the Spirit as a distinct and separate person. The simpler description or explanation that Paul gives is sufficient; he compares God's Spirit or the Spirit of God with the spirit of man. In 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11 he compares the activity of this with the way a man considers his inner thoughts and awareness:"The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God," and "Who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of a man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God". If the spirit of man is to his own thoughts as the Spirit of God is to his own thoughts, there is no need to see any separation of persons. Holy Spirit is God's own thoughts and intelligence in a passage like this. Even John's gospel speaking of the Holy Spirit as another "comforter" does not automatically suggest the presence or existence of another person. While the Greek word in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 uses the Greek parakletos a masculine word in Greek, there is no necessity of making the assumption that it should be translated as he, especially given the fact that the Spirit is given the neuter term auto (John 14: 17: "It" [The world, masc. kosmos] does not see it (him)"; "You know it(him) because it(he) remains with you." In John 15:26 we find that the Helper (Greek masculine, parakletos) is identified as "the Spirit [Greek neuter, to pneuma] "of truth which [ASV and Greek neuter, ho] proceeds from the Father, that one [Greek masc., ekeinos] shall bear witness of me," Jesus says.[2]. Although the Greek in the passage does not, textually speaking, require a view of the Spirit as a "person, there is also no reason to think of the Spirit as some sort of non-personal Star Wars type "Force" because there is sufficient reason to see that the Spirit belongs to a personal being, and it is an extension of the inward and personal heart of God. As one writer has put it: Knowing nothing of later dogma, Paul freely interchanges "spirit" and "mind," thus giving us an apostolic definition of the Holy Spirit. "Who has known the mind [Greek, nous]

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 21 of 96 of the Lord, or who became His counselor?" (Rom. 11:34). The Hebrew text Paul is quoting reads "Who has directed the spirit [Heb. ruah] of the Lord?" (Isa. 40:13) . . .[3] The Spirit of God is God's Spirit. It is thusly God himself, just a man's spirit is the man himself. Dr. Olson's Verses Dr. Olson seems to think I have erred catastrophically since I have gone contrary to the socalled orthodoxy that Jesus is both human and divine. He repeats the phrase "the orthodox position of Jesus' humanity" as if it were some unbroken thread understood in Christendom from New Testament times onward. The only evidence that he seems to have suggested exists outside the New Testament is that the Council of Nicea declared Arius a heretic. It will be interesting to see how he will define what makes a council's decrees authoritative. Next he will have to explain why the authoritative councils that determined what was orthodox were inconsistent. What made the decisions laid down in the council of 325, and the amended council of 381 any more correct than those decisions made by councils at Constantinople in 336, in Antioch in 341 and 361, at Sardica in 343, in Sirmium in 351 and 357, at Aries in 353, at Milan in 355, or at Seleucia in 359? Bottom line, the councils, particularly the final ones, had behind them the authority of the club or the sword, not the authority of God. And the ecclesiastical bodies, wielding human authority could bully anyone they wanted. I was not affirming the human-decided position of Jesus' humanity. I was affirming what the Scriptures teach. And while I am grateful that Dr. Olson agrees with Scripture on these points, he, in ignoring the exclusivity of the wording of the passages I have presented, has failed to explain away the force of them in support of the concept. Jesus uses unequivocal language to express the unique position of God. In John 5:44, Jesus acknowledges the Father as "the only God" or as the NRSV renders it, "the one who alone is God." The language is very clear also in John 17:3. Paul doesn't use any language that is questionable when he says, with respect to God's dispensation of things spiritually, that there is one God and one Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5; that Jesus will be ultimately subordinated to God when Death is destroyed; and that it is the mannot the God-manJesus the Messiah who is the mediator between God and man in 1 Timothy 2:5. Again, Dr. Olson does not challenge the truth of these passages. He just would prefer to assume that they mean more than they say. And how does he prove this? Does he exegete these texts and demonstrate that there is more in them than there appears to be? No? He

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 22 of 96 says, simply, that I have failed to show "that Jesus is not true God." On the contrary, it is most compelling when the testimony of Scripture is, in clear and uncontested texts, that there is only one God, one true God, and that Jesus is a man who stands between God and man. With respect to wording that is similar to that which I used, he would have us believe that there are various passages that prove that Jesus is the One True God. 1 John 5:20 Dr. Olson's 1 John 5:20 fails. First, while Dr. Olson joins many Trinitarians who claim that the final sentence in the verse, "This is the true God," refers to Jesus Christ, there are a number of scholars who do not. I am not sure why he believes that it cannot be seen any other way. Perhaps it is because of the proximity of the pronoun "this" to the closest noun "Jesus Christ." But if we let that determine our meaning we could find ourselves in a questionable theological position given a passage like Acts 4:10-11, which is similarly structured: Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This [houtos] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner" (KJV). If "This" in the last sentence refers to the closest noun or pronoun, then the man who was healed is actually the stone rejected by the builders that has become the head of the corner, i.e., the Christ. But that isn't true. A similar problem exists in 2 John 1:7. Remoter context can make the truth more clear. The phrase "true God," for example is used four times in the Bible other than in 1 John 5:20. 2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3 and 1 Thess. 1:9, and in each case the "true God" refers to the Father and not the Son. Especially consider John 17:3 where Jesus himself refers to the Father as "the only true God." There is no precedent for thinking that the wording of 1 John 5:20 should refer to the Son. Dr. Olson tries to prove his case on an ambiguous passage. John 20:28 Dr. Olson citation of Thomas' reference to Jesus as "My Lord and my God" fails. Again, the designation is not an unequivocal reference to Jesus as Almighty God. Biblically speaking human beings are not biblically precluded from appropriately being called "gods." Moses is called elohim (Exodus 7:1) and even Jesus once responded to a charge that he was making

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 23 of 96 himself equal to God by pointing out that since the judges of Israel can be called elohim"gods" (quoting Psalm 82:6), he certainly was not out of line to call himself God's Son. So when Thomas' calls Jesus "My Lord and my God" we do not have to think that he was calling Jesus Almighty God any more than Jesus would call the wicked judges of Israel Almighty God." Thomas appellation was appropriate for the ultimate human leader of Israel, who correctly should be called his lord and his god. Dr. Olson calls this is "worship"? but on what authority. The text certainly doesn't say it. And even if it is the Father's pleasure to give all authority in heaven and on earth the Jesus (Matthew 28:18), it is derived glory, not inherent. Even when Jesus healed the paralytic, Matthew notes that the people marvel that God had given to men such authority over illness, and presumably even the authority on earth to forgive sins. (Matt. 9:5-8). Agency Dr. Olson tries to soften the significance of the principle of agency in the Scriptures as regards Jesus. He fails to understand that it is precisely because he had been given authority that he can be treated with such high regard. But this dispensed authority no more makes Jesus equal to the Father than the authority given to Joseph to be over the house of Pharaoh and all Egypt would made him equal with regard to the throne (Genesis 41:39-41). As we have seen, Jesus promptly corrected such a notion in John 10:30ff by citing Psalm 82:6. Additionally, he made clear, even in his prayer to the Father that his desire was that the disciples should be one (Greek hen) in the same way that he was one with the Father. John 17:21 and 23 do not teach that this oneness is a oneness of substance. Rather it is a oneness of unity of thought and mind with God. Oneness in the sense that one is made of the same stuff as God is foreign to the Scripture both in reference to Christ or his disciples. Dr. Olson says, unwittingly that for Jesus to say, "I am the Son of God" in this context (John 10:36) "was understood by the Jews of His day as His claim to equality with the Father in an unqualified sense." He is mistaken. Whereas Jesus' accusers would have stoned him for blasphemy (John 10:31-33) based on their misunderstanding of who he claimed to be, there is no more mention of wanting to stone him in the context. Darrell L. Bock has shown in his recent work Blasphemy and Exaltaion in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 that there were a number of reasons one could be stoned for blasphemy. While claiming to be God was one of them, claiming to be the Messiah was another; claiming to be associated with great

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 24 of 96 men of old like Abraham was another. Even by the time the Jews get Jesus to trial, he is not accused of the blasphemy of claiming to be equal with God, but of claiming to be the Messiah (Mark 14:53-65).[4] Matthew 4:7 fails to show that Jesus was God. Nothing here event remotely suggests that Satan was doing anything other than testing or tempting a man. When Jesus says that Satan should not tempt the Lord his God, he is not claiming to be God in correcting the devil. First of all, it is impossible for God to be tempted anyway (James 1:13). Second, Jesus wanted Satan to know that he, Jesus, would honor the biblical command not to test God. Jesus would not attempt to put the Lord to the test, or tempt Him, by agreeing to cast himself from the temple. After all, Jesus was not a God-man with some sort of dual nature. It was necessary that he be "made like his brothers in every way" (Hebrews 2:17). This was necessary so that as a high priest, Jesus could "make atonement for the sins of the people," the writer of Hebrews says (Hebrews 2:17). The sacrificial lamb proved himself worthy of the position by pioneering a life of faith (Hebrews 12:2). What the First Adam destroyed in Eden, the Second Adam restored at Calvary. Jesus would not have been a proper sacrifice had he had any advantage that Adam did not. Adam was created as a perfect man, and as such he had the perfect right to choose sin if that was his will. Jesus was created in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35), and had the same prerogative to sin as had Adam. However, when tempted he chose not to sin, thus qualifying as the unblemished sacrificial lamb of God, who purchased the church with the blood of his own Son (Acts 20:28). John 14:9 fails to prove Jesus is God. While Jesus is the spitting image of the Father, when he tells Philip that if the disciples had seem himJesusthey had seen the Father, he wants them to understand that if they had observed his life and ministry, they would see how the Father would have been had he lived life as a human. John had already written in the first chapter of his gospel that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18). The passage teaches however that Jesus as the "only-begotten/unique god [Greek: monogenes theos)" has made the invisible God known. We have already seen how the use of the term "god" fits in the context of Jewish understanding. As Messiah, Jesus is rightly a "god" among the other "gods" and leaders of Israel. There had been bad ones (Psalm 82:6). Even the king of Israel in Psalm 45:6 is called "god" by God Almighty, and this harmonizes with what John says in the same book when Jesus says, "Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father" (John 6:45, 46). Jesus is the

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 25 of 96 image or eikon of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15), which should establish by definition that he is not himself the invisible God. An eikon is a representation of something, as Jesus himself made crystal clear when he asked for a Roman coin and asked whose eikon"image" or "picture" was on it (Matthew 22:20). It was Caesar's likeness, not Caesar himself. Jesus looks like the Father in all he says and does, but he is not God himself. Acts 7:59 where Stephen refers to Jesus fails to prove him to be God. Dr. Olson fails to understand that the word "God" is not in the Greek text. The New Revised Standard catches the sense of the Greek word epikaloumenon and translates it, "While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'" (Also the RSV). The New American Standard Bible is truer to context when it renders the verse: " . . . as he called on the Lord and said, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" (also the ASV). The English Standard Version translates, ". . . he called out, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'" Acts 10:36 fails to prove Jesus God. While Peter preaches that Jesus "is Lord of all" again we must recall that Jesus has no inherent authority since, as he said just before his ascension, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. To reiterate, Dr. Olson has a poor understanding of the significance of Agency as it relates to all of the verses he might choose to present indicating that Jesus has authority. That God has placed Jesus at his right hand is of great biblical significance. Mark writes that after Jesus' ascension, he "sat down at the right hand of God" (Mark 16:19). Luke writes, "There for let all Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36). If Jesus were God, he would have always been Lord. There is no passage of Scripture that suggests that God would be Messiah. Jesus has been given authority as a man to do mighty works and even to forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-8); and his seat at the right hand of God is temporary according to 1 Corinthians 15:25-28. Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 Very clearly the Lord God identifies himself as "the Alpha and the Omega" and the "Almighty." But it is by no means clear that at Revelation 4:8 is a reference to Jesus. That the same appellation is ascribed to Jesus in Revelation 22:12-13, 15 (and cf. Rev. 1:17) and that we should consequently infer that this means that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty, does not necessarily follow. As an example and in the context in which the statement is made, Nebuchadnezzar was the "king of kings" (Daniel 2:37; Ezekiel 26:7). But so is Jesus!

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 26 of 96 (Revelation 17:14; 19: 12-13, 16); and so is God! (1 Timothy 6:15-16). Does this mean that because they all have the same name that Jesus or God are Nebuchadnezzar? No. Not to mention that because Jesus is God's representative Agent he can go by God's names and act with God's authority just as enthroned kings in the Davidic dynasty could. "Your throne, O God, is eternal," God tells the king in Psalm 45:6 and the writer of Hebrews applies it in the same sense to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8. Even Israel, as God's representative people could be called by Jehovah's name (Deut. 28:10), but this does not make them God. I am aware that Jesus' "son-ship" is affirmed in different ways in Scripture. That it can mean "order of" or that it can represent likeness to its object is conceded (Christians, for example, "are sons of light and sons of the day," 1 Thess. 5:5). But is this the best sense in which to read the phrase as it refers to Jesus primarily? To be sure, Jesus is Son of God because God is the cause of his procreation by the power of God's holy spirit (Luke 1:35). As Gabriel explained in Luke 1:35, it is precisely for this reason (Greek dio) namely the impregnating of Mary miraculously by the power and overshadowing of God's holy spirit that we know Jesus to be the offspring of the Father-God. Or, as the passage literally words it, Jesus is "therefore" (Again, dio) to be called "Son of God." This is a passage regarding his beginning existence. He is acknowledged as being God's Son after his baptism, which is easily seen as a prophetic statement of his son-ship in the sense of being God's prophet-king who must be listened to and obeyed. Compare this with Moses' prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18-19; the affirmation of his son-ship at his baptism in Mark 1:11; and the confirmation of this son-ship at his transfiguration in Mark 9:7. The Primacy of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 as it Relates to Son-ship/Messiahship But the messianic primacy of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 carries special significance in referring to the Davidic dynasty and how this is connected to Jesus' son-ship (Hebrews 1:5 connects 2 Samuel 7:12-16 with Psalm 2:7), so "son-ship" has to do with Jesus position as Messianic king which began at a point in time, "Today"an emphasized by his resurrection (Psalm 2:7 is connected with Jesus resurrection in Acts 13:33-34; cf. Romans 1:4 where Jesus is the is the Son-of-God-in-Power because of the resurrection). While this certainly has to do with his prophetic enthronement and installation as the final messianic king, if he were God, his kingship would not be something that God could give him because he would already be the ultimate king from eternity. Such passages when applied to Jesus only make sense if the honor had a literal

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 27 of 96 beginning point. Jesus becomes the Son of God when he is enthroned. Dr. Olson's discussion about "Son of God" meaning the order or essence of a thing is arbitrary and ad hoc. Certainly "son of God" has various senses in Scripture. Thus his Son-ship has to do with his coronation as God's Messianic king after his resurrection. Additionally there is theological significance to Jesus being the son of God in the same sense that Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). Jesus is the second Adam who successful redeems what Adam lost in the Garden of Eden (Romans 5:1214; 1 Corinthians 15:45). "Orthodoxy's Proud Declaration" and 1 Timothy 2:5 By mere declaration alone, he ignores the simple testimony of Scripture that says he is the Christ and that he is human. Then, against Paul's clear statement of fact, Dr. Olson declares that Jesus would not be able to mediate between God and man. Even his authoritative quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia only implies that the mediator must have influence with the Father. Dr. Olson does not acknowledge the glory that God has been pleased to place in his human Son and Second Adam. For his own unexplained reasons, God has been pleased to share glory with the Son. Dr. Carl Conrad of the B-Greek forum indicates in his comments the force of the Greek term kathos when he writes,"Insofar as they show honor to the Father, they should also show honor to the Son" (i.e. that honoring the Son is appropriate or obligatory behavior just as much as is honoring the Father).[5] Jehovah Passages Is Jesus Adonai in Psalm 110:1? No! Dr. Olson is very confused in his reasoning about Jesus Christ being Jehovah. We stipulate that in English translations "`Lord' (lower case letters following the "L")," is the Hebrew Adonai often. But what does this have to do with Psalm 110:1? That passage concludes unequivocally that Jesus the Messiah, could not be the Lord Adonai (who is Jehovah). In Acts 2:34-35, Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 where Jehovah speaks to the Messiah inviting him to sit at his right hand. But Jehovah addresses the Messiah as the Hebrew Adoni in Psalm 110:1. Adoni, not Adonai, is uniformly used to refer to one who is a human or angelic messenger of God, but never as God/Jehovah himself. What is Dr. Olson's response to this? Are there Two Jehovahs in Isaiah 44:6? No! Dr. Olson mistakenly wants us to see that this verse speaks of two Jehovah's: Jehovah the King of Israel, and "his" [Jehovah's ?] redeemer who is called "Jehovah of hosts." His question is "How can there be two Jehovah's?"

