Let’s say that a man were to approach you on the street and tell you, “I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God.” What would you think? You probably be wondering if the man had lost his mind. How can you anyone call themselves a Christian, while denying Jesus was God’s Son?
My Father used to joke, “I can call myself a bird and stick a Feather in my hat, but that doesn’t mean I can fly.” The point being that sticking a label on something, doesn’t make it so.
What if I told you that the majority of people who call themselves Trinitarians don’t really believe in the Trinity? They label themselves “Trinitarian”, but they really aren’t. That may seem like a particularly outrageous assertion to make, but I assure you, it is backed up by hard stats.
In a 2018 study by Ligonier ministries and Life Way Research in which 3,000 Americans were interviewed, the researchers found that 59% of US adults believe “the Holy Spirit to be a force, not a personal being.”[i]
When it came to Americans with “evangelical beliefs” …the survey found that 78% believe that Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God the Father.
A fundamental tenet of the Trinity doctrine is that there are three coequal persons. So if the Son is created by the Father, he cannot be equal to the Father. And if the Holy Spirit is not a person but a force, then there are not three persons in the Trinity but only two, at best.
This illustrates that the majority of people who believe in the Trinity, do so because that is what their Church teaches, but they don’t really understand the Trinity at all.
In preparing this series, I have watched a number of videos by individuals promoting the Trinity as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Over the years I’ve also discussed the Trinity in face-to-face encounters with strong proponents of the doctrine. And do you know what is interesting about all those discussions and videos? They all focus on the Father and the Son. They spend an enormous amount of time and effort trying to prove that the Father and the Son are both the same God. The Holy Spirit is virtually ignored.
The Trinity doctrine is like a three-legged stool. It is very stable as long as all three legs are firm. But you remove just one leg, and the stool is useless. So, in this second video of our series, I’m not going to focus on the Father and the Son. Instead, I want to focus on the Holy Spirit, because if the Holy Spirit is not a person, then there is no way it could be part of the Trinity. We don’t need to waste any time looking at Father and the Son unless we want to change from teaching the Trinity to a duality. That’s a whole other issue.
Trinitarians will try to convince you that the doctrine dates back to the first century and will even quote some early church fathers to prove the point. That doesn’t really prove anything. By the end of the first century, the majority of Christians came from pagan backgrounds. Pagan religions included the belief in a Trinity of Gods, so it would be very easy for pagan ideas to be introduced into Christianity. The historical record indicates that the debate over the nature of God raged all the way into the fourth century when finally Trinitarians, with the backing of the Roman Emperor, won out.
Most people will tell you that the Trinity as an official church doctrine came about in 324 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea. It is often referred to as the Nicene Creed. But the fact is that the Trinity doctrine did not come into being in 324 A.D. at Nicaea. What was agreed upon by the bishops then was the duality of the Father and the Son. It would be more than 50 years before the Holy Spirit was added into the equation. That occurred in 381 A.D. at the Council of Constantinople. If the Trinity is so obvious in Scripture, why did it take the bishops over 300 years to codify the duality of God, and then another 50 to add in the Holy Spirit?
Why is it that the majority of American Trinitarians, according to the survey we just referenced, believe the Holy Spirit is a force and not a person?
Perhaps they arrive at that conclusion due to the almost complete lack of even circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit is God. Let’s look at some of the factors:
We know that the name of God is YHWH which means essentially “I exist” or “I am”. In English, we might use the translation Jehovah, Yahweh, or Yehowah. Whatever form we use, we acknowledge that God, the Father, has a name. The Son also has a name: Jesus, or Yeshua in Hebrew, meaning “YHWH Saves” because the name Yeshua uses the short form or abbreviation for the divine name of God, “Yah”.
So, the Father has a name and Son has a name. The Father’s name appears in Scripture almost 7000 times. The Son’s name appears around a thousand times. But the Holy Spirit is given no name at all. The Holy Spirit does not have a name. A name is important. What’s the first thing you learn about a person when meeting them for the first time? Their name. A person has a name. One would expect a person as important as the third person of the Trinity, that is, the person of the godhead, to have a name like the other two, but where is it? The Holy Spirit is given no name in Scripture. But the inconsistency doesn’t stop there. For instance, we are told to worship the Father. We are told to worship the Son. We are never told to worship the Holy Spirit. We are told to love the Father. We are told to love the Son. We are never told to love the Holy Spirit. We are told to have faith in the Father. We are told to have faith in the Son. We are never told to have faith in the Holy Spirit.
