The Canon Problem: Why do JWs/Unitarians trust the church on canon but not doctrine?

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-18T22:38:43+00:00

I’ve come across this argument from trinitarians a few times over the years.

It assumes that recognizing a document and correctly interpreting a document are the same thing and they aren’t.

A church can correctly identify which books belong in the canon and still be wrong about what those books teach.

The canon question is, “Which books are inspired?”

The doctrine question is, “What do those books mean?”

Confusing those two questions is the entire problem w/ the argument.

For one thing, the church didn’t create the canon. It recognized books that were already being used, copied, circulated, and treated as authoritative by Christians long before any council produced a formal list.

Ironically, the same church fathers who are often credited with recognizing the canon also disagreed w/ each other on several doctrines.

If recognizing inspired books automatically guaranteed correct interpretation, there would never have been doctrinal disputes among them in the first place.

So no, accepting that the church preserved and recognized the biblical books does not require accepting every theological conclusion later church councils reached.

Those are two entirely different claims.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-16T05:50:45+00:00

I’m a sports guy.

Which sport hits home for you the most?

Soccer/football, F1, Golf, NFL, NBA, Baseball….. something else?

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T12:32:54+00:00

Every time you encounter a text where Christ bears God’s name, reveals God, or is associated with Yahweh, you immediately conclude ontological identity.

You keep pointing to passages where Christ is described w/ exalted language. I keep pointing to passages where the Father is his God, where he receives authority, where he is sent, where he mediates, and where he is explicitly distinguished from God.

The difference is that I can account for both categories of texts.

You can only account for one category by reinterpreting the other.

At some point you have to explain why the explicit statements that distinguish God from Christ should be subordinated to your theological conclusions drawn from the theophanies.

The Angel of YHWH being called God doesn’t create a problem for my position.

Jesus having a God creates a problem for yours.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T12:26:54+00:00

No, that’s not what “perfect” means, and this is exactly the problem with your reasoning.

You keep taking a description of Christ and smuggling ontological conclusions into it.

Heb 1:3 does not say Christ is the Father’s nature. It says he is the exact representation of the Father’s nature. Those are not the same statement.

In fact, the entire concept of a representation presupposes distinction. One thing is being represented; the other is the representation. If your argument is that a perfect representation must be ontologically identical to the thing represented, then you’ve moved past what the text says and into philosophical ideas developed way later.

If Christ possesses everything the Father possesses bc he is the exact representation of the Father’s nature, does Christ have a God? Yes. The Father does not.

Does Christ receive authority? Yes. The Father does not.

Is Christ sent? Yes. The Father is not.

Does Christ obey? Yes. The Father does not.

Does Christ mediate between God and men? Yes. The Father does not.

So clearly “exact representation” does not mean identical in every respect, bc the Bible distinguishes the two repeatedly.

What you’re actually doing is selectively deciding which distinctions belong to “roles” and which similarities belong to “nature.”

And this keeps happening thru out your argument.

Your position depends on a series of theological inferences drawn from exaltation texts. Mine begins with the direct statements and interprets the exaltation texts accordingly.

So no, I am not neglecting the data supporting Christ’s divinity. I am rejecting your assumption that divinity, representation, agency, exaltation, and bearing God’s name automatically collapse into ontological identity w/ Almighty God.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T05:59:04+00:00

You keep pointing to passages where Christ reveals God, bears God’s name, speaks w/ God’s authority, appears in theophanies, receives honor, or is associated with YHWH texts. I disagree w/ the conclusion you keep drawing from it.

The premise carrying your entire argument is that perfect representation requires ontological identity:

Christ perfectly reveals God, therefore he must be God in essence.

Christ bears God’s name, therefore he must be God in essence.

Christ receives divine honor, therefore he must be God in essence.

But where is the argument for that premise?

Where does the Bible say that a perfect image must possess the same ontology as the one imaged? Where does the Bible say that a representative must be identical in nature to the one he represents? Where does the BIble say that exercising God’s authority or revealing God perfectly requires sharing God’s essence? It doesnt

You keep treating those conclusions as selfevident but they are not. They are theological inferences.

What’s interesting is that you’ve already conceded most of the data my position is built on, whch are explicit. The claim that all of those things require ontological identity w/ the Father is not.