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 28 of 96 Dr. Olson misuses the text to imply that "his" in the passage is Jehovah. Most careful readers would understand that the "his" that appears there is Israel, not Jehovah God. While my first thought would have been that Dr. Olson would use this verse to demonstrate some sort of argument that because God is considered first and last, that there should be a connection to Jesus. He does this later, but not at first. He wants the reader to think the passage's wording implies the existence of two Jehovahs. But notice how the NASB uses capitalization for pronouns that refer to God, e.g. "Me" in this passage. But here the "his," in the phrase "his Redeemer," is not capitalized, making it a reference to Israel in context. This is true with the English Standard Version as well. The NIV brings out the meaning clearly with modernized punctuation: "This is what the LORD says Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty . . ." even the The New English Translation at bible.org, which Dr. Olson quotes, renders the meaning of the passage very clearly: "This is what the LORD, Israel's king, says, their protector, the LORD who leads armies. . ." Dr. Olson then proceeds to use the "first and the last" language to demonstrate in Revelation 1:8, 11; 22:13, 16, that because Jesus is called "first and last" as well as Alpha and Omega (first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and which would have no direct counterpart in any Hebrew text). Please refer back to my comments on Dr. Olson's use of Revelation 1:8 and 4:8. His reasoning goes something like this: "If all have the same names and titles, they are one and the same. God and Jesus have the same names and titles. Therefore they are one and the same. It is not true, as we have seen above, that the first premise of his reasoning is true. Indeed, there are alternate explanations as to why the names and titles are the same. First, there is the principle of agency, which we have already discussed, but which Dr. Olson hopes you will not give much consideration (since it hurts his case). Second there is a sense in which Jesus can be first and last in some senses, but not necessarily identically with the Father. He is first as Pioneer or Captain (the man at the head) of our faith (Hebrews 12:2); He is the first of the children of the new humanity. Passages like Psalm 23:1//John 10:11 or Isaiah 6:5//John 12:41 or even a Messianic application of Jeremiah 23:6 does not prove that Jesus is Jehovah. Jerusalem is called "Jehovah our Righteousness" ten chapters later (Jeremiah 33:16). By Dr. Olson's logic, Jerusalem is Jehovah. This does not follow.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 29 of 96 Does the Glory of Isaiah 6:5 that John says was in Jesus (John 12:41ff) prove that Jesus was Jehovah? No. We have already seen that insofar as God is honored he desires that his Son be honored as well. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus. Whatever power, prerogatives, honor, or glory he has received will be relinquished to the Father ultimately (1 Corinthians 15:27-28). Does Isaiah 9:6 prove that Jesus is Almighty God? No! Isaiah 9:6 is an example of hyperbole where the ideal Davidic king is given the title Mighty God. Like Psalm 45:6, Isaiah 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king (Hezekiah in context) in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself. Note, as well, that Isaiah 9:6 is never quoted in the New Testament. Keep in mind as well that the name "Mighty God" (Hebrew el gibbor) carries the definition "divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty," and refer so "men of might and rank, as well as to angels."[6] Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, reminds us that it refers to "men of might and rank, as well as to angels" and Jewish experts who translated the Septuagint rendered it, as the "messenger of great counsel."[7] Dr. Olson should have kept with his admission that the passage "is not technically related to JEHOVAH." While he concludes that it is "none other than Jesus for the very next verse speaks of his earthly father David." That Hezekiah is equally a son of David and rightly carries all the names, amazing and hyperbolic as they are, is recognized, by a number of even Trinitarian scholars.[8] Granville-Sharp Rule at Titus 2:13? The scholarly world has not uniformly acknowledged the force of the so-called GranvilleSharp Rule, which basically says that when the Greek word kai (which is usually translated by the word "and") brings together two nouns in the same grammatical form or case, and if the first noun has the definite article ho ("the") and second noun does not, the two nouns give reference to the same subject. The Trinitarian scholar and editor of the volume entitle Syntax in the four-volume Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar writes: Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea. [9] And once again Dr. Olson's penchant for proving a point with an obscure or ambiguous reference comes to the fore. That Titus 2:13 is seen as ambiguous can be demonstrated in the fact that the scholars behind many major translations compiled after the "rule" was established are yet

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 30 of 96 resistant to the idea as solid in various passages used to illustrate the Trinitarian point that Jesus is Almighty God. The American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Standard [1995] all place alternate (equal) translations either in the text or in the notes. Even if we should translate the phrase as "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," the argument still stands as stated above that it is well within the purview of biblical understanding that calling Jesus "God," "Great God," "Mighty God," etc., are not the same as "Almighty God," a phrase never given to Jesus or to anyone else for that matter. (See comments on John 20:28). Substance Dr. Olson will never find the pagan philosophical language imposed upon the church over time that Jesus is of the same substance (Greek, homoousion) as the Father. Dr. Olson's only proof for this is the statement of the Nicean creed, which ultimately was imposed on Christians by the force of the swords and Inquisitional pyres of the European kings and judicial power granted to the Church leaders by them. Dr. Olson has rejected clear statements of scripture that God the Father is the one true God. He has appealed to ambiguous passages to establish his point that the appellation theos when applied to Jesus is, as Jesus explained himself, is an appropriate title for men who are leaders in Israel, as the Messiah undoubtedly was and is. He has tried to pass off the significant principle of biblical Agency, in which God gives authority to the Son, as something less than significant in this discussion. He cannot demonstrate from Scripture that Jesus ever existed as a person prior to his human begettal by the Father (If he and all who are interested had only listened to the simple words of Gabriel in Luke 1:35: God's holy spirit miraculously caused Jesus begettal. Additional Affirmative Arguments That Jesus had a beginning or genesis is affirmed by Matthew (1:18). That God is with us in his Son (Matthew 1:23) is evident in the same way that God signified his presence with Israel in the birth of a young boy in the context of Isaiah 7:14. Jesus did not try to deceive the friendly scribe in Mark 12:28ff, affirming that God was to be understood as one. Or else we should understand that he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he appeared to agree with this one who was so close to the kingdom.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 31 of 96 Jesus was made like his brothers in every way and that none of his brothers are God-men (Hebrews 2:13-17). There is a clear distinction between Jehovah and Adoni in Psalm 110:1. It will be interesting to see how Dr. Olson handles this. None of his treatment covers the fact that while Jesus has a God, the Father is never said to have a God. This is so because there is no one above Almighty God. ____________________ Notes [1] This and some other historical material cited in G.S. Deuble, They Never Told me This in Church (2006) Atlanta, GA: Restoration Fellowship, pp. 31-33. [2] Those not familiar with Greek might consider the grammatical markings for this passage in The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament, English Standard Version. (2006). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, pp. 566, 573. [3] Anthony Buzzard, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound (1998). Oxford: International Scholars Publications, p. 239. [4] (1998). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. See the chapter entitled "Blasphemy in Judaism," pp. 30-109 for the full discussion tracing the idea of blasphemy through Scripture, the Qumran documents, the Septuaging and Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, Mishnah and Tosefta tractates, the Jewish Targums, Midrash, the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds and Aboth de Rabbi Nathan. Also see the section entitled "Exalted Figures in Judaism," pp. 113-180. [5] Carl Conrad, "TIMWSI TON HUION KAQWS TIMWSI TON PATERA "They should honor the Son just as they honor the Father."" <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-June/038742.html.> Retrieved November 18, 2007. [6] Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (1995) Oxford at the Clarendon Press, p. 42. See note 22 at N.E.T. Bible. See sn to Psalm 45:6 <http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Psa&chapter=45> Retrieved November 18, 2007. [7] See the translation by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) London: Samuel Baster and Sons, p. 844. [8] See notes at <http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isaiah&chapter=9> Retrieved November 18, 2007. Also see John T. Willis, who writes, "Isaiah is stressing the quality of

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 32 of 96 Hezekiah's rule, and not his official functions as ruler of the people. Whereas Ahaz was a weak counselor, Hezekiah will be a wonderful counselor. Whereas Ahaz was a warrior who depended on human strength and strategy, Hezekiah will be a warrior who depends wholly on God's strength." Isaiah. The Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament (1980) Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, p. 185. [9] Nigel Turner, Syntax (1963) volume 3 in A Grammar of New Testament Greek Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, p. 181.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 33 of 96

Dr. Olsons Second Negative Mr. Dixon proposed the following: The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy Spirit" is another name for God the Father. Outline of Dr. Olson's 2nd Negative I. II. III. Hermeneutics Holy Spirit Jesus Christ

IV. Forgiveness of Sins. I. Hermeneutics. Dixon's first affirmative employed the hermeneutic of negativity. He used verses that proved Jesus' humanity as proof that Jesus wasn't divine. I pointed out that these negative proofs were proofs of nothing. They are mutually exclusive. He needed to show how Jesus wasn't divine. Dixon second affirmative is yet another round of negativity with variations of corrupted hermeneutics (tangents, semantic domain confusion, EZ Greek grammar mistakes, and violations of basic linguistics) for variety. He claims to use context, but only so far as it gives him a springboard to violations of linguistics, valueless words on meaningless tangents, and contraventions of semantics. He denies EZ common sense verses that declare Jesus to be the True God by making basic first semester Greek grammar errors. As we proceed through Dixon's responses, I call the reader to his regular appeal to one of these four errant tactics. II. Holy Spirit II.A. Negativity Mr. Dixon's proposition regarding the Holy Spirit is a repeat of his deplorable negative proofs of his first affirmative. A proper biblical hermeneutic uses ALL of scripture not just the few aspects that seem to support one's personal opinion. Mr. Dixon so-called proofs that the Holy Spirit is not a person are worthless straw men built entirely upon negatives. He thinks by

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 34 of 96 noting 5 ways in which the Holy Spirit is not a Person that this is a positive proof that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. Wrong Big Wrong! It is standard common sense knowledge that one does not properly define anything by its negatives. Mr. Dixon's case must be rejected because he never used the entire Bible. He never builds a valid positive statement. A proper study of the personality of the Holy Spirit should have integrated the following positive points. II.B. article (ho). Later, in the POSITIVELY II.B.1 John 15:26, Jesus tells us that He will send "The Helper" (hoparaklntos) using the masculine definite same verse, Jesus says: "He will testify of Me" using the masculine pronoun for "He" (ekeinos a masculine pronoun). If the Holy Spirit were some impersonal force, there would be no reason to use masculine definite articles and masculine pronouns. The Holy Spirit must be personal. II.B.2 The Holy Spirit is personal because He can commune with the Father. The Father knows the Spirit (Rom 8:27) and the Spirit is able to search the infinite mind of God (I Cor 2:10). No force can commune with the Father. II.B.3. The Spirit can be grieved by our sins (Eph 4:30). No impersonal force can be grieved. The Holy Spirit can also be personally blasphemed (Matt 12:32). No impersonal force or inanimate object can be so maligned. II.B.4. The Spirit is "Another Helper (allon paraklnton)" just like Jesus (John 14:16). The easy conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is personal just like Jesus our "Helper." Our spiritual Helpers are personal just like us! II.B.5. The Spirit is a mediator with God (Rom 8:26), just like Jesus (I Tim 2:5). The definition of a mediator is as follows:

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 35 of 96 . . . The perfection of a mediator is measured by his influence. . . with the parties he has to reconcile, and this power flows. . . from his connection with both: the highest possible perfection. . . would be reached if the mediator were substantially one with. . . both parties. [1] Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a fully divine Person able to mediate with God (a Person) on our behalf (persons). As the Spirit Who indwells all those who believe in Jesus, He is able to mediate with each believer regarding spiritual things. A Mediator must be personal and able to represent both sides in the mediation. II.B.6. The Holy Spirit has a will. He creates humans after His own free will image and likeness and gives unto them gifts as He wills (I Cor 12:11). Just as God the Father has a will, and just as God the Son has a will, so also God the Spirit has a will. The Spirit directed Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch's chariot (Acts 8:29). The Spirit's will separated Paul and Barnabas from the rest of the group (Acts 13:2) and sent them out for missionary work (Acts 13:4). Paul took guidance from the Spirit's will as he was redirected from Asia to Europe (Acts 16:6). A force does not have a personal will. II.B.7. Finally, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22) has the personal qualities of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Only a personal being can produce personal qualities. II.B Conclusion. The Holy Spirit is personal because His attributes, works, and personal pronouns used of Him are similar to that of the personal Father and the personal Son. Mr. Dixon's negative hermeneutic can only see a few negatives and fails to see the positives. III. Jesus Christ The critical question is: What positive has Mr. Dixon ever presented? He didn't do it in his first affirmative. His first affirmative was merely the affirmation of half of the biblical teaching about Jesus; namely, that He is 100% human. But this is a NEGATIVE tactic. Mr. Dixon never had one POSITIVE statement that related to Jesus' deity. As I repeatedly showed Mr. Dixon, negative statements never format a positive proof.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 36 of 96 So how did Mr. Dixon respond to the positive points of Jesus' deity as I presented in my first negative? Sadly, in his second affirmative, Dixon repeated the negativity of round 1. As we review his negativity, keep remembering the opening section on hermeneutics and the ways that Dixon uses to avoid a direct confrontation with the truth. III.A. Creeds. Incredibly, Mr. Dixon is so stuck on negativity that instead of addressing the facts that led to the formation of the Nicene or Chalcedon Creeds, he went into a negative tangent about lesser synods, politics and the personal misfortunes of Athanasius none of which are pertinent to the formation of the Nicene Creed. No statement from a synod unverified by an ecumenical council is the orthodox position on Jesus Christ. We aren't concerned with any of the political maneuvers of East versus West. We aren't concerned with Athanasius' personal life we are concerned with his astute use of Bible to prove that Jesus is divine. Mr. Dixon's sideshows are only impressive with the illiterate or others in Mr. Dixon's same Christ- denying ditch. Once Mr. Dixon chose this negative hermeneutic, the die was cast. He must now swallow the ramifications of his manipulative twistings of scripture. I must stop here to grin. It isn't often that my opponents work so hard to prove my point. Rather than find something of substance upon which he can build his doctrine, Dixon digs even further into his negativity and claims that I'm "ignoring the EXCLUSIVITY of the wording of the passages" presented. With joyful glee I ask wonder what is there about MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVITY that Mr. Dixon cannot grasp? Proofs about Jesus' humanity are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE from Jesus' divinity. Thank you for your self-destructing witless honesty. Dixon fails to understand how completely worthless his negative hermeneutic is. No statement about Jesus' humanity is a sufficient as a refutation of Jesus' divinity. In so admitting that his statements are exclusive, Mr. Dixon's failure to comprehend that the invalidity of negative arguments as the basis of a debate proposition that he mindlessly shoots of his own foot. III.B. Son of God For example, Jesus is commonly addressed as both human and divine. Yet Dixon is so focused on his negative human hermeneutic that he simply refuses to affirm the easy to see divine aspects of Jesus. In my first negative, we clearly linked Jesus to the OT Jehovah. It is just as easy to link Christ to divinity.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 37 of 96 Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Matt 26:63). Recall how we showed that "son of" means "of the order of." Christ is divine! Dixon responded with another negative proof. He appealed to Luke 1:35, the birth of the human Jesus to show that the eternal Son of God was procreated. In fact, Dixon appeals to this verse five times in his negativity. Yes! The human Jesus had a birthday. No! The Son of God was pre-existent with the Father and the Spirit. Let's embark on a few lines of proof: Savior, Lord, Christ, and Logos. III.B.1. Savior Jesus is the Christ our Savior the Lord! (Luke 2:11). III.B.2 Lord The title Lord with Jesus is used 180 times in the KJV. . . . Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that . . . God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, . . . both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36) . . . The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, . . . preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all) . . . Acts 10:36. Chafer writes: . . . A distinct and extensive proof that Christ is Jehovah is to be . . . seen in the New Testament title of Lord which is applied to . . . Him upwards of a thousand times. Jehovah is a Hebrew term . . . which is not brought forward into the New Testament. Its . . . equivalent is kurios, which title is also applied to the Father . . . and the Spirit. It is a justifiable procedure to treat the name . . . Jehovah of the Old Testament as continued in its specific . . . meaning into the New Testament by the name Lord. Such . . . would be the natural meaning of many exalted declarations: . . . "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36), "Lord over all" (Rom 10:12), . . . "Lord of glory" (I Cor 2:8), and "King of kings and Lord of . . . lords" (Rev 17:14; 19:16)." [2]

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 38 of 96 III.B.3. Christ The title "Lord Jesus Christ" is used 82 times in the KJV and 106 times in any order. Christ is the equivalent to Messiah which we have already shown is God Himself.