- We can be baptized with Holy Spirit – Matthew 3:11.
- We can be filled with Holy Spirit – Luke 1:41.
- Jesus was filled with Holy Spirit – Luke 1:15. Can God be filled with God?
- The Holy Spirit can teach us – Luke 12:12.
- The Holy Spirit can produce miraculous gifts – Acts 1:5.
- We can be anointed with Holy Spirit – Acts 10:38, 44 – 47.
- The Holy Spirit can sanctify – Romans 15:19.
- The Holy Spirit can exist within us – 1 Corinthians 6:19.
- The Holy Spirit is used to seal the chosen of God – Ephesians 1:13.
- God puts his Holy Spirit in us – 1 Thessalonians 4:8. God does not put God in us.
Those wishing to promote the Holy Spirit as a person will put forward Bible texts that anthropomorphize the spirit. They will claim these to be literal. For instance, they will quote Ephesians 4:13 which speaks of grieving the Holy Spirit. They will claim that you cannot grieve a force. That you can only grieve a person.
There are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first one is the assumption that if you can prove the Holy Spirit is a person, you proven the Trinity. I can prove that angels are persons, that doesn’t make them God. I can prove that Jesus is a person, but again that does not make him God.
The second problem with this line of reasoning is that they are introducing what is known as a black or white fallacy. Their reasoning goes like this: Either the Holy Spirit is a person or the Holy Spirit is a force. What arrogance! Again, I refer to the analogy I’ve used in previous videos of trying to describe the colour red to a man who was born blind. There are no words to properly describe it. There is no way for that blind man to fully understand color. Let me illustrate the difficulty we’re facing.
Imagine for a moment that we could resurrect someone from 200 years ago, and he had just witnessed what I did. Would he have any hope of properly understanding what just happened? He would’ve heard a woman’s voice answer my question intelligently. But there was no woman present. It would be magic to him, sorcery even.
Imagine that the resurrection had just occurred. You are sitting at home in your living room with your great-great-great-grand grandfather. You call out, “Alexa, turn down the lights and play us some music.” Suddenly the lights dim, and music begins to sound. Could you even begin to explain how all that works in a way that he would understand? For that matter, do you even understand how it all works yourself?
Three hundred years ago, we didn’t even know what electricity was. Now we have self driving cars. That is how quickly our technology has advanced in such a short time. But God has been around forever. The universe is billions of years old. What kind of technology does God have at his disposal?
What is the Holy Spirit? I have no idea. But I do know what it isn’t. A blind man might not be able to understand what the color red is, but he knows what it isn’t. He knows it is not a table or chair. He knows it is not food. I don’t know what the Holy Spirit really is. But what I do know is what the Bible tells me. It tells me that it is the means that God uses to accomplish anything he wishes to accomplish.
You see, we are engaging in a false dilemma, a black-or-white fallacy by arguing whether the Holy Spirit is a force or a person. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for one, claim it to be a force, like electricity, while Trinitarians claim it to be a person. To make it either one or the other is to unwittingly engage in a form of arrogance. Who are we to say there can be no third option?
The claim it is a force like electricity is sophomoric. Electricity can do nothing by itself. It must operate within a device. This phone is run by electricity and can do many amazing things. But by itself, the force of electricity can do none of these things. A mere force cannot do what the holy spirit does. But this phone can do nothing by itself either. It requires a person to command it, to use it. God uses the Holy Spirit to do whatever he wants it to do. So it is a force. No, it is much more than that. Is it a person, no. If it were a person it would have a name. It is something else. Something more than a force, but something other than a person. What is it? I don’t know and I don’t need to know anymore than I need to know how this tiny device enables me to converse and see a friend living on the other side of the world.
So, going back to Ephesians 4:13, how is it possible to grieve the Holy Spirit?
To answer that question, let’s read Matthew 12:31, 32:
“And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (Matthew 12:31, 32 NIV)
If Jesus is God and you can blaspheme Jesus and still be forgiven, then why is that you cannot also blaspheme the Holy Spirit and be forgiven, assuming the holy spirit is also God? If they are both God, then blaspheming one is blaspheming the other, is it not?