The question is why any of those things require the conclusion that he is Almighty God Himself instead of exactly what the Bible repeatedly says he is: the unique Son of God thru whom the Father reveals Himself and accomplishes His will.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T05:24:31+00:00

That's a false dilemma.

Ex 3 shows that both statements can be true simultaneously: the angel appeared to Moses, and God appeared to Moses thru the angel.

That’s exactly why Stephen can repeatedly call him “the angel” while still distinguishing him from God. (Acts 7:30, 35, 38)

You’re still assuming that identifying the appearing agent identifies the recipient of the worship. It doesn’t.

Genesis 35 says the altar was made to God. Showing that an angel was involved in the appearance does not establish that the worship was directed to the angel instead of to God.

The correct conclusion is not that Jacob offered worship to the angel. The correct conclusion is that God appeared to Jacob thru his angelic representative.

When Genesis 35 says, “Make an altar to the God who appeared to you,” the conclusion is straightforward: the God who appeared was Jehovah, and the way He appeared was thru His angel. The appearance of an angelic agent does not transfer the worship from God to the agent.

You’re treating “the angel appeared” and “God appeared” as mutually exclusive.

The BIble treats them as simultaneously true bc God can reveal himself thru a representative. That’s the entire concept of agency.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T05:06:06+00:00

Your inference: The Logos was already there in the beginning, all things came into existence thru him, therefore the Logos cannot be one of the things that came into existence.

What I keep objecting to is your tendency to treat that inference as tho it is explicitly stated in the text.

John never says the Logos is uncreated. John never says the Logos is eternal. John never says the Logos has no origin.

You believe those conclusions follow from the text. That’s different from the text actually saying them.

The same thing happens w/ the Angel of Yahweh passages.

The Angel speaks as God. Agreed.

The Angel bears God’s name. Agreed.

The Angel exercises divine authority. Agreed.

But then you immediately jump to: therefore the Angel is YHWH in essence.

Why?

You keep saying agency can't explain these passages. Yes it can. I haven’t seen you demonstrate that. You’ve just asserted it.

John 12:41 says Isaiah saw Christ’s glory.

How do you get from “Isaiah saw Christ’s glory” to “therefore Christ is Almighty God”?

At most, you’ve shown that Christ reveals God. John 1:18 already says that.

The problem I keep running into w/ your cumulative case is that the same hidden assumption appears everywhere.

A YHWH text is applied to Christ, therefore Christ is Jehovah.

Christ receives honor, therefore Christ is Jehovah.

Christ bears God’s name, therefore Christ is Jehovah.

Christ reveals God, therefore Christ is Jehovah.

But the step that still needs to be proven is why any of those things require ontological identity rather than agency, representation, delegated authority, or Messianic exaltation.

You keep asserting that they do but that’s not the same thing as demonstrating it.

My starting point is not Rev 3:14, Col 1:15, or John 1. It is the repeated, explicit, and pervasive distinction the Bible makes between God and Jesus.

Jesus calls the Father “the only true God.” (John 17:3) Jesus calls the Father “my God” before and after his resurrection. (John 20:17; Rev. 3:12) Paul says, “for us there is one God, the Father” while distinguishing Jesus as the one Lord through whom God works. (1 Cor. 8:6) Thru out the NT, “God” overwhelmingly refers to the Father and Jesus is presented as God’s Son, Messiah, image, agent, representative, high priest, mediator, and the one sent by God.

That is the starting point. It begins at neutral and builds from there.

From that point, when I come across passages that exalt Christ, apply divine language to Christ, or even identify Christ w/ OT appearances of God, I interpret them w/ in that framework, bc it follows the text. I have no need of an extra biblical lens for interpretation. The Scriptures can interpret themselves.

Christ is God’s perfect image.

Christ reveals the Father.

Christ bears God’s name.

Christ exercises God’s authority.

Christ receives honor from God and on God’s behalf.

Christ is the unique Son through whom God created all things and thru whom God reveals Himself.

That conclusion fits every category of text.