III.B.4. Logos. John's prologue proves total equality of the Word (Logos) with God the Father. . . . In the beginning was the Word (Logos), . . . and the Word was with God, . . . and the Word was God. John 1:1-3 . . . John 1:14 The Word was made flesh, dwelt among us. The Word was God! This is really very EZ. The only thing that makes it hard is tracking the variations of errant hermeneutics that Dixon uses in an attempt to fool the reader. It is my hope that the reader has been keeping track of the number of references that Dr. Olson uses to prove the deity of Jesus Christ and how many Bible references Dixon uses to show that Jesus is not divine. If they were doing this, then the score would be somewhere around 300 for Jesus' divinity to 0 against His divinity. And there is more to come! Negatively, Dixon's dismal debate hinges in part on five appeals to Luke 1:35. I have constantly upbraided Dixon for his negativity. Proofs of Jesus' humanity are invalid as arguments against His divinity. III.C. I John 5:20 . . . And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given . . . us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, . . . and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ . . . (Insou). This (houtos) is the true God, and eternal life. Mr. Dixon failed to address the verse. Oh he started, but he only got as far as the pronoun (houtos). Then he went on a wild tangent to Acts 4:10-11 and likened his defense to a stone. Where did Mr. Dixon learn his Greek? There is nothing complicated about I John 5:20. The

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 39 of 96 noun for which a pronoun stands is called its antecedent. A pronoun agrees with it antecedent in gender and number and has little to do with Dixon's appeal to proximity. I expect any of my first semester students to be able to note that the demonstrative pronoun (houtos=masculine singular) agrees in gender and number with Jesus Christ (Insou=masculine singular). Dixon's tangent is what we expect from cults. Rather than simply acknowledge the obvious, Dixon runs to another verse with an argument that relates to nothing. He botches a subject so easy that it is the fifth topic in Machen's beginners grammar. I can understand why he stoops to such tactics. This is a verse that very pointedly declares Jesus to be the TRUE GOD. Rather than use Holy Writ as the basis for his arguments, he uses Holy Writ to prove his heresy. The only way this can happen is by using something deceptive. III.D. John 20:28 Here, Dixon chooses another deceptive hermeneutic. Common sense dictates that Thomas affirms Jesus as both Lord and God. Here, Dixon decides to throw the basic laws of linguistics down the toilet. Dixon wants us to believe in strict mathematical transitivity: A=B and B=C implies A=C. So he finds a place in scripture where Moses is called "elohim" and where the judges of Israel are called "gods." Dixon has violated two basic rules of semantics. First, Dixon ignores that a word has meaning only in its context. Dixon wants to define "gods" by any context that he can find. Second, Dixon ignores the semantic domain of the words. "Elohim" and "gods" form a proper synonymy whereas Dixon wants to make them an undifferentiated synonymy uh at least as far as this bit of exegesis is concerned. By pursuing this violation of context, Dixon frees himself from a common sense hermeneutic that relies upon context. With his violation of basic semantics, he freely runs to any context and grabs any definition of a word and is thus able to hoodwink and beguile simpletons. III.E. Jesus to Satan. Dixon responds to Jesus' declaration in Matt 4:7 "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" by suggesting that it was Jesus who didn't want to tempt His God. Let's see how context deals with the three temptations.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 40 of 96 In the first temptation, Jesus quotes Deut 8:3 to show that He will not be tempted by Satan and turn stones into bread to satisfy His hunger. Jesus is tempted and Jesus responds independently and directly. In the third temptation, Jesus quotes Deut 6:13 to show that He will not fall down and worship Satan. Jesus is tempted and Jesus responds independently and directly. Now Dixon would have us think that this well established contextual pattern should be turned on its head. He wants Jesus to be tempted but then he wants Jesus to fear tempting God. What is incredible is that Dixon refuted his own argument by telling us that God cannot be tempted. Does he not listen to himself? It appears that he is more interested in proving his heresy than he is in a correct understanding that uses context. Dixon could avoid a great deal of embarrassment by simply using context. III.F. Jesus' declaration to Philip. Here, Dixon embellishes his linguistics violations that he tried in II.D above. Now, he has everybody being gods in Israel. Does he not know that Israel's God is one LORD (Deut 6:4). So we have scripture's declaration of the unity of the Godhead versus Dixon's claims to a whole nation of gods. Which should we believe? Common sense should have told Dixon that he was on the wrong trail. Positively (on my part), I have placed before Dixon the huge obstacle of God's unity. As will be seen in part III.H below, this is an insurmountable obstacle for Dixon's heresy. Scripture denies two Beings of honor. Dixon's heresy demands it. III.G. Acts 7:59 . . . And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, . . . Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Acts 7:59 Never at odds with twisting scriptures to suit his purpose, Dixon tries to wiggle out of this context by saying that the word "God" inserted by the KJV translators is wrong. Let's let context judge. In v55, Stephen gazed into heaven and saw - - - God. In v56, Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of - - - God. Jesus and God are inseparably joined together in Stephen's vision. Yet Dixon minces at words. This worthless bit of contextual ignorance has been Dixon's best argument in two full

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 41 of 96 rounds of debate. III.H. Acts 10:36 . . . The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, . . . preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) Here, Dixon makes a big plea for biblical authority and agency. He openly acknowledges that Jsus is at God's right hand. Yet he thinks that Jesus is there simply as an empowered authorized human that we should call "Lord." Dixon simply does not realize that God is One and will not give His worship, raise and glory to anyone else even an authorized super human. . . I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not . . . give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isa 42:8 . . . For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: . . . for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give . . . my glory unto another. Isa 48:11 Yet Dixon brings before us a teaching that Jesus is but a glorified human to whom God has directed praise and honor. Who should we believe: Dixon's heresy OR the clear testimony of God's Word? Sitting at the right hand of God comes from Psalm 110:1. Here, "The LORD said unto my Lord" is a clear testimony to the divinity of the Messiah. Moreover, Jesus' proximity to God shows that He is an accepted Mediator with God. Romans 8:34 declares, "It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." No one but God can intercede with God for sins except God. Dixon's oversights are truly amazing. Then Dixon makes yet another gaffer. "There is no passage of Scripture that suggests that God would be Messiah." Apparently, Dixon has never read: . . . Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a . . . son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being . . . interpreted is, God with us! (Matt 1:23) Scripture denies two Beings of honor, worship and praise. Dixon's heresy demands it. How much clearer does it have to be? When you build a doctrine on these errant personal opinions, then one should expect a continuous

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 42 of 96 string of gaffers like what Dixon has been continuously serving us. III.I. Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 Dixon claims that the references to the LORD God as "the Alpha and the Omega" and the "Almighty" are by no means clear references to Jesus. Really? When could we ever describe God the Father with the words "which was" (Rev 1:8)? Had Dixon bothered to check context, he would have seen that the deity being referred to "cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." The Father has never been pierced. The Father is not coming in the clouds. Common sense says that this context refers to Jesus the Christ, the Son of God where both titles are defined by the Bible not Dixon's day dreams. Dixon denies the obvious and witlessly continues by violating the semantics of word definitions. Here, he says: . . . Nebuchadnezzar was the "king of kings" It appears that Dixon wants every use of "king of kings" to apply to humans at least for this little bit of errant exegesis (He will undoubtedly change this to suit his next bit of exegesis). Dixon is quite ignorant about the fact that words have meaning only in the context that they are used. The definition in another context does not replace the definition of the word in the context under scrutiny. A distinct and extensive proof that Christ is Jehovah is to be seen in the New Testament title of Lord which is applied to Him upwards of a thousand times. Jehovah is a Hebrew term which is not brought forward into the New Testament. Its equivalent is kurios, which title is also applied to the Father and the Spirit. It is a justifiable procedure to treat the name Jehovah of the Old Testament as continued in its specific meaning into the New Testament by the name Lord. Such would be the natural meaning of many exalted declarations: "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36), "Lord over all" (Rom 10:12), "Lord of glory" (I Cor 2:8), and "King of kings and Lord of lords" (Rev 17:14; 19:16).[2] Dixon doesn't care if the context is different or not. Dixon doesn't pay attention to the semantics of words. He isn't after Bible-based conclusion; rather, his hermeneutic is to twist the Bible in any possible way so as to make it seem to support his heresy. III.J. Another look at Sonship.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 43 of 96 Dixon holds to the primacy of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 as it relates to the Messiah. He especially thinks that Heb 1:5 is a proof of Jesus' procreation (quoted from Psalm 2:7). Let's look at these in context and then see what deviant hermeneutic he is trying to pass off as truth. Again, what Dixon teaches is partially true with respect to the human Jesus as Messiah. The human Jesus will receive His kingship over the earth from God. However, proofs about the human King Jesus are not valid about the Divine King Jesus. Negativity is never the proof of anything. Redefinitions of Messiah are not the basis for a truly biblical analysis. Dixon's proofs are now becoming the merry-go-round behind which cults hide their valueless deceptive hermeneutics. It has already been demonstrated in both my first and second negatives that the title "Lord Jesus Christ" is used 82 times in the KJV and 106 times in any order. Christ is the equivalent to Messiah which we have already shown is God Himself. The Messiah (Logos) was always with God and in fact is God (John 1:1-3, 14). As long as cultists can stay on the merry-go-round of fast and furious violations of context, tangents, and cultic redefinitions and avoid any confrontation with the truth, then they think that they are going places fast. The sad fact is that they are merely spinning in circles going nowhere fast. Worse, in the name of a human Christ, they are denying the divine Christ of the Bible. III.K. Adonai Dixon thinks Adonai is used strictly to a human or angelic messenger of God. He challenges me: "What is Dr. Olson's response to this?" First, I look for uses of LORD with Lord. I found them in Psalm 8:1 and 9. These two examples of "O LORD our Lord" mean "O JEHOVAH our Master." I found a third in Nehemiah 10:29. Second, I look for uses of God with Lord. . . . Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with. . . benefits, even the God of our salvation. Psa 68:19 . . . He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto God . . . the Lord belong the issues from death. Psa 68:20 . . . And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people . . . forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand. Dan 9:15 . . . Thus saith the Lord God. Gen 15:2, 8; Ex 23:17, 34:23; . . . Deut 3:24, 9:26; Josh 7:7; Judges 6:22, 16:28;

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 44 of 96 . . . II Sam 7:18-19,28-29; I Kings 2:26, 8:53; . . . Psa 69:6, 71:5,16, 73:28; Isaiah 3:15, 7:7, 10:23-24, . . . Isaiah 22:5,12,14-15, 25:8, 28:16,22, 30:15, 40:10, . . . Isaiah 48:16, 49:22, 50:4-5,7,9, 52:4, 56:8, 61:1, . . . Isaiah 65:13, 15; Jeremiah 1:6, 2:19,22, 4:10, 5:14, . . . Jeremiah 7:20, 14:13, 32:17,25, 44:26, 46:10 (twice), . . . Jeremiah 49:5, 50:25,31; Ezek 2:4, 3:11,27, 4:14, . . . Ezek 5:5,7,8, 6:3 (twice),11, 7:2,5, 8:1, 9:8, 11:8,16,17,21; . . . Ezek 12:10,19,23,25,28 (twice); 13:3,8 (twice),9,13,16,18,20 . . . Ezek 14:4,6,11,14,16,18,20,21,23; 15:6,8; 16:3,8 I now run out of patience listing verses that you have cut out of your Bible. Third, I look for divine equivalents. This is something God equates, not the infernal confusion of semantics and linguistics inequalities that Dixon relies upon as truth. . . . And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments . . . is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Mar 12:29 Jesus quoted from Deut 6:4. This divine equivalence makes Lord exactly the same as LORD. This only highlights Thomas' declaration: . . . My Lord and my God. (John 20:28) If Jesus were but a human representative, He should have chastised Thomas for this. But as a fully divine God, Jesus accepted Thomas' worship. Jesus is LORD! Fourth, I turn to Isaiah's vision of the Sovereign Lord (Isaiah 6:1). . . . In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord . . . sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, . . . and his train filled the temple. A few verses later, the Lord (Who sits upon a throne and His train fills the temple) is addressed as follows: . . . Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: . . . the whole earth is full of his glory. Isaiah 6: In the next verse, Isaiah laments:. . . Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean. . . lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips:. . . for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.. . . Isa 6:5

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 45 of 96 Notice how Holy Writ equates "Lord," "LORD of hosts," and "the King, the LORD of hosts." Jesus is Lord! Jesus is LORD of hosts! Jesus is King Messiah! This section was fun! Has the reader noticed how easily I can respond to Dixon's challenges while Dixon must go to great violations of hermeneutics to respond to my challenges? III.L Isaiah 44:6 . . . Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, . . . and His redeemer the LORD of hosts. Dixon thinks a careful reader would "understand that the 'his' that appears there is Israel, not Jehovah God." Does this pass the common sense test? Is Israel the LORD of hosts? The pronoun was masculine, Israel is a neuter nation. If Israel were the redeemer, then it would be its own Savior and not need a Messiah. Most of the time, Dixon's abuses of hermeneutics are not so blatantly false. I doubt many (if any) of the readership of this group would think that 'his' is national Israel. I actually feel sorry for Dixon. His few lines of logic are all negative. His responses are routinely violations of hermeneutics. He is an example of a thinking person who has been beguiled. Were it not for the grace of God, I would be there with him. III.M. Isaiah 6:5 Since Dixon likes to repeat himself, we return to this verse. This time, Dixon has stated: "Does the Glory of Isaiah 6:5 that John says was in Jesus (John 12:41ff) prove that Jesus was Jehovah? No. We have already seen that insofar as God is honored he desires that his Son be honored as well." However, Dixon thinks that this glory goes to a person other than God. Scripture is quite clear that God's glory goes to no one other than Himself. Recall that in III.H. God is One and will not give His worship, praise and glory to anyone else. . . . I am the LORD: that is my name: . . . and my glory will I not give to another, . . . neither my praise to graven images. Isa 42:8 . . . For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: . . . for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give . . . my glory unto another. Isa 48:11 Dixon is far too comfortable with his merry-go-round. III.N. Isaiah 9:6