However, if we understand that it is not speaking about a person but rather what the Holy Spirit represents, we can make sense of this. The answer to this question is revealed in another passage where Jesus teaches us about forgiveness.
“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.” (Luke 17:3, 4 NIV)
Jesus doesn’t tell us to just forgive everybody and anybody no matter what. He puts a condition to our forgiveness. We are to forgive freely as long as the person, what’s the word, “repents”. We forgive people when they repent. If they are unwilling to repent, then we would merely be enabling wrong conduct to forgive.
How does God forgive us? How is his grace poured out upon us? How are we cleansed from our sins? By Holy Spirit. We are baptized in Holy Spirit. We are anointed with Holy Spirit. We are empowered by Holy Spirit. The Spirit produces a new person, a new personality. It produces a fruitage that is a blessing. (Galatians 5:22) In short, it is God’s gift freely given to us. How do we sin against it? By throwing this wonderful, gift of grace back in His face.
“How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29 NIV)
We sin against the Holy Spirit by taking the gift that God has given us and stomping all over it. Jesus told us that we must forgive as often as people come to us and repent. But if they don’t repent, we don’t need to forgive. A person who sins against the Holy Spirit has lost the capacity to repent. He has taken the gift that God has given to him and trampled all over it. The Father gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit but that is only possible because first he gave us the gift of his Son. His Son gave us his blood as a gift to sanctify us. It is through that blood the Father gives us the Holy Spirit so as to wash us free of sin. All these are gifts. The Holy Spirit is not God, but the gift God gives us for our redemption. To reject it, is to reject God and to lose out on life. If you reject the holy spirit, you have hardened your heart so that you no longer have the capacity to repent. No repentance, no forgiveness.
The three-legged stool that is the Trinity doctrine depends on the Holy Spirit being not only a person, but God himself, but there is no scriptural evidence to support such a contention.
Some might quote the account of Ananias in an effort to find some morsel of support in Scripture for their idea. It reads:
“Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” (Acts 5:3, 4 NIV)
The reasoning used here is that since Peter says they lied to both the Holy Spirit and to God, the Holy Spirit must be God. Let me illustrate why that reasoning is flawed.
In the United States, it is against the law to lie to an agent of the FBI. If a special agent asks you a question and you lie him, he can charge you with the crime of lying to a federal agent. You are guilting of lying to the FBI. But you didn’t lie to the FBI, you only lied to a man. Well, that argument won’t get you out of trouble, because the Special Agent represents the FBI, so by lying to him you have lied to the FBI, and since the FBI is a Federal Bureau, you have also lied to the government of the United States. This statement is true and logical, and what is more, we all accept it while recognizing that the neither the FBI nor the US government are sentient beings.
Those trying to use this passage to promote the idea that the Holy Spirit is God, forget that the first person they lied to was Peter. By lying to Peter, they were also lying to God, but no one thinks Peter is God. By lying to Peter, they were also working against the Holy Spirit which the Father had previously poured out upon them at their baptism. To now work against that spirit was to work against God, yet the spirit was not God, but the means by which he had sanctified them.
God sends his holy spirit to accomplish all things. To resist it is to resist the one who sent it. To accept it is to accept the one who sent it.
To summarize, the Bible does tell us that it is of God or from God or sent by God. It never tells us that the Holy Spirit is God. We cannot say exactly what the Holy Spirit is. But then neither can we say exactly what God is. Such knowledge so beyond comprehension.
Having said all that, it doesn’t really matter that we cannot accurately define its nature. What does matter is that we understand that we are never commanded to worship it, love it, nor put faith in it. We are to worship, love, and put faith in both the Father and the Son, and that is all we need to worry about.
Clearly, the Holy Spirit is not part of any Trinity. Without it, there can be no Trinity. A duality perhaps, but a Trinity, no. This is consistent with what John tells us about the purpose of eternal life.
John 17:3 tells us:
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (NIV)
Notice, there is no mention of coming to know the Holy Spirit, only the Father and the Son. Does that mean the Father and the Son are both God? Is there a divine duality? Yes…and No.
With that enigmatic statement, let us conclude this topic and pick up our discussion in the next video by analysing the unique relationship that exists between the Father and the Son.
Thank you for watching. And thank you for supporting this work.