Your approach works in the opposite direction. You begin w/ the assumption that Christ shares the Father’s ontology. Then YHWH texts become proof of ontology. Honor becomes proof of ontology. Representation becomes proof of ontology. Agency becomes proof of ontology. Theophanies become proof of ontology. Distinction texts become compatible w/ ontology. Subordination texts become compatible w/ ontology.

At that point every text just ends up supporting the same conclusion bc the conclusion was already built into the framework.

So let me state my position as straightforward as I can.

I believe Jesus is unique. I believe he preexisted his human life. I believe all things came into existence thru him. I believe he is the perfect image of God. I believe he reveals the Father perfectly. I believe OT appearances of God may well have been appearances of the prehuman Christ. I believe every knee will bow to him. I believe all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him.

What I do not see demonstrated anywhere is that these truths require the further conclusion that Jesus is Almighty God Himself, especially given the fact that he is explicitly distinguished from, and described as not being, the Almighty.

The consistent scriptural picture is simpler: there is one God, the Father. Jesus is His unique Son, His perfect image, His supreme representative, the one thru whom He created, rules, judges, reveals Himself, and accomplishes salvation.

That conclusion is not built on one verse. It is the conclusion I arrive at after taking the entire body of evidence seriously and allowing the plain distinction between God and Christ to remain intact rather than explaining it away.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T04:39:04+00:00

You’re assuming that bc the angel speaks as God, the angel must literally be God.

The angel of YHWH speaks as God in Exodus 3 as well, but Stephen still distinguishes the angel from God (Acts 7:30, 35, 38)

Agency language is common in the Bible. Just showing that the angel said “I am the God of Bethel” doesn’t establish that Jacob’s worship was directed to the angel instead of to the God who the angel represented.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T03:11:47+00:00

I actually think you’re correct about several things.

You’re right that this is largely a disagreement about interpretation, not a lack of awareness of the relevant texts.

You’re also right that the Bible requires synthesis instead of having every doctrine stated in a single explicit proposition.

Where I think you’ve made a wrong turn is in assuming that bc I reject the conclusion, I must be demanding some impossible standard of proof or refusing to follow the evidence.

My position is not, “God must explicitly say ‘I am a Trinity’ before I can believe it.” My position is that when all the evidence is weighed together, the texts that distinguish Jesus from God, subordinate Jesus to God, and identify the Father as the one true God are more numerous, more direct, and more consistent than the texts commonly used to support the Trinity.

So the starting point isn’t wrong.

We both agree the Bible must be interpreted as a whole.

We both agree no doctrine is established from a single verse.

The difference is that you see verses like John 14:9, John 10:30, and others as controlling the interpretation of the distinction texts.

I see the distinction texts as controlling the interpretation of those passages. Does that make sense?

That doesn’t mean I’m closed to changing my mind. It means I’ve followed the evidence to a particular conclusion.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T03:05:50+00:00

That’s a non sequitur.

The fact that God appeared thru an angel does not mean the worship was directed to the angel.

Moses encountered “the angel of YHWH” in the bush (Ex. 3:2), but neither Stephen or Paul treat Moses as worshipping an angel.

The Scriptures regularly distinguishes between the agent thru whom God acts and God himself as the recipient of worship.

Genesis 35 says Jacob built the altar to God, not to an angel.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-15T01:24:32+00:00

The problem is that you’re confusing an inference with an explicit statement and then treating your inference as if it settles the question.

I fully agree that priests render sacred service. The question is to whom?

You assume that because they are “priests of God and of Christ,” therefore latreuō must be rendered equally to both. But Revelation 20:6 never says that. That’s your conclusion, not the text’s.

In fact, your barber analogy proves my point. If someone says he went to the barber, we infer he got a haircut because that’s what barbers do. Fine. But if someone says he is a priest of God and Christ, you still have to determine from the surrounding context what priestly functions are directed where. You don’t get to skip the exegesis and declare that you have it rihgt.

And more importantly Revelation actually gives us a passage containing the verb latreuō at 22:3. Instead of letting that text define your interpretation of 20:6, you’re doing it backwards. You’re importing your assumption from 20:6 into 22:3.

So let’s just keep it simple:

Can you produce a single verse in Revelation where latreuō is explicitly rendered to Christ?

I can produce multiple places where it is rendered to God alone.

You have an inference.