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 46 of 96 . . . For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: . . . and the government shall be upon his shoulder: . . . and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, . . . The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, . . . The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6 I must stop and grin yet again. Dixon's response is as follows: "Isaiah 9:6 is an example of hyperbole where the ideal Davidic king is given the title Mighty God." Yee-ha! Dixon is exactly right! It isn't often my opponents work so hard to prove my point. The ideal Davidic King is none other than King Jesus the Messiah. He is Mighty God. Now Dixon might have seen the folly that he had stepped into for he tries to cloud the issue by using two errant hermeneutics. First, he uses worn out negativity. It doesn't matter whether or not this passage is never quoted in the NT. This isn't a refutation of anything. Second, he tries a semantic domain violation by finding a definition of mighty God that applies to humans. He writes:. . . "Mighty God" (Hebrew el gibbor) carries the definition. . . "divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty," and refer so . . . "men of might and rank, as well as to angels." So what? We don't arbitrarily pick one definition from a dictionary and mindlessly use where ever we want. Here in this context, we are discussing the Ideal Davidic King of Israel Who is called Mighty God. We aren't talking about some human hero. The real definition of a word comes from its context! Has the readership noticed how often Dixon runs from the context? Negatively, Dixon ran from the context by finding it not used in the NT. Negatively, Dixon ran from the rest of the verse. What about the phrase THE EVERLASTING FATHER? My whole point in using Isaiah 9:6 was this very phrase. Dixon never addressed it. Since he cannot squarely face the truth, he must talk around it and hope to fool the readership. This verse remains as one of the strongest passages affirming Christ's full equality with the Father in spite of Dixon's negative non-response. III.O. The Granville Sharp Rule . . . Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing . . . of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Titus 3:5 In my first negative, I showed that both God and Savior apply to Jesus Christ (Messiah). His defense is: "The scholarly world has not uniformly acknowledged the force of the so-called

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 47 of 96 Granville-Sharp Rule." All I can do is point to the following recognized scholars who support the Granville Sharp rule: . . . C. Keuhne, "The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christ's Deity," Journal of Theology 13 (Sept 1973), 13 (Dec 1973), 14 (Mar 1974), 14 (June 1974), 14 (Sep 1974), 14 (Dec 1974); . . . Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 147; . . . C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959); . . . Thomas Middleton, Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, (1808); . . . S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, (1992); . . . A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (1923), 785-89. . . . Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (1996), 27090; . . . Winer-Moulton, Prolegomena; . . . Kenneth S. Wuest, "The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament Part IV: The Greek Article in New Testament Interpretation," BSac 118:469 (Jan 1961). Clark Hay remarks: One last important point on this topic: The Granville Sharp rule has never been shown to be wrong. George Zeller remarks: Anyone who discounts the Granville Sharp rule, which links "the great God" with "our Savior Jesus Christ," does so for strictly theological reasons. John Ankerburg and John Weldon quote Dr. Bruce Metzger, an authority on the Greek language and professor at Princeton University. [3] . . . "In support of this translation [our God and Savior must refer . . . only to Jesus Christ] there may be quoted such eminent . . . grammarians of the Greek New Testament as . . . P. W. Schmiedel, J. H. Moulton, A. T. Robertson, and . . . Blass-Debrunner. All of those scholars concur in the . . . judgment that only one person is referred to in Titus 2:13

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 48 of 96 . . . and that therefore, it must be rendered, "our great God . . . and Savior, Jesus Christ." For those of us who have our heads in the Son and modern scholarship, it is pretty clear. I listed above the great grammarians of the 19th and 20th centuries whose works are still central at the beginning of the 21st century. Perhaps the scholarly world into which Dixon has buried his head doesn't yet know about these standard works. III.P. Oversights. Dixon did respond to many of my Bible references. Too bad he couldn't amount a serious challenge to any of them. All he could manage was the corrupted hermeneutics of negativity, vain tangents, semantic abuse, and linguistic violations. In addition to these failures, he never even tried a response to the following: . . . 1. Psalm 23:1 where our great shepherd Jesus Christ is none other than Jehovah. . . . 2. Jer 23:6 where "JEHOVAH our righteousness." (Jer 23:6) from context shows that this is a Messianic prophecy. God will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King over Israel. Clearly, Jesus is this human King who is none other than JEHOVAH. . . . 3. "I, even I, am JEHOVAH; and beside me there is no Savior." Isa 43:11 . . . 4. The qualifications of a mediator. Dixon is fond of discussing the human aspect of Jesus' mediation as He represents us humans. He failed miserably to discuss Athanasius' argument about the necessity of Jesus' divinity so as to represent God. Who but God can represent God. . . . 5. The Jews' response to Jesus' claims (John 10:30,36). V. Forgiveness of sins. This is new material for Dixon. It isn't less important because I didn't use it in round 1. It merely reflects the poor memory of an old man who could only remember to discuss it at this time. In Matt 9, Jesus told a man that his sins were forgiven. The Pharisees rightly knew that this was blasphemy. The parallel passages (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21) supply what they voiced: "who can forgive sins but God only?" Dixon needs to address this feature in light of Deut 6:4: Israel's God is One Lord. Dixon needs to address this feature from the perspective of I John 2:2. The sins of the whole world have been forgiven.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 49 of 96 It is my guess that a cultist with a penchant for using deceptive hermeneutics will certainly avoid the key issues given above and go for the forgiveness of sins that pertains to humans with humans. Let's hope that Dixon will be able to see straight here. VI. Summary. A. Dixon's position is built on horrendous hermeneutics. He simply cannot stop from using corrupted hermeneutics. His entire second affirmative is negated by his deceptive violations of God's Word. B. Dixon's prime fault is negativity. He finds places that don't apply to the discussion and makes them the substance of his proposal. For example, he finds place where Jesus is described as a human and then thinks that this is a valid proof that Jesus is not God. With the Holy Spirit, Dixon notes 5 ways in which the Holy Spirit is not a Person and thinks that he has come up with a positive proof that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. While negativity may work at a social party, the local bar or with other Arian's, it does not work in a formal debate. C. Dixon doesn't stop with simple negativity. He regularly appeals to secondary definitions of a semantic domain and attempts to force his view of equality on every definition. That one can find a few places where "elohim" is defined as a human "lord" doesn't prove that Jesus isn't divine. D. Dixon regularly violates basic rules of linguistics. Words have definitions only in their contexts. One cannot appeal to a usage of a word in other contexts and force it upon the context in question. Dixon wants all words to be an undifferentiated synonymy. Common sense dictates otherwise. E. Dixon uses meaningless tangents to bore the reader into submission. Who cares about the private life of Athanasius? Who cares about the politics of the early Roman Empire? Who cares what lesser Synods have decided? None of these tangents are sufficient basis for any theology. F. Dixon never once brought anything to this debate that positively supported his propositions. Dixon never once responded to any of many facts that demolished his negativity. He tried of course, but like a pig cleaned up he returned to the pig pen of vile Christ-denying hermeneutics. G. Dixon's biggest failure is to address mediation from both sides of the issue: human and divine.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 50 of 96 Dixon is content only to see the human side and fails to understand that a strictly human mediator cannot can never represent God. H. There is even more new material over which Dixon can stumble. Jesus, as the divine Logos, was in the beginning, was with God, was God, and was made flesh (John 1). Jesus forgives sins Who but God can forgive sins? Thus, the mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically CORRECT since Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. VI. Conclusion Dixon's heresy is the old-time well-known Arian cancer. As long as we remain in our corrupt human flesh, there will proclivity to return to the errors that surfaced throughout Church History. Dixon's heresy is the devil's delight. We need to oppose this vile cancerous heresy whenever and where ever it surfaces. May Jesus be glorified as He deserves to be: as the true God, and eternal life (I John 5:20). Dr. Olson ____________________ Footnotes [1] J. Wilhelm, "Mediator (Christ as Mediator)," New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10118a.htm. [2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Trinitartanism Part 4," BSac 97:388 (Oct 40): 392-3. [3] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, "Facts On Jehovah's Witnesses,Chapter Fourteen," http://home.insightbb.com/~cathiadenham2/Facts%20on%20Jehovah's%20Witnesses/Jehovah's %20Witnesses%20--%2014.htm.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 51 of 96

Mr. Dixons Third Affirmative I am happy to present my Third Affirmative. I want to begin by saying that I do not find biblical language that depicts Jesus to be God "in essence," so it seems proper for me to say that I want to stick with what the scriptures clearly do saythat Jesus is human. That the biblical writers, in reflection, depict Jesus as "G/god" is something to be expected given the Jewish context and understanding of how to consider and refer to their leaders. The principle of agency, which Dr. Olson seems to me not to adequately understand, explains even further that Thomas could call Jesus "my God" with no rebuke (John 20:28) and that the Jewish authorities could accuse Jesus of being equal to God (as they say in John 10:30) and receive Jesus' clear denial and rebuke. Also, the idea that the Holy Spirit is as integral a part of God as man's spirit is an integral part of man himself has not been dismantled by Dr. Olson's blustery rhetoric. Regarding the Holy Spirit Dr. Olson fails to grasp the significance of the arguments that I have tried to make. He seems to simplify the discussion, remake my observations into an image of his own creation, and declare triumphantly that I have made no argument at all. At any rate please note several items. First, the Greek language, as in many other languages, has nouns that carry grammatical gender. That such is the case does not mean that we are to assume that because a word is masculine or feminine grammatically that it means the substantive represented by the word ought to be taken as male or female in person. Similarly, just because an item may appear in the grammatical neuter should not cause a reader to assume that a person, male or female is not intended (e.g. Jesus came to seek and to save "that which"neuter at Luke 19:10was lost; clearly that means people). Second, we do not find in the Greek text that masculine pronouns are used with the Greek word for Spirit, namely pneuma, a neuter term. If we are to understand pneuma to be a person, it must be because f other considerations like context and author intent, particularly with respect to the literary device known as personification, in which things are spoken of in personal terms. Dr. Olson correctly points out that my last presentation pointed out some negatives regarding the Holy Spirit, namely that 1. The Scriptures do not speak of the Holy Spirit, as a

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 52 of 96 separate entity as being prayed to or worshipped; that the Scriptures do not speak of the Holy Spirit being praised in songs; that the Scriptures do not have the Holy Spirit send his personal greetings with those of the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to the churches when the apostles write their letters; that the Scriptures do not give the Holy Spirit a personal name; and that Revelation does not give the Holy Spirit a seat of authority on the final throne. I mentioned those not simply as ultimate proofs because of what is not there, but to indicate what we normally would have expected of someONE who is supposed to be personally God in the Scriptures. It's that point that Dr. Olson fails to address. Nor is it without significance that Dr. Olson has chosen to ignore a considerable body of argumentation in my first speech in which I demonstrated the close connection of one's spirit being closely connected with himself, so much as to say that one's inner spirit is indeed that person's very self. He leaves alone the idea that positive ideas that God's spirit/Spirit proceeds from him giving life to the physical world (Gen. 2:7); that when the Spirit of the Lord leaves Saul (1 Sam. 16:14), we can know "the Lord" left Saul (1 Sam. 18:12). He doesn't want to deal with the idea that "My Spirit" and "the Spirit of the Lord" (30:1; 40:13) do = "I"the Lord who speaks there; that "The Spirit = "the hand of the Lord" in Ezekiel 3:14; 8:1-3; 37:1. I contend that Dr. Olson did not consider those, and other, ideas; and I maintain that he is hoping that forum readers will not be careful reviewers to see if he if he sufficiently treated those observations. When Dr. Olson says: "If the Holy Spirit were some impersonal force, there would be no reason to use masculine definite articles and masculine pronouns. The Holy Spirit must be personal," he betrays a lack of understanding of grammatical necessities in a context such as this one. While in four NT passages (John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7) the Greek parakletos is a masculine noun, "Comforter," standing as another name for the Holy Spirit, it is insufficient to say that this demands that we understand the parakletos to be male in personality. Again, grammar requires the use of the masculine definite article; but it is literary personhood which should be understood in this context. It is incorrect to say that such requires that the Holy Spirit "must be personal." Dr. Olson does not help himself when he couples Romans 8:27 and 1 Corinthians 2:10 and builds a straw man to say that no force can commune with the Father. Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 2:10, "Who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of a man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God". If the spirit of man is to his

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 53 of 96 own thoughts as the Spirit of God is to his own thoughts, there is no need to see any separation of persons. There is no reason to speak, in this context, of Holy Spirit as being an impersonal force. Here context shows that as much as a man's spirit is closely connected to himself, so are God's own thoughts and intelligence intended, not a separate person in a passage like this. So when Dr. Olson points out that the Spirit can be grieved by our sins (Eph 4:30) and blasphemed (Matt 12:32), he has not made an effective argument to say "no impersonal force or inanimate object can be so maligned." What he has to do is demonstrate the incorrectness of my affirmation that God's Spirit within himself is so personal so as not to be separated from him. In that sense God is grieved and God is blasphemed. God's Spirit belongs to God in exactly the same way that man's spirit belongs to the man. A man's spirit isn't some other person who exists separately from a man. His spirit is essentially part of the man as a whole, without which a man wouldn't even exist. So it is with God in the context of these verses. When Dr. Olson references Jesus' comment that he would ask the Father to send another Helper (allon parakleton)" to be with the disciples forever (John 14:16), here is a clearer statement to indicate that God would give something to the disciples. Again, we ought not to assume that God is going to give them a person. He is going to give them power as he promised he would. The disciples were to wait for this power: "You are witnesses of these things," Jesus says shortly before he ascended into heaven (Luke 24:48). "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you" (Luke 24:49a). Acts 2:4 says that the disciples all were filled "with holy Spirit" (pneumatos hagiou), which is identified as "my Spirit," which God promised to pour out in Joel 2:28-29, identified as "power from on high" (Luke 24:49b), not a person. The Spirit did help the disciples, initially on that occasion and in other ways at other times, to speak in other languages as a sign of God's presence with them on Pentecost Day when the church began. Furthermore, Peter identifies the Spirit (pneumatos, neuter) as "this which" (touto honeuter) strangely not translated personally in any translation that I know of as it was in John 14. The easy conclusion is that the Holy Spirit promised was not personal, but was a gift which, "that which" would empower the disciples. Interestingly, it is proleptically given to the disciples as Jesus breathed upon them in John 20: 22, saying, literally, "Receive holy Spirit" (labete pneuma hagion). This reminds one of John's explanation about Jesus reference to the Holy Spirit, "which (RSV) those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet [the] Spirit had not yet

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 54 of 96 (oupo gar en pneuma) been given to them"not a person, but impersonalof the power they were to receive later, first as Jesus would breathe it out upon them and as it would manifest itself more dramatically in the sound of a mighty rushing wind and represented in a body of flames of fire as it sat on each of the disciples on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Dr. Olson references Romans 8:26 and says, "The Spirit is a mediator with God (Rom 8:26), just like Jesus." On the contrary, of course, we know that "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). And the term "Holy Spirit" is used synonymously and interchangeably with "the spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16:7); "the spirit of [God's] Son" (Galatians 4:6); and "the spirit of Jesus Christ . . ." (Philippians 1:19). Consequently we should see the usage here of "the spirit" as being the active power of Jesus Christ, if not Jesus himself ("the last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit, 1 Corinthians 15:45; and "the Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit 2 Corinthians 3:17-18). As Jesus had told the disciples regarding his mediation on their behalf (John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23, 26). The Spirit interceding for us is Christ interceding for us. Dr. Olson's definition of a mediator being someone who must be fully divine as a person before he can be able to mediate on behalf of another is novel, but not definable by any biblical text. What makes Jesus our mediator is, simply, the fiat will of God that he be so; at least that is the way the Scriptures present it. Jesus is our mediator, as we are informed by the inspired Apostle Paul. Jesus, as presented as one who is interchangeably with the spirit (e.g. "the Spirit of Jesus") communicates with his disciples. The Spirit directs Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch's chariot (Acts 8:29). The Spirit says to separate Paul and Barnabas from the rest of the group (Acts 13:2) and to send them out for missionary work (Acts 13:4). Considering the paragraph above, one can easily see that it is Jesus who is doing this, although some of the wording could indicate that that it was God's power/spirit in them that directed them here and there across Asia Minor. While Dr. Olson may be correct in saying "A force does not have a personal will," God's power can move a person and enable a person without there being any necessity of thinking of that power as being a person. Dr. Olson approaches the passages assuming the Spirit is a person so he sees and interprets all these passages one way. I come to various passages with different presuppositions developed after considering and drawing conclusions from governing-defining Scriptures differently. Dr. Olson says, "[T]he fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22) has the personal qualities of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." Actually