_________________________________________________
[i] https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/october/what-do-christians-believe-ligonier-state-theology-heresy.html
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by saraybach54 on 2021-03-01 16:26:26
Hi Eric!
Good piece x thanks x
I’m reading, “When Jesus Became God”, (for the third time now).
It deals with the time when Constantius II died and Julian took over...
How anyone who has studied this era can still believe these people represent The Lord, is beyond me... and worse, never question...?!
Talk about, “resisting The Holy Spirit..”...
Comment by Peniel on 2021-03-01 16:49:31
Hello Eric ..
your discussion on the topic of the holy spirit was an eye opening, I remember a saying by Nehemiah Gordon "we cannot put God in a box" I accepted well that Jesus is of divinity but not equal to the Father or Almighty Creator. By the way I am a Practicing Jehovah's Witness many ExJW call me PIMO but I am not because I still believe that the Watch tower could change its policy and throw away The Central belief on 1914. To all EXJW videos in youtube right now your channel shown more love. Hope our almighty Father will grant you more lives to open the eyes of our brothers and sisters who are blinded by faith in men.
sincerely a Brother from the Philippines.Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-05 04:14:39
Jesus is not equal with the Father in His incarnational state, yet when glorified he is called Almighty God, and the first and last meaning eternal (Rev 1:8).
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-05 07:12:34
I'll be dealing with that misapplied Scripture in one of the videos so we won't waste time on it now
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-05 08:29:37
Look forward to it.
Comment by Anti-Trinitarians on 2021-03-01 17:22:54
It has rightly been noted that the Holy Spirit is not God. In the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is referred to as "Jehovah's Spirit" or "God's Spirit", indicating belonging to God.
As for the arguments that the Spirit is a person because you can grieve him, it is worth pointing out that in the Old Testament in Isaiah 63:10 we read that the Israelites rebelled and also "grieved His Holy Spirit." although none of them believed that the Holy Spirit was the third person of God.
As for the name of the Holy Spirit, I have heard the interpretation that the name of the Holy Spirit is "parakletos" (comforter). We discuss this term on our blog (unfortunately only in Polish) https://blog.antytrynitarianie.pl/parakletos-parakleta/
We also explain that this Greek term cannot be taken as the Name of the Holy Spirit.Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-04 06:14:20
Why not? Many names in the scriptures have meanings; take Isaac which means laughter.
Comment by vitisbp on 2021-03-01 18:11:24
Hi Eric,
That was well-thought-out. What I have read from Trinitarians usually becomes a quagmire, grinds to a sticky halt, and then culminates with a desperate, "It's mystery!" A human shouldn't require another human to know more about the holy spirit than what is provided by the Bible. And, no human should take it upon himself (or herself) to provide other people with a knowledge of the holy spirit beyond what God has given us in the Bible. Yet, some people presume to do this. It makes them look foolish. It "isn't our job" to know more about the holy spirit than what the Bible tells us about it. "Good job!" on the article. (Now I'll watch the video.) - Vintage
Comment by Jerome on 2021-03-01 21:53:38
Hi Eric. Great article and video. I noticed from those that have commented that the Trinity is a very beloved doctrine of many. You certainly have seemed to step on many toes. As Christians our desire should be to present what Jesus taught and certainly not put words in his mouth. One objection that was raised more than once is that the New Testament never referred to the Father as Jehovah. Apparently the claim of some is that we would be putting words in Jesus mouth if we were to say he said Jehovah was the Father and not just God. However, there is an instance where Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13 and makes application to the Father as the one doing the teaching and drawing persons to Christ. (John 6:45) It is possible whether Jesus used the Hebrew or the Septuagint the divine name occurred in Isaiah.
Reply by Menrov on 2021-03-04 05:41:34
Isaiah 54:13. Not all translations have the tetragrammaton. I mean, some have Lord (referring to tetragrammaton) and others have God. If we stick to the available manuscripts on which the NT is based, we can only conclude that no-where Jesus is seen mentioning the name. Yes, possibly he did mention the name but no proof. Currently I still wonder why God's name is not clearly shown in the available manuscripts whereas all other names (even that of the great opponent) is shown.
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-04 06:09:34
I don't see the problem with Jesus calling the Father Yahweh, as the incarnate man he wouldn't have been an atheist.