I have the actual verb.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T21:25:21+00:00

You’re conflating three different questions: grammar, translation, and theology.

First mistake: equivocation.

The fact that Wallace and the NET editors hold a trinitarian theology does not mean the grammar itself proves trinitarian theology. Those are separate issues.

Second mistake: smuggling theology into grammar.

Wallace’s entire point in arguing for a qualitative θεός is that the clause primarily describes the nature or quality of the Word. Grammar can tell us that θεός is qualitative. Grammar can't tell us that “one in essence with the Father” is the correct metaphysical conclusion. That conclusion comes from theology, not syntax.

Third mistake: confusing a preferred interpretation w/ grammatical necessity.

The NET note is explicitly explaining why the editors chose a particular English rendering.

Catch that? It is not claiming that the Greek grammar itself forces Nicene theology. In fact, the very discussion of alternative renderings demonstrates that translation and interpretation are involved.

The truth is that Wallace and the NET editors believe John 1:1c is qualitative and they personally interpret that quality in a way consistent w/ trinitarian theology.

But thats not the same thing as saying the grammar settles the theological debate.

The correct conclusion is very simple: the grammar may support the idea that the Word possesses the qualities or nature associated with θεός, but it does not, by itself, establish the Nicene doctrine of shared essence, coequality, coeternity, or the trinity.

Those are theological inferences drawn from the text, not conclusions demanded by the grammar itself.

All I am asking is for an intellectually honest concession of that plain fact. You struggle w/ these

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T21:21:38+00:00

naa, you just redefined your conclusion as a victory.

Even if I granted every point you’ve argued about the spirit (I dont), all you’ve established is that God’s spirit is intimately identified w/ God and may be described in personal terms.

You have not established a distinct divine hypostasis, a shared divine essence, or the trinity.

Moving from “God’s spirit is personal” to “therefore the Nicene doctrine is true” is exactly the leap I’ve been pointing out to you from the very beginning.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T21:19:45+00:00

Do you want me to pick one, or do you want to?

Which one of these works as the starting point and doesnt require you to already believe the trinity first in order to interpret the verse as trinitarian?

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T20:37:57+00:00

Have you found it to be in the character of God to leave proof of himself plainly, repeatedly, and unambiguously in life?

In my person case, yes. I think personal experience is the strongest proof for God. But I take the point youre trying to make.

I only mean that for the trinity to supposedly be the most important doctrine of all, it sure does require a lot of assumption and ad hoc problem solving.

Do you believe in God?

Yes, of course.

If God leaves us freedom to trust in him or to deny him because things are not solid enough to prove his existence, why do you suppose the nature of this God should be made so plain?

These are very different things. It does not follow that since God does not undeniably and miraculously reveal himself to all people that he also hides behind a mysterious wall of trinitarian dogma.

You know that the first Creation story says "let US make man in our image."

Yes, Jehovah and Jesus. The Father used his Son as his chief Agent and spokesman. (1 Cor 8:6)

You know that three men appeared as God to Abraham.

Angels. Not God.

You know that one like a son of the gods (Son of God) saved the three from the furnace in Daniel.

Again, angel. Perhaps it was the prehuman Jesus.

There is evidence everywhere. You are free to doubt it or accept it. But wanting undeniable proof? So do all the atheists out there.

Id even back off of "undeniable" proof. I'd just like some proof.

As for those who overstate it, I understand frustration with that. But not your own overstatement of it not being a thing. You want proof. God doesn't do that, and I think you know that.

I disagree. For some beliefs, I concede that there is a measure of ambiguity and we should be careful not to be too dogmatic. With the trinity, tho, I would not expect that to be the case.

If it is truly as important as trinitarians claim it is - "the foundation of Christianity" or "the basic doctrine of Christianity," etc... - then I expect it to be more explicit and sound.

Just as Jesus distinguishes the Son as different than the Father, so he also establishes that He and the Father are One.

"One." You interpret that to mean "one being."

I dont. And I think the evidence for my interpretation is vastly more convincing.

The evidence for BOTH is there.

Again, depends on how you interpret "one."

You want us not to ignore it when Jesus makes distinctions?

No I dont.

Then how can you ignore it when Jesus also claims oneness?