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 55 of 96 descriptive genitive. Dr. Olson limits the power of God when he says that "Only a personal being can produce personal qualities." God, through his Spirit, at the direction of his Son, can do all sorts of things that Dr. Olson's presuppositions cause him to not expect. 1. First, Dr. Olson posited that Jesus was divine because the Early Church Councils said so. He completely ignored my evidence that the councils were arbitrary, and contradictory, and even those who participated in them knew that the fact that they convened proved nothing other than the fact that they were quite capable of reversing themselves repeatedly in very efficient ways. Nor does he have an adequate response to my, and history's, contention borne of the evidence that Trinitarianism won out at the end of the day only because those who wanted to hold to the view had the power of the Roman sword to back their heresy. 2. Second, it is an argument to show that Jesus presents God as being the only true God and that it is specious to force 1 John 5:20 to be understood as saying the opposite. A number of scholars do not accept that understanding, as I indicated. Of course this leads me to a point that readers should consider. There are points that Dr. Olson or I make, seeking to support it with the statement of a scholar here or there. At the end of the day, a person picks his scholars. I'll say it later regarding the Granville Sharp rule, but bottom line, there are dozens of scholars who are represented in the various translations' committee members who place either in the text or in the notes two alternate translations. Jesus is either God our Savior, or the passage speaks of God AND of our Savior Jesus Christ a separate person. Even casual reading of the introductions to the various translations indicate that the readings in the margins are NOT there because they are secondary; they are there because the committees of scholars knew they had to put one rendering in the text and an EQUAL rendering in the margin. Most scholars have a Trinitarian predisposition and choose to put into the text renderings that support what they already believe. Even so, some translations put the rendering that looks like two people are being addressed in the text with the reading that appears to make Jesus out to be "God our Savior" in the margin. So what does one do? Flip a coin after praying over it? Pull out the Urim and Thummin? Fast and pray and, Gideon-like lay a fleece outside the translation rooms so that God will give a sign of what is the correct translation? Or perhaps biblical writers intentionally make some things vague sometimes. Or perhaps there is no problem

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 56 of 96 at all in calling Jesus God without thinking him to be Almighty God as is God the Father. I'll say more on this later. But at least you see the difficulty that ought to be humbly considered by honest readers. Regarding Jesus Christ, Son of God and Human King Dr. Olson doesn't understand that if I have indicated that Jesus is human, I have positively established my case, at least in that argument. He has done a poor job of demonstrating that there are passages that establish Jesus to be God. And he concedes all the passages that I've presented that indicate that Jesus is a man. I'd at least have thought he would deal with the passage that said that Jesus had to be made like his brothers `IN EVERY WAY." No brothers in humanity are God-men like the Jekyll-Hyde Christ Dr. Olson has created. He asks me to make an affirmative argument related to Jesus' deity when Scripture doesn't do it. But that doesn't mean I have made no affirmative arguments. I've said that Jesus is Christ, the final king in a line of men laid out in God's establishment of a dynasty of kings descended from David. Second Samuel 7:12-16 is a primary passage that governs so many of the OT and NT statements about who Jesus was. I made the affirmative argument that "Son of God" terminology established in this passage finds fulfillment throughout Scripture. The first "son of God" in the context of Israel's kings is seen as David's son Solomon is called God's son. God's king is also called his "son" again in Psalm 2:7, which is applied to Jesus, God's final anointed Son and King in Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5a; and Hebrews 5:5. Both passages are used of Jesus the Messiah in NT passages in Hebrews. The psalm, which originally spoke of a human king in Israel, speaks of Solomon, who is called God's son, and who is made parallel to God's Son the Messiah in Hebrew 1:5b. This "son" of God terminology, according to Dr. Olson, obfuscates the "Son of God" connection in Scripture and makes it apply to Jesus in the sense of his nature as being "of the order" of God. He gives no verses to suggest that this is the way Scriptures speaks of Jesus. Again, Scripture connects "son of God," as a prophetic statement with one's coronation as Messianic king. It doesn't use the phrase in OT prophecy, to refer to the Messiah as being essentially (I.e. "in essence") God or one "of the order of" God. While he tries to have me mean that Psalm 2:7 ("Today, I have become your Father") refers to Jesus' temporal procreative beginning as a human, I have done no such thing with that verse. In my 1st Affirmative, I clearly connected the verse with Jesus' enthronement after his resurrection (Acts 2:34-35; 13:33), and his present and continuing reign as Messianic king (1 Cor. 15:27-28; Mark 16:19; Col 1:13).

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 57 of 96 It is a simple step to see that the "son of God" terminology is equated with terminology used of God's human king whom God refers to as "God/god" in Psalm 45:6. As I demonstrated, as the human king in Psalm 45:6 is called "God," Queen's bridesmaids, in context, are standing nearby, Ps. 45:9), another human being Jesus receives the designation as I indicated in Hebrews 1:8, ignored by Dr. Olson. Scripture clearly connects the term "son of God" with a human being. Dr. Olson erroneously believes that scripture makes the connection to deity, and he decries the fact that on several occasions I called up Luke 1:35 (He says 5 times!), noting that "Dixon's dismal debate hinges in part on five appeals to Luke 1:35. Perhaps I would have appealed to it less had Dr. Olson given one even dismal response to the following positive comments regarding the verse: (1) God's holy Spirit was present to create Jesus in the womb of Mary. I tried to emphasize that the Greek word dio in Luke 1:35 meant that "it is for this precise reason" that Jesus is called Son of God in the procreative sense. Literally, "It is for this precise reason (Greek dio)namely the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit that he shall be called Son of God. In this sense, then, we are looking at Jesus' beginning existence. Note I did not connect this to Psalm 2:7. It is connected to the administration of God's power via his holy Spirit to miraculously cause her "seed" to become pregnant. God, then, by the Spirit's power, became the Father of the Son in a procreative sense. Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews quotes the Septuagint, not the Hebrew, Masoretic text, at Hebrews 102:25, where Jehovah calls someone "Lord" and says that one laid the foundations of the earth. It's big language, to be sure. But it is to be used of a human. But it's no bigger than to say that a human king can sit on an eternal throne (Ps. 45:6, 9). F.F. Bruce, in his commentary on Hebrews recognizes that Psalm 102:25 refers to the referent, not to God, in the Septuagint of that passage, and then, without any evidence of discussion, whatsoever says that it is an evidence of Christ's deity. Why not just go with the text, say what it says positively and leave speculation alone? One always knows what is THERE. Dr. Olson has no passage of Scripture out of 12,000 occurrences of the Hebrew word Elohim or the Greek word Theos which, in itself, means "Trinity." Dixon Treatment of Matthew 9:8 Dr. Olson says regarding Matthew 9 that I never addressed the fact that the people connected Jesus' forgiveness of the paralytic's sins with something they thought only God could do. On the contrary, I addressed this in my First Affirmative. Matthew 9:8 says that Jesus'

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 58 of 96 authority to do the things he did, and specifically in context to forgive sins on earth, was something that was given to him. Matthew points out how the people were amazed that such authority had been "given to men." I agree with that. If Jesus had been God, he would never have needed to be given anything; his authority would have existed always. I had preceded my point with the affirmative point that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Jesus (announced by him after the resurrection in Matthew 28:18). Couple that with the affirmative statement, ignored by Dr. Olson, that Jesus had been made Lord and Messiah by God (Acts 2:36). Again, if he had been Almighty God already, nothing could have been given to him at all. Lordship and Adonai Dr. Olson again ignored an additional point that I made in my First Affirmative where the LORD (Yahweh is always presented in most capitals as all caps in the Old Testament) speaks to Adoni"my Lord" in Psalm 110:1, uniformly translated kurios mou in the Septuagint and in the New Testament passages that quote the Greek Old Testament. I said, "The Almighty Lord Jehovah (ASV) has had the lesser one known as "my Lord" sit at his right hand." Note that in context of Psalm 110 "my lord" is a human king; a number of modern translations even put both words in lower case at Psalm 110:1. The enthroned king, in Hebrew literature is said to be one seated at God's right hand. (This is one explanation of how the human king can be said to have an eternal throne in Psalm 45:6. As that enthroned king sat at God's right hand, Psalm 110:1 is quoted or alluded to numerous times in the New Testament to show that the Messiah would similarly sit in that place (e.g. Matt. 22:44; Acts 2:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3). Dr. Olson's Deception or Inattention (Hopefully the latter) Regarding Adonai and adoni As "positive" as that evidence is, Dr. Olson made either a deceptive or a mistaken attempt to explain away the significance of a greater point, namely that in Psalm 110:1 Yahweh is speaking to Adoni NOT to Adonai. I clearly pointed out the difference in spelling in my former presentation. Because it was unassailable, Dr. Olson tried to bamboozle the readers by his blustery railing rhetoric and pointless discussion of numerous passages that had the word Adonai. The fact is that Adoni is NEVER used of God, but is ALWAYS used of human or angelic agents. Dr. Olson proceeded to list 105 occurrences of the Hebrew Adonai to prove his point, saying, "I run out of patience listing verses that you have cut out of your Bible." On the contrary I tire of

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 59 of 96 Dr. Olson's ignoring of the 195 occurrences in the Old Testament that proved my point and that he did not refer to at all. Not one of the 105 verses he cites impacts the point as it relates to Psalm 110:1. All of his references refer to Adonai, which, admittedly in the OT, refers to God. It would have been nice had he made even one reference to any of the 195 occurrences of the Hebrew word Adoni NOT Adonai. Perhaps Dr. Olson plans to respond in the last speech of the debate. It can be confusing if one does not recognize the way most English translations distinguish between various significant words in this part of the discussion. What are the EZ facts? 1. Yahweh is "LORD" (all caps) in most translations; the ASV uniformly translates it "Jehovah") 2. Adonai is "Lord" 3. Adoni is "my Lord" or "my lord," sometimes "my master" 4. Even Baal is sometimes translated "lord." Much of this is usually found in explanatory comments in the introductions to most English translations. That Dr. Olson can find a plethora of occurrences of "Lord" in his Greek New Testament is irrelevant to the fact that any one of several uses of OT Hebrew words are being translated into NT Greek. There is no Adonai in Psalm 110:1. There is no reason to think that God would even make Jesus into Adonai at Acts 2:36 if he were already God the Lord (When God is Lord, it is Adonai in the OT). Is Dr. Olson assuming that his readers here at the forum are not careful readers. (For a discussion of this cogent point, consider the following article: by Allon Maxwell, "Sit Thou at My Right Hand," Internet resource retrieved 1-5-2008 from: <http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/BD86.htm> ) Acts 2:36, Acts 10:36, and "Son" Jesus is "Lord" because he is the Adoni the Messiah, not Adonai God, appointed as such formally, Peter tells on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:36. That he is "Lord of all" in Acts 10:36 is because God gave him ALL authority (Matthew 9:8; 28:18). Dr. Olson tells us that he had already shown that Jesus as Christ is God himself. Where does he do it? He mentions Matt. 26:63 proves it when it says "Christ, the Son of God." He has yet to find a verse where "son of" in the phrase "Son of God" means, in context, "of the order of." The references, as we have seen, refer to either Jesus' beginning precisely because of (dio in Greek at Luke1:35) the action of the Holy Spirit's miraculous impregnation of Mary or of Jesus' fulfilled status as Son of God in the

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 60 of 96 sense of being Messianic king: All kings in the Davidic line /dynasty beginning with Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14) are God's sons. This kingly and Messianic reality is the one that is equated with sonship in Psalm 2:7 (and Psalm 89:3-4, 26 where the king says to God, "You are my Father") or in the NT applications of such passages to refer to the last human Messiah Jesus The Prologue of John With dripping sarcasm introduces the Prologue of John into this debate and tells us that it is "really very EZ" to be able to conclude that John 1:1 proves total equality of the word with God. I agree with that. The Word (logos) is God's inner most Plan and Reason and Message before he places that inside a man Jesus. The logos BECOMES flesh in John 1:14. It is not flesh in Jesus the Son who is an entity addressed in John 1:1-3. And evangelical scholars more competent that Dr. Olson or I have NOT found it so easy to find Jesus the Son in John 1:1-3. Let me quote two prominent ones: Colin Brown Colin Brown is the respected editor of the evangelical Theological Dictionary of New Testament Theology. He says this of John's Prologue: "Son of God" is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed to be a Son of God one has to be a being who is not God! . . . It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John's gospel to read it as if it said, "In the begining was the Son, and the Son was with god and the Son was God. What has happened here is a substitution of Son for Word (Greek, logos), AND THEREBY THE Son is made a member of the Godhead, which existed from the beginning . . . In other words, Son-language in John denotes the word made flesh in Jesus, who as such speaks God's Word to human beings on earth (Colin Brown, "Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy," Ex Auditu Vol. 7 (1991): pp. 88, 89). Brown's non-Trinitarian point is that while logos may exist as God, it is not the Son who is God, but God who is IN the Son once Jesus is born. The designation "word" as in God's word appears in the OT some 1500 times and never means a person. One's word is not a person, it is the expression of one's thought. So God had a thought in the beginning, a plan to present the saving gospel of the kingdom of God (Matt. 13:19, "the word/logos about the kingdom"). That is

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 61 of 96 what God had in mind in the beginning. That the logos is "with God" is an easily recognized Hebrew way of saying that the word was in God's heart as an inner part of him. We don't say that in English. WE don't say, "my word is with me." It is common in Hebrew. In the Old Testament, a vision, a word, or a purpose is said to be "with" the person who receives or possesses it. Something impersonal can be "with" a person, as, for example, "the truth of the gospel might remain with you (Gal. 2:5). Or note 1 John 1:2 where "eternal life was with the Father." Consider, for example the following passages from the literal American Standard Version, where the idea is prevalent: 1. Job 10:13"with you" is parallel to "concealed in your heart"; "fixed in your decree" 2. Job 12:13, 16"With God is wisdom and might"; "with him is strength and wisdom" 3. Prov. 8:30Wisdom personified is said to be with God. 4. 2 Kings 3:12"The word of Jehovah is with" Elisha F. F. Bruce Amazingly, the well-respected F. F. Bruce wrote about John 1:1 and the problem of the preexistence of Christ as a person: On the preexistence question, one can at least accept the preexistence of the eternal word or wisdom of God which (who?) became incarnate in Jesus. But whether any New Testament writer believed in his separate conscious existence as a "second Divine Person" is not so clear . . . I am not so sure that Paul so believed (Personal correspondence to Sir Anthony Buzzard, 13 June 1981 cited in A. F. Buzzard and C. F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound. [Lanham, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1998], pp. 198-199.) Olson's Deception at Isaiah 44:6? Dr. Olson blatantly misrepresents the text and obscures the meaning of Isaiah 44:6. I had cited several translations (including the New International Version, English Standard Version, New English Translation [http://bible.org]), all of which show that it is the Lord who is Israel's ("his") /redeemer/protector who leads armies. Dr. betrays a desire to blatantly manipulate the forum readers regarding this passage. He writes as follows:

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 62 of 96 [Isaiah 44:6] . . . Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel,. . . and His [sic] redeemer the LORD of hosts Dixon thinks a careful reader would "understand that the his that appears there is Israel, not Jehovah God." Does this pass the common sense test? Is Israel the LORD of hosts? The pronoun was masculine, Israel is a neuter nation. If Israel were the redeemer, then it would be its own Savior and not need a Messiah. Most of the time, Dixon's abuses of hermeneutics are not so blatantly false. I doubt many (if any) of the readership of this group would think that his is national Israel. To begin, in his First Negative, Dr. Olson quoted the American Standard Version for Isaiah 44:6 which has a lower case "his" in the phrase "his redeemer Jehovah of hosts." In his Second Negative, Dr. Olson quotes the King James Version and ADDS AN UPPER CASE "His" with the effect of making it appear that it is the LORD, not Israel's king, who is being referenced in the passage. I checked a number of KJVs, both hardcopy and online and NONE have an upper case "His" at Isaiah 44:6. Additionally, he obfuscates the passage by saying Israel as the redeemer would require the nation to be its own Savior. This isn't the point of the passage at all. Isaiah is writing to show that Israel has a redeemer and that redeemer is Jehovah of hosts. Dr. Olson's rendering creates the absurd thought of creating a circumstance in which Jehovah is the one who needs a redeemer ! ! ! Third, various translations besides those I already listed clear this up: The New Living Translation, the New American Bible, the New International Version all render the passage as meaning Israel's king and redeemer . Fourth, I am not sure where Dr. Olson learned his Hebrew, but there is no neuter in Hebrew. There is only the masculine and the feminine in the language. Fifth, Dr. Olson insults the forum readers by assuming that they will not read carefully and check his tricky and incorrect statements against the various translations they all use. Isaiah 6:5; 48:11 This passage is closely connected to a passage Dr. Olson gave cursory treatment to, namely John 5:23-24. God says he will not share his glory with others. How are we to understand this? Are we to read and understand that since Jesus received glory as the Father received glory then we acknowledge that the Son and the Father are both the Lord God? No. In context of the OT passages we should understand that God is not going to share his absolute essence with anyone