Reply by Jerome on 2021-03-04 17:27:31
As far as the available Greek manuscripts that we have of John 6:45 you are correct in saying the tetragrammaton does not appear as they all contain kurios. However, my point was that Jesus was quoting Isaiah 54:13, which at the time contained the tetragrammaton whether in Hebrew or in the Greek Septuagint. Jesus said the person named YHWH in that verse was the father. Whether or not he pronounced the name on that occasion is unanswerable at this point. He may not have due to the extreme reverential views taught by the Pharisees. But I don't think that is particularly relevant. His reference to the father as being YHWH and not a person of YHWH is significant in a discussion of whether or not Jesus taught the Trinity.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-02 07:19:07
Thank you for that reference and reasoning, Jerome. Spot on!
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-04 06:07:40
Actually, Trinitarians believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one Jehovah. Jehovah is a category of Elohim, there is only one true Elohim and that is Jehovah.
Reply by Jerome on 2021-03-06 12:19:53
Bamba64, Your comment seems to indicate that you accept there are different categories of Elohim. If, as you say, Jehovah is a category of Elohim, wouldn't Jesus statement in John 17:3 mean that only Jehovah is in that category?
Reply by Jerome on 2021-03-06 15:24:55
What I meant to say was only the father, since that is who Jesus was praying to, calling him the only true God.
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-09 03:43:05
You need to study the incarnation, as I'm not allowed to preach on this blog, would your understanding of 1 Cor 8:6 preclude the Father is Lord. If not why not?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-09 07:30:08
I worry when I hear someone talk about preaching to others. Discussing Scripture is one thing, but preaching conjures up images of the pulpit or platform and all the harm that has come from that.
Reply by Jerome on 2021-03-12 08:09:19
I think you would be allowed to share your point of view on scripture. We don't all agree on everything on this site but we share our research and understanding with the aim of uncovering the truth. Our contributions are positive and meaningful, as Jesus would want us to be, not combative . (2 Tim. 2:24) So, if you would like to share your view of the incarnation and how that affects your understanding of John 17:3, I wouldn't mind sharing how I understand the point Paul was making in 1 Cor. 8:6
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2021-03-02 04:30:13
Another excellent article, Eric. The key to good teaching is simplicity, and you have done just that.
I have often said that the Bible is full of holy spirit, just as is intimated at Hebrews 4:12. It is full of God's thoughts, as simple as that. I loved your analogy that to the blind man red is not a table or a chair. We may not be able to explain it, but you have come very close.
.
The more we try to explain the holy spirit, the more of a mess we will make. Accept God's gift, and be grateful for it..
Comment by Adam on 2021-03-02 05:27:22
Exo 31:18 LEB And when he finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, he gave to Moses the two tablets of the testimony, stone tablets, written with the FINGER OF GOD
Luk 11:20 LEB But if I expel demons by the FINGER of GOD, then the kingdom of God has come upon you!
Mat 12:28 LEB But if I expel demons by the SPIRIT OF GOD, then the kingdom of God has come upon you!
The holy spirit is therefore the finger of god or how he gets stuff done. His finger is him just like my finger is me.
Gen 1:2 LEB Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the SPIRIT OF GOD was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Psa 8:3 LEB When I look at your heavens, the work of YOUR FINGERS, the moon and the stars which you set in place—
Joh 15:5 LEB “I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him—this one bears much fruit, for apart from me you are not able to do anything.
Gal 5:22 LEB But the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-02 07:32:38
Thank you for this, Adam. Excellent!
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-04 06:03:18
Does God have fingers? How about the arm of the Lord? The Arm of the Lord is the anthropomorphic language describing God.
Comment by Adam on 2021-03-02 06:47:05
How do you square "He puts a condition to our forgiveness." with the following?:
Mat 7:1-2 LEB 1 “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. 2 For by what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and by what measure you measure out, it will be measured out to you.
Luke 6:27 ESV
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Mark 11:25 ESV
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”
Matthew 5:43-48 ESV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven....."
Romans 12:17-21 ESV
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good...."Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-05 04:16:39
Hi Adam, do you think that maybe no repentance forgiveness is a standard that God doesn't prescribe to? Given the example, the Lord Jesus gave us "And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors."Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-05 07:15:53
Of course we must forgive our debtors, but based on the principle that Jesus stated elsewhere. We forgive our debtors when they ask for forgiveness. Remember that we must consider the harmony of all the Bible before we make an assertion based on one verse. Otherwise, we engage in eisegesis which is what got us into trouble in the organization.