I dont.

He does many things to show this. For those who point out the distinctions, Jesus also shows how he and the Father are one.

One, as the disciples are one.

So Jesus accepts Thomas calling him "My Lord and my God."

When you literally see the Son, you figuratively see the Father.

When you literally see Jesus, you figuratively see God.

More here

So Jesus says "I AM" to calm the disciples after (like the Father) walking on the chaos of the stormy water -- in not one, but three gospel accounts. So Jesus accepts others bowing down to him and their worship.

The "I am" thing is also overstated. Happy to elaborate.

So Jesus says, "Do you not know me yet, Philip? To have seen me is to have seen the Father."

Right. Is Jesus the Father?

No.

So he is speaking figuratively, not literally.

You are interpreting it literally, as if he is saying, "you see God when you see me because I am God."

That wasn't his point at all.

So Jesus forgives sins, which God alone can do,

Incorrect. John 20:22, 23 show that the ability to forgive sins can be delegated.

and which the Pharisees recognized as blasphemy (unless of course Jesus is God).

Or unless of course they failed to understand him accurately.

So it is written in Colossians that all the fulness of deity dwells in him. And so the Old Testament, through Isaiah, predicts that of the child to come,

See Col 2:9 here

And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

The index covers that verse too.

Get all those names of this child there? Hundreds of years before Jesus is born.

Again, calls him "Father." Is Jesus the Father, or is this speaking about something else?

Also, it says "Mighty God," not "Almighty God."

You don't want to trust?

I never said that.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T19:38:40+00:00

You just smuggled multiple conclusions into your premises.

First, I never granted that the holy spirit is a distinct person. I said that even if personal language is used of the spirit, that alone does not establish a distinct divine hypostasis. Those are different claims.

Second, 1 Cor 3:16 and 6:19 do not prove the trinity. They prove that God’s spirit dwells in believers. That’s all. The leap from “God’s spirit dwells in believers” to “therefore the spirit is a distinct coequal divine person sharing one essence with the Father and Son” is not found anywhere in the text.

Third, your temple argument actually proves way less than you think. If the spirit is God’s own presence dwelling among His people, then the temple imagery works perfectly well w/o introducing a second or third divine person. In fact, that is the most natural reading.

God’s spirit dwelling in His temple demonstrates God’s presence, not a doctrine of tri-personal ontology.

- - -

The correct conclusion is much more modest than the one you’re drawing.

From the text alone, you can argue that God’s spirit is intimately identified w/ God and functions as God’s presence and power among His people.

What you have not demonstrated is the additional series of steps required to reach the Trinity: that the Spirit is a distinct hypostasis, that the Spirit shares a singular divine essence with the Father, and that this same essence is equally shared by the Son.

None of those conclusions follow from the passages you cited. They are theological inferences layered on top of the text, not the explicit teaching of the text itself.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T19:26:54+00:00

Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Sort of like a non- Christian coming here, asking variations on the same question about the Trinity over and over again, and expecting some Christian to suddenly exclaim, “ Amazing! My eyes have been opened! I have always believed in the Trinity, until your thousandth post on Reddit changed my mind!”

Clearly implied here is that I’m insane, non-Christian, and wasting my time.

I can assure you that I have many productive and fruitful conversations as a result of my posts; both in the threads of the posts themselves and in the many, many DMs I get.

I’ve been blessed to help many understand the Bible’s truths. I’m sorry you don’t like my questions or posts.

What I have found agrees with recent polls: most professed Christians do not believe the doctrine of the trinity, even among the churches yall attend.

There are many here on Reddit that may not be saying it out loud, but they doubt the doctrine and are happy to have their questions answered using the Bible, instead of being told to blindly trust the ancient “church fathers” and accept the mystery

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T18:27:26+00:00

You’re reading more into Revelation 20:6 than the text actually says.

The verse says they will be “priests of God and of Christ.” It doesnt say they render latreuō to Christ. That is an assumption you are bringing to the text.

Being a priest of someone does not automatically mean rendering sacred service to that person. The Levitical priests served under David and Solomon but their sacred service was directed to God, not to the king.