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 63 of 96 else. If we do not look at the passage in something like that manner of interpretation, we run into all sorts of theological problems. It is easy enough to want to say that Jesus is glorified "as the Father" and conclude that he must, therefore be God. But what do you do with the fact that Romans 8 also teaches that Christians are to be glorified as well. In my previous discussion, I tried to point out (and in typical fashion Dr. Olson left the point alone), that John 5: 23-24 is teaching this: It is a fact that God is honored. Likewise it is a fact that Jesus should be honored. The Greek word kathos, translated "as" or "likewise" is not to be understood as teaching that Jesus is to be honored with the precise and equal glory of the Father, but that he is likewise also to be honored. He needs to respond to Dr. Carl Conrad's observation that the force of the Greek is that "Insofar as they show honor to the Father, they should also show honor to the Son." It is not a passage teaching equality of honor. It is much like the concept of God declaring himself to be the only Savior (Heb. Mosiya) in Isaiah 43:11, yet there are a number of saviors (Heb. Mosiya, e.g. Nehemiah 9:27: "and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies"). There is glory and honor to be dispensed without violation of God's promise that he would not share it with anyone else. That he would not share his absolute essence and Almighty God-ship with Jesus or anyone else seems clear enough to an honest reader. Isaiah 9:6 It isn't just Dixon who considers Isaiah 9:6 to be a passage referring to someone in the immediate context of Isaiah's time. And that the passage is never quoted in the NT does not seem to phase Dr. Olson one bit. He also hopes that none of the readership took a gander at note 8 in my second affirmative or tracked the link given there. He would not have you consider that my discussion and applications were not made in a vacuum. Reputed Trinitarian scholars agree that the passage would not have been considered Messianic by Isaiah. Consider the various terms as discussed at notes 12-14 of the notes at bible.org, the main site for the N.E.T. Bible. Wonderful Counselor is used of a king in Micah 4:9, and "the king's counsel is extraordinary because it finds its source in the divine spirit. Thus this does not necessarily suggest that the ruler is deity. Regarding "Mighty God," it "is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title" to indicate the coming king's deity. "Psa. 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as God because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth."

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 64 of 96 And even considering the designation "Everlasting Father," the Trinitarian scholars note that "This title must not be taken in anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the "Son" is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the "Father.") Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of the people. For a similar use of "father" see (Isaiah 22:11 and Job 29:16 . . . . [Regarding the use of "everlasting"] "Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king's long reign or enduring dynasty ("for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kings 1:31, Psalms 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17) . . ." Granville Sharp and Agency Dr. Olson and I have cited modern scholarship to back up our respective perspectives regarding Titus 2:13. I should note that if I am disregarding modern scholarship in my conclusions, then so is Nigel Turner (remember note # 9 in my last presentation?). He is the author of the third and fourth volumes of the four-volume A Grammar of New Testament Greek, considered one of several standard texts used in advanced Greek classes (full citation for the quotation I provided: W.F. Howard and J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek Volume 3, Syntax, by Nigel Turner [Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1963]). I am aware of the sources Dr. Olson cites. They are of no greater stature in the scholarly world than is Dr. Turner. If Dr. Olson wants to establish his case on a point of grammar contested by a number of scholars with equal credentials, fine. I think that more light can be brought to the subject by considering other theological aspects related to the question. Jesus, not Danny Dixon, asked the Jewish authorities if it were not true that the scriptures referred to leaders in Israel as "gods" when they tried to pin upon him the charge of claiming to be equal with God. Not only does Jesus, in John 10:33ff not call himself God. He refers to himself as God's Son, and they did not try to stone him again. Dr. Olson ignored (again) the information I provided by another well known scholar Darrell Bock, whom I cited to demonstrate that Jesus was not crucified for claiming to be God, but for blasphemy of another sort: simply claiming as a man to be the Messiah (Second Affirmative, footnote 4). Dr. Olson is silent about that. Although he is quick to leave the impression that I am saying things that have no basis in contemporary scholarship. He tried to throw readers off of the point of logical progression that I presented that would make Jerusalem Jehovah where similar terminology is used ("God is our righteousness" at

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 65 of 96 Jeremiah 33:16). He can cloud the issue, but the point still stands two individuals having similar names does not make the individuals the same person. Jesus can be "God with Us" because that is what Immanuel means. The name Michael is one of the most common names in the U.S. It means "The one who is like God," but the person holding the name could be a walking devil. In response to my challenge to produce one passage that requires the Messiah to be God, Dr. Olson fails again when he mentions Matthew 1:23where Jesus is called Emmanuel (a name meaning God with us)and says this is proof that there is scripture that suggests that God should be Messiah. No for two reasons. First this is the SECOND person with that name in the scriptures, the first is a young boy in king Ahaz's court in Isaiah 7:1-14. The birth of the boy according to prediction was proof that God was with the people at a time of great military distress in the land. That Jesus was to be called Emmanuel, similarly, was indicative of the fact that God would be with us since his agent, his Messiah, was now born. Dr. Olson's analysis is too simplistic, and even sophomoric. Dr. Olson concludes that little section by saying that while "scripture denies Beings of honor, worship and praise, Dixon's heresy demands it." Again no. I began the debate with evidence that God's kings, his anointed ones, thus his messiahs, and certainly his last Messiah could receive worship. In my First Affirmative I mentioned one example, ignored by Dr. Olson again, 1 Chronicles 29:20 where the KJV informs us as follows: And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king. I also mentioned that in the Septuagint the word for "worship" is proskuneo. This is the bowing down in obeisance that many people gave to Jesus without rebukeDr. Olson would say it is because he was God and he knew it. Again, No. It appropriate to give proskuneo to persons worthy of great respect. At least that is the testimony of Scripture (Jesus tells faithful Christians in Revelation 3:9, "Listen! I am going to make those people from the synagogue of Satanwho say they are Jews yet are not, but are lyingLook, I will make them come and proskuneobow downat your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you." While earlier in this presentation I discussed Matthew 9:8 in the context of Jesus being granted authority by God to forgive sins, there is no real challenge to approach it, as Dr. Olson

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 66 of 96 asks, from the standpoint of 1 John 2:2. He seems to feel that there is some significance to the fact that the sins of the whole world are forgiven. What is his point? If Jesus forgave sins on earth because God gave him that authority, how is this affected by the fact that all sins are forgiven? It is Christ's blood that forgives all sin (1 John 1:7). That's the way God set it up. I don't see Dr. Olson's point. Dr. Olson thinks there is a connection between Lord and LORD in comparing Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29. That is absolutely impossible. Deuteronomy 6:4, quoted at Mark 12:29 reads as follows: Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh. That's translated kurios from the Septuagint as follows: Hear O Israel, kurios our God is one kurios. None of the verses make ANY allowances for talking about kurios as meaning Adonai, another name or designation for God, or even of kurios as meaning Adoni a term for "my lord" the Messiah (cf. Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:35-36). Both occasions of the Greek word kurios translate the Hebrew word Yahweh. At best Dr. Olson has his fingers crossed behind his back, hoping that the readers of this forum will not check his deception or misrepresentation of that the two texts he mentions. At best he has to hope that the scribe who questioned him would not see that Jesus himself had his fingers crossed behind his back and that he didn't really mean what the scribe understood: THERE IS ONLY ONE YAHWEH. And in no way would that scribe have thought that Jesus was trying to suggest, or even to hide, that he himself was Yahweh at Mark 12:29's recitation of Deuteronomy 6:4. One Lord is made distinct from one God in Ephesians 4:4-5 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. The Lord (Adonai) has made Jesus to be Lord Adoni over the church-kingdom (Acts 2:35-36). But this is a temporary arrangement until all of Adoni's enemies are subjected under his, Adoni's, feet (Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:24ff). My lord (Adoni) Jesus is not Yahweh, nor is he the Lord (Adonai). Summation Clearly, it is God's plan that Jesus, God's agent/Messiah, act in God's name and on his behalf. This is the role of the Son of God. This was God's Plan/logos that was with God (John 1:1-3) before Jesus became a person, i.e. became flesh (John 1:14). Carefully review the arguments that have been made. Grant either Dr. Olson or me more grace than we have probably shown one another as you objectively compare the good and bad

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 67 of 96 arguments, or the less developed and even the more developed arguments that we have respectively made. Weigh the discussion soberly. Dr. Olson uses a lot of heated rhetoric, and unfortunately he pulled me into some of it as well. But he has never substantively defended the status quo idea that Jesus is one substance, the same essence or nature as God. His only real proof of that is a misplaced argument taken out of context regarding the term "Son," which he says, means "of the order of." Sure it means that (1 Thessalonians 5:5). But not with respect to any of the verses that speak of Jesus as Son in this debate. In this debate, Son of God = Christ/Messiah. Period. The end. I don't have to prove anything other than what I have shown: 1. Jesus is a man even now, serving as the mediator between God and other men (1 Timothy 2:5). 2. The Holy Spirit is the Father's internal spirit and power by which he accomplishes his will, as in causing Jesus to become "son" in the procreative sense by impregnating his mother Mary (Luke 1:35). God-terminology is appropriate for the leaders (even bad ones) in Israel (Psaslm 82:6), so it is appropriate that Thomas should call him my Lord (Adoni if he were speaking Hebrew) and my God (elohim). The only blasphemy Jesus was accused of was of calling himself the Son of God in the sense of that term meaning Christ (review Darrell Bock's Blasphemy ad Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65). Jesus was happy to call himself Son of God in this sense because he knew he was Messiah (John 10:33ff). I would ask you to be careful about reading scholars. Jesus says that God would send prophets, wise men, and scribes to the church (Matthew 23:34), and it would be an easy thing to reject them outright. Scholars are important. But often their credentials are equal, and while they may rail about how their positions are final and absolute, that is not the case. Often, even though they approach matters in a scientific and objective way, they arrive at different opinions. Even recognized scholars like Dr. Colin Brown or Dr. F. F. Bruce are tentative in their conclusions about verses deemed so crucial in Trinitarian-Unitarian discussions (e.g. John 1:1-3). So it is with Granville Sharp, Nigel Turner and Henry Alford (and others) regarding Titus 2:13. The principle of agency is a sufficient one to explain how Christ is our God and Savior if GS is correct. An agent of God can act in the name of and on behalf of God to save others. Agent Jesus the Messiah did as Viceroy/Agent Joseph did in Pharaoh's court:

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 68 of 96 "Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt" (Genesis 41:39-41). Dr. Olson's only proof, really, was the conclusion of an ambivalent council that met with a minority of bishops in Nicea at the behest of a pagan emperor in A.D. 325. Even prominent participants in that council and later ones were ashamed of how their anathemas destroyed fellow Christians. It was only when the sword had been granted to back up their canons and condemnations that Trinitarians began to gain a majority voice (all others were silenced on pain of death.) Never alter a text, even in punctuation to make a point. First it's dishonest. Second your point may not have been worth it anyway. (Jehovah needs no redeemer, even one named Jehovah, cf. Isaiah 44:6). Grace and peace to the readers of this debate. Danny Andr Dixon

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 69 of 96

Olson's Third Negative

Mr. Dixon proposed the following: The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy Spirit" is another name for God the Father. Outline of Dr. Olson's 3rd Negative I. .. .. .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... II. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... Jesus Christ A. B. C. Dixon's Negative Proposal Scripture's Clear Teaching Specific Verses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 John 5:21. Jesus as Mediator (1 Tim 2:5) Son of God. Forgiveness of sins. Lord and Jehovah John's Prologue: Logos. Granville Sharp (Titus 2:13). Isaiah 9:6 Matthew 9:8

10. Isaiah 44:6 The Holy Spirit A. B. C. D. E. Significance of arguments. The Spirit lives. The Positives Overlooked. More Positives and Useful Negatives Responses 1. 2. Another Helper Spirit of Christ.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 70 of 96 .... 3. Romans 8:26

III. Hermeneutics. I. Jesus Christ A. Dixon's Negative Proposal The heart of Mr. Dixon's entire proposal has been negative. His first affirmative attempted to prove that Jesus wasn't true deity based on several negative assumptions. He defined the "Son of God" as "child of" rather than "of the order of." He proposed that since Jesus was David's human descendant that Jesus was human and could not be full deity. He referred to times when Jesus acted as a human as proof that Jesus wasn't God. None of these are sufficient to support Dixon's proposal. B. Scripture's Clear Teaching Dixon's first failure has been to notice the clear teaching of scripture regarding Jesus Christ. The Prologue to John's Gospel. Jesus is the TRUE GOD and eternal life. 1 John 5:20 1.Thomas' cried out, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). 2.God the Father decreed: "Your throne, O GOD, will last for ever and ever" (Heb 1:8). 3.Jesus Himself declared: I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, first and the last (Rev 22:13,16). 4.Dixon's responses have repeatedly violated basic rules of hermeneutics. A word used in one passage can have a different meaning when used in another passage. So Dixon found one place where humans are referred to as "gods" and thinks that this must be used in all references to Jesus. 5."I, even I, am JEHOVAH; and beside me there is no Savior." Isa 43:11 6."Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13 7.For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6 8.Jesus is our mediator with God (1 Tim 2:5). A mediator must be fully divine in order to mediate with God.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 71 of 96 9.Jesus forgave sins; something only God can do (Matt 9, Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). Even the Pharisees rightly knew this. 10. C. Jesus declared that He and His Father "are one" (John 10:30).