Besides the Scripture you are already aware of which is under discussion, consider the parable found at Matthew 18:23-35. You will notice that in both cases the slaves involved asked for forgiveness.Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-05 08:27:42
Yes. I agree, repentance (Gk metanoia) a change of mind, is always the condition of forgiveness, that why I can't understand when we hear of some Christians who just flippantly say "I forgive" when the perpetrator couldn't care less, there must be a change of heart, we must always be ready to forgive but only when a person changes their mind about their indiscretion.
Comment by Bamba64 on 2021-03-04 06:27:35
The first part of your dissertation deals with the number of evangelical Christians that no longer hold to the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, well, that wouldn’t surprise any Christian that holds to this belief, as we are well aware of where Christendom is heading. While I agree with the statistics I believe that this just shows you the level of biblical literacy that is in the modern churches, many are not studying their bibles anymore and few are being taught doctrine, this is the result of the so-called church becoming secularised. As you say they don’t even know what the term Trinity means, so this is no reflection on the doctrine but more on the state of the church. If numbers equal the truth then we should all join Roman Catholicism.
Maybe you would like to discuss why it is that vast the majority of Hebrew and Greek Grammarians; some of the best-known Theologians, pretty much every literal committee based translation of the Bible is produced by (you guessed it) Trinitarians!
You then made the statement: “A fundamental tenet of the Trinity doctrine is that there are three co-equal persons. So if the Son is created by the Father, he cannot be equal to the Father.”
I’d be interested to see how you prove that Jesus (pre-incarnation) was created. Of course no doubt this will be for your next video.
You said that in your discussions with Trinitarians that the Holy Spirit was ignored, if I may quote J White on this: There is a reason why the Holy Spirit does not receive the same level and kind of attention that is focused upon the Father and the Son: it is not His purpose to attract that kind of attention to himself. Just as the Son voluntarily chose to take the role of Suffering Servant so as to redeem God’s people, so, too, the Spirit has chosen to take the role as Sanctifier and Advocate of the people of God. But since it is the Spirit’s role to direct the hearts of men to Christ, and to conform them to His image, He does not seek to push himself into the forefront and gain attention for himself.
As J White points out: One of the clearest indications of the personhood of the Spirit is His use of the personal pronoun in reference to himself. That is, I prove my own personhood by speaking of myself as “I” and “me.” The Spirit likewise speaks of himself in this way. When the Spirit set aside Barnabas and Saul, He did so personally:
While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2).
The work of ministry is a work unto the Lord, but here the Spirit not only speaks of himself with the personal pronoun “Me,” but we see that we are to view the calling to the service of God as a ministry unto the Holy Spirit himself. Earlier in Acts the Spirit had referred to himself in the same way:
While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself” (Acts10:19-20).
The Spirit speaks to Peter and again uses a personal pronoun, indicating His sovereign action in sending the men to Peter. Impersonal forces do not send men, speak, or use personal pronouns in reference to their actions.
Likewise, the Spirit is referred to by the Son as a person. When teaching the apostles about the future ministry of the Spirit among them, the Lord said,
When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me. (John 15:26)
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John16:13-14)
The Spirit here testifies about the Lord Jesus. The Spirit guides disciples, He speaks, and He discloses future events. He glorifies Christ as well. Each of these activities indicates personality.
Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot” (Acts8:29).
And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: `In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles’ ” (Acts 21:11).
But the Spirit speaks in another vital way as well: Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6).
This tremendously special manner of speaking is very much like what the Spirit does in His work of intercession for the elect as Paul discusses it in Romans 8:26-27:
Many more scriptures could be cited, but you should get the idea, if you don’t believe the Holy Spirit is a person with these references it only proves to me what I already have come to believe, Ex JW’s will believe anything other than the biblical doctrine of the Trinity (as you have made abundantly clear in your Socinianism video), so it’s not a theological but psychological problem, after years of indoctrination about the Trinity doctrine being of pagan origin they carry a lot of baggage. Of course, the flood narrative is held by many pagan religions as well, does that prove it’s of pagan origins, or does it prove that the flood actually happened?
You then speak of the origin of the trinity doctrine and how it only included the Father and Son. Why was the debate about the Father and Christ? Because of the attack on Jesus' divinity, the Holy Spirit was not part of the debate because that wasn’t the point of the debate. You should know full well that triadic statements were made by many early church fathers long before Nicea.