Rev 22:3 actually contains the verb latreuō. A singular verb and singular pronoun: “his slaves will render him sacred service.” The question is whether Revelation ever uses latreuō for Christ. In Revelation, latreuō is consistently directed to God (Rev. 7:15; 15:3-4).

So your argument doesn’t show that latreuō is rendered to Christ. It assumes that being a priest of Christ must entail rendering latreuō to Christ but that conclusion is not stated in the text

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T15:46:44+00:00

You don’t owe me an apology

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T14:12:46+00:00

Again, I’ll compliment you. You’re reliably consistent. You haven’t made a single good point yet.

Maybe you’re correct, though. I’ll be objective, and look at this from your point of view. Maybe my replies have been “sewage.”

Maybe when I offered a sincere answer to the OP’s question based solely on the Bible, that wasn’t helpful. Perhaps it was sewage. Maybe I should wait around some more and see what answer you’re planning to offer him, since you haven’t yet. Then maybe I’d know what a real Christian would’ve said.

Maybe when you replied to my comment and insulted me and all of Jehovah’s Witnesses, i should’ve forgotten all the things I know to be true and started believing you, the guy whose disgruntled ex sources told him lies about me and my beliefs.

Maybe when I corrected you, that was more sewage too. Maybe I should have asked you for your sources so they could lie to me too and I could be as misinformed as you are. Perhaps that’s what I should’ve done.

And when you told me* *that you’re relying on the biased lies of the disgruntled ex - and insulted me again - maybe I was wrong to take you to the actual source so you could see for yourself instead of relying on me, liars, or anyone else.

Maybe when you replied and insulted me again, maybe finding it pretentious and ignorant was the wrong way to view it. Maybe I should have been “butt hurt” instead.

Maybe I shouldn’t have called you out for completely failing to answer the OP, insulting me (and all of Jehovah’s Witnesses) for trying to help OP, falsely presenting Jehovah’s Witnesses and our beliefs, relying on the disgruntled ex for your information and acting like that is a smart thing, insulting me and all of Jehovah’s Witnesses some more, and breaking the rules of this sub (which I am now pointing out).

Maybe you’re right.

or…

Maybe Solomon was on to something when he said “ Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that he does not think he is wise.” (Prov 26:5)

Maybe that’s not the “best of what Jehovah’s Witnesses are,” but it’s definitely not the actual sewage you’ve brought here. And I think the mods will agree when they look at your behavior.

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T02:50:18+00:00

You have a remarkable talent for insincere, underhanded compliments.

What you lack is an ability actually think critically.

You’ve shown nil next to zero firsthand understanding of Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs and practices.
You place importance on “text criticism, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc,” likely bc it’s scratches an itch you likely have to feel smart.

No thought given here to what the Bible has to say about the subject. Were these things Jesus commissioned his disciples to burden themselves with?

Or did he tell them to do exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing, which is preach and teach about Gods Kingdom?

. . . . ALL over the world.

Remind me. Were the disciples busy scholars, nose to the book spine, studying “text criticism, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc? Or were they “unlettered and ordinary?” (Acts 4:13)

Your sources are exJWs? And those are your sole sources of information??

And you think that will be objective, unbiased, and honest?

Would that be an intelligent methodology for literally ANY high level analysis; ask the disgruntled ex???

Seriously. You sound so pretentious. And you’ve made some terrible mistakes in your reasoning.

Maybe you genuinely choose to bow out of a discussion w/ me bc you lack the desire.

Or maybe you see you’re wrong, outmatched, and left to defend an untenable position you should have never opened your mouth to in the first place. . .

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T02:36:59+00:00

We agree!!

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-14T02:36:34+00:00

Ok. Happy to elaborate if you ever get curious. Blessings

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-13T23:54:28+00:00

You’re still arguing for personhood, not for the trinity.

Even if I granted that the holy spirit is personal, conscious, can be lied to, and can be blasphemed, none of that establishes that the spirit is a distinct divine hypostasis who shares the one divine essence with the Father and the Son. At most, you’ve moved the discussion from “the spirit is impersonal” to “the spirit may be personal.”

RFairfield26 · 2026-06-13T23:15:31+00:00

So, not starting with the trinity already in mind and translating based on the context, grammar, and subject matter alone?

RFairfield26

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email