Specific Verses In a move to avoid Scripture's clear teaching that Jesus is God, Dixon has confused the

issue by ignoring basic rules of linguistics, redefining words outside of their contexts, inept usage of Greek grammar, and forcing his own unsupported bias upon texts without concern for common sense. 1. 1 John 5:21. Here, verse 20 speaks of Jesus. Verse 21 says: "This is the TRUE GOD, and eternal life." Rather than use common sense Greek grammar, Dixon has searched and found one so-called Bible verse (Acts 4:10-11) that doesn't seem to follow the grammatical norm. He turns to Acts 4:10-11. Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, . . . which is become the head of the corner. Acts 4:10-11 Here, the literal closest reference for the "this" is the other healed man. Dixon notes that the common rule of proximity would make the healed man the stone which was set at nought. Dixon's misapplication is based on the failure to do basic grammatical outline. The phrase beginning with "even by him" is grammatically indented from the flow of the main discussion. Hence the pronoun "this" is easily seen to point backward to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. This is Dixon's pattern. He will search the scriptures to find one apparent inconsistency and use it as a proof text. This is highly unethical. This unethical abuse of God's Word cannot overturn a clear verse that declares Jesus to be the TRUE GOD. Dixon has run to another verse and ripped it out of context and built his theology on a passage not even pertinent to the discussion. 2. Jesus as Mediator (1 Tim 2:5) In my first negative, I showed that Jesus was divine because He mediates with God. Only deity mediates with deity. In his second affirmative, Dixon sidestepped the issue by claiming that this was only the view of the Council of Nicea (325). In my second negative, I showed him that it wasn't

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 72 of 96 that a Council stated so, but it was the natural conclusion of understanding what a mediator does. Athanasius just happened to be the person who used this argument to prove Jesus' deity. In Dixon's third affirmative, he again claims that I've ignored his evidence that the councils were arbitrary and contradictory. He thinks that Trinitarianism won out in the end only because they had the power of the Roman sword to back their view. How does either of his responses address the fact that only deity can mediate with deity. Dixon is clearly hiding behind words and refuses to address the basic point. A priest cannot mediate with God. A priest can only perform functions as described by covenant law to illustrate divine forgiveness. A prophet cannot mediate with God. A prophet can only speak forth God's truths for the situation at hand. The basic fact of mediation is that the mediator must be equal to both parties. This is something commonly understood in the secular world. No historic council changes this common sense definition. The private life of no person from ancient history changes this fact. The changing fortunes of world history do not affect that only deity can mediate with deity. Dixon has run from the truth. 3. Son of God. In his first affirmative, Dixon proposed that the title Son of God meant procreation. Jesus came into being at some moment in time. In my first negative, I showed that the phrase "son of" also carries the meaning "of the order of." In his second affirmative, Dixon responded that the phrase was used with the birth of the human Jesus. This folly only highlights that Dixon only sees the human Jesus and is blind to every reference about His deity. He further writes: "His Son-ship has to do with his coronation as God's Messianic king after his resurrection." In my second negative, I pointed out how Jesus is linked with the divine Jehovah. In his third affirmative, Dixon was able to find a passage where "son of God" is seen as David's son Solomon. Hence, he again wants to rip this usage out of context and force it on every other reference to Jesus. Dixon has ignored how God the Father decreed: "Your throne, O GOD, will last for ever and ever" (Heb 1:8). This is a messianic context where Jesus as the Son of David is called GOD. If one uses the whole of scripture then one is unlikely to arrive at Dixon's conclusion. Dixon's error is to rip the phrase out of its context and force that one definition on all other references to Jesus. This is quite deceitful. 4. Forgiveness of sins.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 73 of 96 Dixon claims that Jesus only had God's authority to forgive sins. I showed Dixon that he overlooked a significant factor: the Pharisees. They knew that only God could forgive sins. God does not delegate this responsibility to anyone else as Dixon would have us believe. How does he respond? Well, he has nothing new, so he merely repeated his error of the first affirmative. Again, he runs to another context where Jesus has been given all authority (Matt 28:18). He rips the verse out of its context, grabs the definition of the word "authority," and wrongly forces it upon the context of forgiveness of sins. A glorified non-divine Messiah cannot forgive sins. For Jesus to forgive sins, He must be divine. 5. Lord and Jehovah In his first affirmative, Dixon mentioned that Jehovah is Israel's true Lord. He is Jehovah (or Yahweh), the one Lord (Adonai), who requires the love's fullness from our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. In my first negative, I showed that both the titles Jehovah and Adonai also apply to Jesus. In his second affirmative, Dixon denied that Adonai in Psalm 110:1 refers to Jesus. Who then is "my Lord?" Where is there any biblical proof that I was wrong in my first negative? In his third affirmative, Dixon tries to hide behind lower case translations to imply that Jesus wasn't divine. I went to the Blue Letter Bible project and looked at all their version and none had both words in lower case. Dixon has probably run to one obscure translation and hold dearly to it. He also thinks he can find support from the fact that Yahweh is speaking to Adoni NOT to Adonai. He writes: "The fact is that Adoni is NEVER used of God, but is ALWAYS used of human or angelic agents." However, when I turn to the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, I find that is refers to 1) firm, strong, lord, master to both God and men and 2) reference to God. Who should we believe: Dixon's unsupported reference or a well known scholarly reference? 5. John's Prologue: Logos. John's Prologue clearly mentions that "the Word was God." This is even more emphatic in the original Greek. Two facts must be emphasized. First, the word for God is actually first in the sentence and it is without the article. Anyone familiar with Greek knows that the lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word with the person of God. Second, the word for Jesus is actually Logos. It has the definite article which tells us that The Logos is

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 74 of 96 the subject of the sentence. The reverse word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has. . . . If the Father is personal, then so is Jesus. . . . If the Father is fully divine, then so is Jesus! Notice that this is Bible. Dixon countered this by finding one quote from Colin Brown who thinks otherwise. Brown writes that this passage was an unfortunate substitution of the word "Son" for the Greek "Logos." While the logos may exist as God, it is not the Son who is God, but God who is IN the Son once Jesus is born. Dixon's response and scholarly reference are a riot. This is exactly the point. The "Logos" became flesh (John 1:14) is just as true as "God was manifested in the flesh" (I Tim 3:16). Dixon only acknowledges the truths regarding Jesus as human and ignores all the Bible truths about Jesus as the divine Son of God Who in fact is God Himself. 7. Granville Sharp (Titus 2:13). The text reads: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Greek grammar acknowledges that this passage follows the standard grammatical rules known as the Granville Sharp rule. This means that the two pronouns God and Savior describe the one same Person. In my second negative, I showed that six of the most recent and accepted Greek grammars accept this view. Dixon has responded with one grammarian who thinks otherwise and verse which does not follow the Granville Sharp rule. Since when is a non-Granville verse proof that this Titus 2:13 does not follow the Granville Sharp rule? This is yet another irrelevant negative proof to which Dixon is king. All we need to see that Jesus is in fact one with God is Jesus' statement that He and the Father are one (John 10:30) or Thomas' declaration "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28). At some point, common sense must rule. 8. Isaiah 9:6 Dixon's deceptive hermeneutics are in full and open view here. The verse clearly shows that a child born would be the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. Dixon simply fails to address this issue and runs with tail tucked. His feeble response is that this is too simplistic, and even sophomoric. He tries to convince us that the child born to Isaiah is a proof that God was with the people just like the birth of the human Jesus is proof that God is with us. This rabbit trail avoids the issue that one of these children is the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 75 of 96 Dixon heightens his deceit by trying to tell us that bowing down in honor to a king is like worship to God. He again rips the word for "worship" (honor to a king) out of one context and forces it upon another verse (worship to God). The same word has different meanings in different contexts. If one wishes to ignore context, then any heresy is possible even likely. 9. Matthew 9:8 Dixon adds nothing new here. He merely repeats an earlier argument already debunked. Dixon builds his theology on a unique twisting of the phrase "all authority has been given." Dixon thinks that this authority was only given to Jesus only after His resurrection. This is yet another example of imagination run wild. Jesus claimed to be one with God (John 10:30). Jesus claimed to be the Jehovah the great I AM (John 8:56). He is the True God and eternal life (1 John 5:20). Dixon's arguments show the foolishness of building theology on negativity. 10. Isaiah 44:6 The text reads: "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Dixon first builds a strawman hoping that there his statements on whether or not the word "his" should be capitalized is a worthy point. It is not. The issue is Who is this Redeemer? Is the Redeemer the one and same as the LORD the King of Israel? I showed Dixon that his idea that the redeemer was Israel was foolish for Israel would be its own Savior. All that is needed is the positive identification of Who is the first and last! Rev 1:8, 11; 22:13,16 clearly state that this is none other than Jesus Christ. Dixon now wants us to think that the same titles can be given to people other than God Himself. This is blatant blasphemy. God Himself in this very text says there is no other God. God will not share His glory with another god (Isa 42:8,11). Dixon thinks that Jesus can share the same title as the true God without sharing part of God's glory by means of that singular title. If God is truly God and gives His glory to no one else, then no one else can share in God's titles. All those who represent God do so with titles that clearly show subordination to God not equality with God. II. The Holy Spirit. A. Dixon's Negative Proposal As with his presentation regarding Jesus, the heart of Mr. Dixon's entire proposal has been negative. His second affirmative attempted to prove that the Holy Spirit wasn't true deity based

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 76 of 96 on negative assumptions. He noted that the Holy Spirit wasn't prayed to or praised in songs. The Holy Spirit doesn't have a personal name. A. Significance of arguments. There is no significance of these negative sayings when compared to the positive statements. Dixon complains that I don't see the significance of his negative arguments. I complain that he doesn't see that we build theology only upon positive statements. His socalled proofs are irrelevant. B. The Spirit lives. Dixon thinks that it is significant that there is not one verse where the Holy Spirit is prayed to. This is irrelevant because it is the specific ministry of the Holy Spirit to indwell believers and to translate our feeble words into God-speech. Only God can do this. A force cannot indwell anyone. Forces don't dwell anywhere. Dwell is word picture used only for persons. 1 Cor 3:16 shows that God's Spirit LIVES in you. A force doesn't live. C. The Positives Overlooked. His logic simply could not handle all the positives I presented in my second negative. He never addressed the fact that the Spirit has a will. The Spirit makes choices (1 Cor 12:11). The Spirit teaches (John 14:26). The Spirit guides people into truth (John 16:13). He never addressed the fact that the personal Spirit produces personal qualities (Gal 5:22). Per norm, when one has nothing positive with which to work, Dixon retreated to more negatives. D. More Positives and Useful Negatives Dixon is fond of saying that there is no proof that the Spirit is a distinct member of the Godhead. Dixon's negativity makes him blind to the positives throughout the Bible. For example: He ignores the Great Commission doxology where the Spirit is put into the same category as the Father and the Son (Matt 28:19). If there weren't three equal Persons in the Trinity, then it is a redundant act of rhetoric to speak of three names of the same Person. Yet Dixon acknowledges that Jesus is a second "authorized" person. So the doxologies would be two persons and a force? He is blind to the common sense pattern given: three coequal Persons. He ignores the doxological summary of 2 Corinthians that emphasizes the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (II Cor 13:14). You can't have fellowship with a force. At Jesus' baptism, we see all three Persons of The Trinity. The personal Spirit bodily anointed Jesus for His messianic ministry while God's voice spoke.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 77 of 96 There are some negatives that prove the personality of the Spirit. Dixon never addressed the fact that the Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30). You can't grieve a force. The Spirit can be personally blasphemed (Matt 12:32). You can't blaspheme a force. The Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4). You can't lie to a force. Comically, he himself proves the Spirit as a person in Psalm 139:7. Where can I go from Your Spirit? The writer understands the Spirit to be the presence of God. Exactly! A common sense reading should tell us that the Spirit is God Himself. Again Dixon bangs his head on The Triune God and rejects plain common sense. The Holy Spirit regenerates hearts (Titus 3:5). This is something that only God can do. In Acts 5:3, Peter shows that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Since you can't lie to a force, the Holy Spirit is personal. In Acts 5:4, Peter shows that Ananias lied to God. This verifies that the Holy Spirit is true God. These two rounds of positives clearly debunk Dixon's heresy. Dixon did try responses on the following positive aspects of the Holy Spirit. E. Responses 1. Another Helper In John 14:16, Jesus receive the Holy Spirit. It is insignificant whether or not Jesus choose to breathe on them. This is merely an outward symbol of the indwelling Spirit. Dixon acknowledges that the Spirit did help the disciples. His arguments consistently confuse the manifested power of the Holy Spirit with the Person of the Holy Spirit. This is to be expected from one who emphasizes only the negatives. What is significant is that Jesus used the Greek word "allos." This is another of the same kind. The Greek has another word "heteros" that means another of a different kind. 2. Spirit of Christ. Dixon doesn't understand the futility of his own argument. First, he claims that the Holy Spirit is but an impersonal force of God. But in his proofs he claims that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7). Which is it? Heresies typically devolve into flat out contradictions like this. If Jesus were but an authorized agent of God, there would be no linkage of the Spirit of God to Jesus Christ. Dixon is banging his head on the total equality of The Triune God.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 78 of 96 Equally telling is the fact that God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts (Gal 4:6). If the Son were merely an authorized agent of God, it would be blasphemous for the Spirit of God to be associated with the Spirit of the authorized human. Verses like these expose Dixon's proposal as heresy. They turn his own words back upon himself. 3. Romans 8:26 Whoops! I did use the word "mediator" instead of the word "intercessor." However, there is no change in the force of my argument. An intercessor is not a force. An intercessor is a person who can represent both parties. Notice that Dixon's imagination claims that the Spirit is simple Christ interceding for us rather than taking the Bible at its word that both the Spirit and Christ are interceding for us. When one closes their eyes to these simple positive truths, then anything is possible as Dixon constantly reminds us. III. Hermeneutics. Dreadful hermeneutics is what supports every heresy. Dixon's denial of Jesus' deity is no different. His most used ploy redefines words without regard to CONTEXT. For any given verse that is contrary to his heresy, he finds a second verse that uses the same word. He then rips the word out of the second verse and forces that definition upon the first verse. As an example is Dixon's use of "elohim." Dixon found one verse where "elohim" was applied to humans. He thus rips this human definition out of its context and forces it upon every similar reference to Jesus Christ. Another of Dixon's deceptive ploys is that of rabbit trails. As an example, the Isaiah 9:6 passage clearly says that the child to be born would be called "the Everlasting Father." Rather than take this at face value, Dixon tried to convince us that the child born to Isaiah is a proof that God was with the people just like the birth of the human Jesus is proof that God is with us. His logic completely ran away from the name "Everlasting Father." Dixon's assumes that negative inferences are suitable for positive theology construction. Just because something isn't attributed to Jesus or the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that they are NOT Themselves fully divine or personal. Dixon's demand for negativity also colors his logic on key passages. For example, Jesus as mediator (1 Tim 2:5). Dixon will only allow a human view of Jesus and so dismisses the fact that mediators must be equal to both sides of the dispute. His biggest folly is not using the entirety of God's Word to discover the positive statements regarding the full deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The previous deceptions are used in an

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 79 of 96 attempt to persuade the reader that his proposition is valid when in fact it is clearly contrary to God's Word. Summary Dixon failed to present a positive argument. Since no theology can be built on negatives, Dixon never had one valid argument. Without a valid argument, Dixon was thrust into a purely defensive position. Every positive argument that I presented debunked his negative logic. Positively, scripture shows that Jesus is fully divine and the Holy Spirit is a fully living indwelling deity. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are active Participants of the Triune Godhead. Thus, the mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically CORRECT since Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. The "Holy Spirit" is NOT another name for God the Father. God's Word is forever settled in heaven. No angel would dare violate God's Word with Dixon's deceptive hermeneutics. His proposition must be marked as the heresy God's Word declares it to be. May God our Father be rightly glorified! May Christ be rightly glorified! May the Holy Spirit be rightly glorified! May the Triune God be rightly glorified! Dr. Olson

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 80 of 96 Olsons First Affirmative

Dr. Olson proposes the following:

The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically CORRECT since Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. The "Holy Spirit" is NOT another name for God the Father.

Outline of Dr. Olson's 1st Affirmative

I. PRELIMS . . A. POSITIVE PROOFS . . B. DIXON'S CHALLENGES II. JESUS CHRIST . . A. JEHOVAH . . B. EVERLASTING FATHER . . C. JOHN'S EPISTLE . . D. THOMAS' DECLARATION . . E. MEDIATOR . . F. FORGIVENESS OF SINS . . G. JOHN'S PROLOGUE. . . H. CREATOR, SUSTAINER, ALL FULLNESS . . I. GOD TO GOD . . J. THE FORM OF GOD . . K. NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME. . . L. MINI SUMMARY III. HOLY SPIRIT . . A. PERSONALITY . . B. DISTINCTIVE . . C. DIVINE

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 81 of 96 . . D. MINI SUMMARY IV. CONCLUSION

I. PRELIMS

A. POSITIVE PROOFS The reader who has been following this debate will notice a sharp contrast between Dixon's proposition supported only by whimsical negative inferences and this proposition supported by Holy Writ's positive statements.

Dixon lost the first half of this debate for two reasons. First, negative inferences do not can not compare to positive statements. Negative inferences cannot substantiate anything. The best a negative inference can do is raise questions for further support from a positive scriptural statement. Thus, Dixon brought nothing of theological substance to support his proposition. Second, Dixon failed both ethics and scholastics in his responses. He employed hermeneutics that (1) did not use context, (2) ran down rabbit trails, (3) avoided key verses, and (4) redefined words without regard to context.

It will be easy for the reader to notice how easily this proposition is proven using positive statements taken from a common sense reading of God's Word.