J White makes a valid point: There are many volumes written about the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the person of the Holy Spirit.’ We will not even try to summarize the huge mountain of material that exists on the subject. Instead, let’s answer one simple question: can we trace a belief in a tri-unity in the Godhead the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures through the earliest writers of the Christian faith? That is, did they believe in only one true God? Did they believe in the deity of Christ? Did they differentiate between the Father, Son, and Spirit?
Unfortunately, there is no “theology book” from the early church, a series of creedal statements, or some document or artifact that would give us a clear, exhaustive view of the beliefs of the early Christians in the decades immediately after the ministry of the apostles, and there is a rational explanation for that; it has to do with persecution, you are not inclined to write exhaustive books on the finer details of theology while running for your life! However, the end of persecution brought an almost immediate refocusing of the church’s attention upon the issues of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Indeed, the first major council of the church, called by Emperor Constantine in Nicaea in A.D. 325, addressed the issue of the nature of Christ a scant dozen years after the persecutions ended. The next centuries were spent working through the fine details of these concepts.
Yet we do have many early Christian writings:
Clement of Rome stated: That there is only one true God, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate persons, are clearly truths fundamental to Clement’s beliefs.
Ignatius, Melito of Sardis, all made clear Trinitarian statements; these can be found in citations of the early Church Fathers in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae D CD ROM (Los Altos, Calif.: Packard Humanities Institute, 1993).
Having James Penton onboard I would have thought you would have been more accurate in your statements, his expertise being history.
You then state that the Holy Spirit has no name! I don’t understand your reasoning here, most names given to people in biblical times had meanings, as you have correctly said Jesus’ name means “YHWH saves”, so what do you make of the name Isaac; it means “laughter”. The Holy Spirit is called Helper, (Greek parakletos) and the Holy Spirit has many predicates that names; so your assertion is wrong unless for some reason you don’t accept that.
You then give a list of things that the Holy Spirit is involved in I’ll just deal with the ones that you have misrepresented.
You said: Jesus was filled with Holy Spirit – Luke 1:15. Can God be filled with God?
Again a clear misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, Trinitarians’ believe that God became a “man” and as a man, he could be filled with the Holy Spirit, remember that the Holy Spirit is not some kind of fluid that is poured into someone, to be filled is to be completely yielded to the Holy Spirit that He can possess us fully and, in that sense, fill us.
You said: The Holy Spirit can exist within us – 1 Corinthians 6:19. Interesting, I think you may have shot yourself in the foot with this statement. Tie 1 Corinthians 6:19 with 1 Corinthians 3:16 “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? And: Ephesians 2:22 (NKJV) in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. Who dwells in the Temple of God?” so who or what dwells in us, well I guess you don’t know because you don’t know who or what the Holy Spirit is even though personal pronouns are used in regards to Him rationally speaking doesn't that make Him a person?
You State: If Jesus is God and you can blaspheme Jesus and still be forgiven, then why is that you cannot also blaspheme the Holy Spirit and be forgiven, assuming the holy spirit is also God? If they are both God, then blaspheming one is blaspheming the other, is it not?
Again a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, can God get tired, eat, go to the toilet, sweat blood? But Jesus did, because he became a “man” (Philippians 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.)
You then misrepresent what is known as the unforgivable sin; again you don’t understand the incarnation, so you can blaspheme Jesus as a “man”. So, what is blaspheming of the Holy Spirit, the cause of the controversy arose from the casting out of a Dum demon which is a messianic miracle. The Pharisees explained away the miracle by claiming that Jesus was possessed of a demon not a common demon but the prince of demons, Beelzebub.
Jesus defends Himself as we know by stating that Satan’s kingdom would be divided against itself if true. Then Jesus lays the charge that they were guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The sin was specifically directed towards the Holy Spirit, the ramifications of this blasphemy was a national sin, it was committed by the Jewish generation of Jesus day, the sin specifically was the rejection of Jesus messiahship while present; on the grounds of being demon-possessed, it is not possible to commit this sin today, the bible is clear, no sin is unpardonable to those that will come to God through Jesus the Messiah (Christ). So how is the national rejection of Jesus a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the final testimony of Christ’s work, it is quite possible to initially reject the claims of Christ and still be convinced (repent) later by the work of the Holy Spirit. But to reject the work of the Holy Spirit is to reject the person of Christ. Ultimately, the sin is the wilful rejection of the person of Christ.