B. DIXON'S CHALLENGES

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 82 of 96 I challenge Dixon to end the deceptive unethical and unscholarly responses that he employed in the first round. I challenge him to use context, word definitions as defined by context, and stick to the issue of the verses in question. Throughout my first affirmative I will give Dixon challenges to help him avoid the deceptive hermeneutics that he employed during the first half of this debate.

It will be equally easy for the reader to notice how Dixon responds to these challenges.

II. JESUS CHRIST The reader will notice that the case for the full divinity of Jesus Christ is built upon positive statements from Holy Writ. All that is needed to understand these positive statements is common sense.

A. JEHOVAH Positively, scripture shows us the equality of Jesus with JEHOVAH.

1. Let's compare Isa 44:6 with Rev 1:8,11. . . ."Thus saith JEHOVAH the King of Israel, & his redeemer . . . JEHOVAH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and . . . beside me there is no God." Isa 44:6

. . ."I am Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith . . . the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, . . . the Almighty. ... I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the . . . last." Rev 1:8,11 Clearly, if Jehovah is the first and last AND if Jesus the first

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 83 of 96 and last, then common sense tells us that Jesus is equal to (yet distinct from) Jehovah.

In the first half of the debate, Dixon employed an unscholarly rabbit trail by making a mountain out of the word "his" from the Isaiah passage. He failed to address how both JEHOVAH and Jesus are addressed by the same title. I challenge Dixon to a higher response in this half of the debate.

2. Let's compare Isaiah 6:5-10 with John 12:41. Isaiah was in distress for his eyes saw "the King, JEHOVAH of hosts." Isa 6:5. Yet John, referring to this very passage, writes of Jesus: "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him." (John 12:41, cf Isa 6:9-10). Dixon avoided this in the first half of the debate.

3. Jeremiah introduces a new name for God: "JEHOVAH our righteousness." (Jer 23:6). Context shows that this is a Messianic prophecy. God will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King over Israel. Clearly, Jesus is this human King who is none other than JEHOVAH. Dixon avoided this in the first half of the debate.

4. Let's compare Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13 and Titus 3:4,6. . . ."I, even I, am JEHOVAH; and beside me there is no Savior." . . . Isa 43:11

. . ."Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing . . . of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13

. . ."But when the kindness and love of God our Savior . . . appeared, through Jesus Christ our Savior." Titus 3:4,6 (NIV)

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 84 of 96 In the OT, JEHOVAH is the sole Savior. In the NT, Jesus is the Savior (Titus 2:13). Since JEHOVAH is fully divine, so also must be Jesus. Titus 3:4 & 6 tie both concepts together: Jesus and God both are the only Savior. The two verses in Titus 3 are part of the exact same CONTEXT.

In the first half of the debate, Dixon employed the unscholarly rabbit trail of making a mountain out of the Granville Sharp rule (which he lost anyway) and failed to address the fact that JEHOVAH = Savior = God = Jesus Christ. I challenge him to address the crucial issue of this comparison.

5. Titus 2:13 (Granville Sharp). . . ."Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing . . . of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13

Titus 2:13 has within it a proof of Jesus' divinity. Paul applies the name God and Savior both to Jesus Christ. In Greek grammar, this verse is a rare application of the Granville Sharp rule [Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 272]. There is no doubt that both "God" and "Savior" are applied to Jesus Christ. This is not a double reference: one to God and a second to Jesus.

I'm all up for digging deeper into this rule and even in comparing (counting) scholarly Greek texts. I had all the ones that I referenced in the first half of the debate on my book shelves. It is about time to search out more texts in this area. Every debate should have a fun aspect.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 85 of 96

B. EVERLASTING FATHER Let us examine the names given to the child of Isaiah's prophecy.

. . ."For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the . . . government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall . . . be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, THE . . . EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace." Isa 9:6

As I noted in the first half of the debate, this is a most amazing prophecy. The child can be none other than Jesus for the very next verse speaks of His earthly father David. Yet look at the names and titles ascribed to this child! Note especially that He is called "the everlasting Father!" Certainly the phrase "the everlasting Father" is far stronger than a reference to JEHOVAH. This is one of the strongest passages affirming Christ's full equality with the Father.

In the first half of the debate Dixon employed the unscholarly tactic of suggesting that the child of Isaiah was like the human child Jesus in that God used both children to symbolize His promise to be with His people. Dixon failed to address the question: What mere human child could ever be called THE EVERLASTING FATHER? I challenge Dixon in this debate to address this issue.

C. JOHN'S EPISTLE And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (I John 5:20)

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 86 of 96

Greek grammar dictates that the pronoun "this" refers back to the closest referent of the same gender and number. "This" refers to Jesus Christ. In the first half of the debate, Dixon ignored this common sense Greek grammar and CONTEXT. He used another context where the pronoun "this" was used to link a person with a stone and reasoned that we could ignore basic Greek grammar in I John 5:20. How hilarious. I challenge Dixon to address the Greek grammar of this context without running down hilarious rabbit trails.

D. THOMAS' DECLARATION Thomas declared: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). If Jesus were but an authorized human representative, He should have chastised Thomas for this heresy. But since Jesus was fully God Himself, Jesus accepted Thomas' worship. Had Jesus been wrong to accept Thomas' worship, then Jesus would have sinned and He Himself would have needed a Savior. When one denies The Trinity, the disastrous consequences of error pop up everywhere.

E. MEDIATOR Scripture declares: . . ."For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God . . . and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim 2:5 It is common sense even in the secular world that a mediator represents both sides of the dispute. "The perfection of a mediator is measured by his influence with the parties he has to reconcile, and this power flows from his connection with both" [Catholic Encyclopedia]. Thus, Christ is both fully human and fully divine. An

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 87 of 96 authorized representative who is not full deity cannot be a mediator with deity.

In the first half of the debate, Dixon tried to link the Orthodox declaration of Trinity with the secular and church politics surrounding the Council of Nicaea simply because Athanasius used this argument as the main proof for Jesus' deity. However, neither the Roman sword, nor church politics, nor the personal life of Athanasius changes the biblical common sense use of the word "mediator." I challenge Dixon to address the topic of mediation.

F. FORGIVENESS OF SINS In Matt 9, Jesus told a man that his sins were forgiven. The Pharisees rightly knew that this was blasphemy. The parallel passages (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21) supply what they voiced: "who can forgive sins but God only?" The Pharisees voiced the positive statements in the OT where it is only God Himself Who can forgive sins (Ex 34:7; Num 14:18, 30:5,8,12; Josh 24:19; 1 Kings 8:30,34, 36,39,50; 2 Chron 7:14; Psalm 32:1-2; 85:1, 86:5, 103:1-3).

Since Dixon is fond of negative inferences, I put the following verse before him with delight: . . ."To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, . . . though we have rebelled against him." Dan 9:9

Positively, this and the other verses only say that the LORD (or God) forgives sins. Because of the strong positive statement we can make strong negative statements. Negatively, it denies that any other person, demiurge, or authorized representative can forgive sins. Notice that this is nothing like Dixon's fickle negative inferences.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 88 of 96 If a person writes a book positively stating who he thinks was the best baseball player in modern history, then his positive pick automatically negates everyone else. Negativity that is derived from positive statements has true relevance for theology construction. Negative inferences, as employed by Dixon in the first half of the debate, are worthless for theology construction. I trust that the reader can see the difference between negatives derived from a positive statement and whimsical negative inferences.

In the first half of this debate, Dixon employed the rabbit trail by which he questioned whether or not the Pharisees statement was truthful. I challenge Dixon to address how is it that Jesus can forgive sin where Scripture is quite clear that only God can forgive sins?

G. JOHN'S PROLOGUE. . . ."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with . . . God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

John's Prologue clearly mentions that "the Word was God." This is even more emphatic in the original Greek.

. . . "theos ein ho logos."

Several facts must be emphasized. First, in the Greek this is a predicate nominative construct. Since the subject is equated with the predicate, there is an undeniable equality. Second, the word for God (theos) is actually first in the sentence and it is without the definite article (ho). This shows us that the normal subject-verb sentence order has been reversed for the particular purpose of

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 89 of 96 emphasis. Third, anyone familiar with Greek knows that the lack of a definite article emphasizes the qualities of God and not God Himself. Fourth, the word for Jesus (Logos) has the definite article (ho). In agreement with the second point, this tells us that "The Logos" is the subject of the sentence.

From these facts we can easily deduce important theology. (1) The reverse word order tells us that Jesus Christ (the subject) is equated to all the divine attributes that the Father has.

. . . If the Father is personal, then so is Jesus. . . . If the Father is fully divine, then so is Jesus!

(2) The lack of the definite article tells us that Jesus is not the Father. John's wording is beautifully terse. The lack of the article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism and Dixon's first proposition. Notice that this is Bible and not a human invention.

In the first half of this debate, Dixon managed to find a human source that turned the issue to Greek philosophy and the LOGOS. I challenge Dixon in this debate to stick to the issue in the referenced verse. The issue is the predicate nominative equality not some human quote regarding the LOGOS

H. CREATOR, SUSTAINER, ALL FULLNESS The OT clearly teaches that God Himself is the creator of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1, 6:7; Deut 4:32; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:28, 41:20, 42:5, 43:15, 45:8, and many more). Notice that these are positive statements. From these positive statements it is an easy negative

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 90 of 96 conclusion (not a negative inference) that God alone is the Creator. Yet the NT also clearly says that Jesus created all things (Col 1:16, Rev 4:11). By Him, all things exist (Col 1:17). Jesus, the Creator, also sustains His handiwork. All the fullness of God dwells in Jesus (Col 1:19). What are we to do with two positive statements as to Who is the Creator? Dixon would have us pit one biblical truth against another. Orthodoxy would have us believe both statements at the same time just as Holy Writ presents them to us. Both God and Jesus are the Creator of the universe. Since only God can be the Creator, then Jesus is TRUE GOD (1 John 5:20). Notice how the positive statements from all parts of scripture weave together to form the doctrine of THE TRINITY!

I. GOD TO GOD God the Father calls the Son "GOD:" . . ."But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever . . . and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy . . . kingdom." Heb 1:8

This is actually a quote of Psalm 45:6 where glory and majesty is ascribed to the King. The author of Hebrews applies this Psalm to Jesus. Hebrews 1 also glorifies Jesus for His hand in creating the heavens and the earth (1:10). As noted above, this is something that the OT ascribes only to God.

J. THE FORM OF GOD Before Jesus voluntarily took on the form of human flesh, He was in the "FORM OF GOD" (Phil 2:6). For our sakes He didn't think it worthwhile to hold on to His divinity and took on the form of a

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 91 of 96 servant made in the likeness of men (Phil 2:6-7).

K. NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME. It is also of significance to note that God has given Him a name above every name. Since common sense means that there are no exceptions, Jesus' name is even above the name of God the Father. God has also decreed that every knee should bow and confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father. Bowing of the knee is worship that God the Father gives to no other god. It is easy to surmise that Jesus is equal to God and part of the divine Trinity. He is not another god; He is the second Person of The Trinity.

L. MINI SUMMARY Jesus has the same titles as the unique God (JEHOVAH). Jesus is in fact the EVERLASTING FATHER. John's Epistle shows us that Jesus is the TRUE GOD. Thomas called Him Lord and God. He, as both fully human and fully God, is able to mediate between mankind and God. As God, Jesus forgives sins. John's Gospel shows us that Jesus has all the qualities of full deity yet is distinct from God the Father. Paul declares that Jesus is the Creator and Sustainer of all creation because all the fullness of God dwells in Him. Even God the Father calls Jesus "GOD." After all, He was in the form of God before He took on human flesh. Because of this, His name has been exalted above every name and every one will bow and worship Him the TRUE GOD.

The reader will note that these positive common sense statements come straight from Holy Writ.

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 92 of 96

III. HOLY SPIRIT I again direct the reader to notice that the case for the personhood and divinity of the Holy Spirit comes not from Dixon's negative inferences but from positive statements in Holy Writ. This section will present positive proofs that the Holy Spirit is personal, distinct from God the Father, and divine. These three facts can be theologically combined to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Godhead.

A. PERSONALITY 1. PERSONAL WILL The Holy Spirit has a will. He creates humans after His own free will image and likeness and gives unto them gifts as He wills (I Cor 12:11). Just as God the Father has a will, and just as God the Son has a will, so also God the Spirit has a will. The Spirit directed Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch's chariot (Acts 8:29). The Spirit's will separated Paul and Barnabus from the rest of the group (Acts 13:2) and sent them out for missionary work (Acts 13:4). Paul took guidance from the Spirit's will as he was redirected from Asia to Europe (Acts 16:6). A force does not have a personal will.

2. A PERSONAL HELPER The Spirit is "Another Helper (allon paraklnton)" just like Jesus (John 14:16). The easy conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is personal just like Jesus our "Helper." Our spiritual Helpers are personal just like us!

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 93 of 96 3. PERONSALITY The Spirit can be grieved by our sins (Eph 4:30). No impersonal force can be grieved. The Holy Spirit can also be personally blasphemed (Matt 12:32). No impersonal force or inanimate object can be so maligned.

4. COMMUNE The Holy Spirit is personal because He can commune with the Father. The Father knows the Spirit (Rom 8:27) and the Spirit is able to search the infinite mind of God (I Cor 2:10). No impersonal force can commune with the Father.

5. INDEPENDENT LIFE 1 Cor 3:16 shows that God's Spirit LIVES in you. A force doesn't live. A force cannot indwell anyone. Forces don't dwell anywhere. Dwell is word picture used only for persons.

6. FELLOWSHIP One can have fellowship with the Holy Spirit (II Cor 13:14). You can't have fellowship with a force.

B. DISTINCTIVE 1. THE GREAT COMMISSION The Great Commission places the Spirit into the same category as the Father and the Son (Matt 28:19).

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 94 of 96 2. DOXOLOGY Not only does the doxology of II Cor 13:14 emphasize fellowship with the Holy Spirit, it calls out the distinctiveness of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

C. DIVINE 1. GOD IS HOLY This should be a no-brainer even for Dixon. Scripture clearly declares that God is holy (Lev 11:44,45, 19:2, 20:7, 21:8 and many more).

2. HOLY SPIRIT The first word in the name is HOLY. The Holy Spirit is HOLY. Since only God is holy, the Holy Spirit is God.

3. OTHERS? One wonders now whether other people or deities can be holy. Positively, Scripture declares the following: . . . There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none . . . beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. . . . 1 Sam 2:2

So what will we do with statements like: . . . For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify . . . yourselves, and ye shall be holy ... Lev 11:44

I caution Dixon against using an illegitimate transfer of the semantic domain associated with the word "holy." The word "holy" in its basic sense means separation. God is separated from all other

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 95 of 96 creatures and beings by way of His holiness. God alone is holy.

The idea of separation is also seen in sanctification. We fickle and unholy creatures are to separate ourselves from the evil world and its corrupted world system. This doesn't mean that we are holy as God. It means that we separate ourselves from evil and to God.

The idea of separation is also seen in consecration. Vessels are set aside from the common for service to God. The act of setting a vessel aside is a separation. Vessels separated unto God can be buildings, tools, houses, animals, and our individual hearts.

In the first half of this debate, Dixon has shown a penchant for ripping words out of their CONTEXTS and misapplying them in another context. I challenge Dixon not to mindlessly or unwittingly mix up these three definitions of "holy." Words only have meaning in their specific CONTEXT.

D. MINI SUMMARY Theology construction uses three positive statements. The Holy Spirit is a HOLY Person distinct from God the Father and God the Son. Thus, He has a rightful place in the Triune Godhead beside the Father and the Son.

IV. CONCLUSION This proposition has been supported using common sense positive statements. The few negative statements were derived from the positive statements and were not whimsical negative inferences. There

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the Trinity Page 96 of 96 is a stark contrast between this proposition's positive statements and Dixon's proposition of negative inferences.

Positively, biblical Orthodoxy affirms the mainline view of the Trinity as developed in historic Christianity. That The Trinity is of three Persons in one essence is biblically CORRECT since Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. The "Holy Spirit" is NOT another name for God the Father since He is Himself Holy and a Person distinct from God the Father.

Dr. Olson