I see then that you use the term Holy Spirit without the definite article, exactly the same as the W.T. NWT.
As J White points out: When possible, they (JW’s) omit the article, resulting in strange renderings like “That one will baptize YOU people with holy spirit” (Matthew 3:11), “and he will be filled with holy spirit right from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). Their intention is clear: the Watchtower Society denies that the Holy Spirit is a person, hence, they desire their “translation” of the Bible to communicate the idea that the Holy Spirit is an “it,” a force or power. Of course, the argument that is often heard is that the phrase “Holy Spirit” in Greek is in the neuter gender, and it is.’ But Greek genders do not necessarily indicate personality.’ Inanimate things can have masculine and feminine genders, and personal things can have the neuter gender. We cannot automatically insert the pronoun “it” when referring to every neuter noun any more than we should always insert the pronoun “she” for “love,” since love in Greek is feminine.” Instead, we determine whether the Holy Spirit is personal the same way we would demonstrate that the Father or the Son is a person. Does the Spirit exhibit personality by speaking, using personal pronouns, and doing other things that only persons can do? Does the Spirit have a will? Can we insult or resist the Holy Spirit? (James White PhD, critical consultant to the NASB).
I’m not sure about your idea of salvation, so are you saying that we have to be filled with the Holy Spirit before we repent?
You then give an interesting analogy, of course, analogies can either help to explain or they can misdirect.
You then explain away the lying to the Holy Spirit (act 5:3)
When we lie to the FBI agent you said it is against the law. Secularly speaking no law from man can be universal or invariant (unchanging) even atheists agree that morality is relevant; in fact, it can be proven that there is no morality without God. But, what about lying to the lawgiver who is sentient, I think again you're making a category mistake, the lie was in the heart of Ananias and therefore before God, that is clear from Peter’s reply. You said that Ananias lied to Peter, but it nowhere says that in the text, it’s also interesting that you used the NIV here where it say’s “You have not lied just to human beings but to God”, more literal translations state:
· NKJV. You have not lied to men but to God.
· NET. You have not lied to people but to God!
· NSV. You have not lied to man but to God.”
· NASB. You have not lied to men but to God.”
So, scripturally the consensus is that there was no lying to men; only to God of whom the Holy Spirit is.
You said: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (NIV).
Notice, there is no mention of coming to know the Holy Spirit, only the Father and the Son. Does that mean the Father and the Son are both God? Is there a divine duality? Yes…and No.
You can’t see that all three are involved in salvation? You have different functions of the Holy Spirit, without the Holy Spirit we couldn’t even come to Christ.
Read John 16:7-11. For your answer.
As J White has rightly said, “Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.” Something you have said in regards to Christian women.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-04 09:34:49
Thank you for this analysis of the video. Much appreciated as it will serve as a guide for future videos. I'll be reviewing some of J White's book. You've shown that he likes to offer his opinion as fact, but we are much more interested in what can be proven from Scripture.
I am curious about something though. You seem to believe--correct me if I've misunderstood--that Ananias and his wife didn't lie to any people, but only to God. So when they gave their donation to the apostles, if they said nothing about giving all they had, how exactly did they lie to God? Do you think they prayed to God trying to deceive him, but kept silent before men? To what end?Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-05 03:59:26
How did Peter know? I would think that this was due to God's omniscience, God obviously knew of their deception, was Peter then informed by God? The scriptures are silent, for there to be deception Ananias and Sapphira must have agreed to give all of the proceeds but something changed their mind (Satan). Peter says that they didn’t lie to men but to God, did they think that their deception was to the Apostle and others, I concede that as a possibility.
They obviously thought no one would know, ultimately their deception was to God who did know. Of course, I hold scripturally to the preposition that the Holy Spirit is a person.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-05 07:12:00
Are you seriously defending your position that they did not tell a lie to any humans? Can you not see even the possibility that translation such as the NIV are accurately conveying the meaning?
"You have not lied just to human beings but to God." NIV
"You have not [simply] lied to people, but to God.” AB
Actually, that sentence makes no real sense unless men were involved in the lie.
Just to show you this – and it's amazing to me that I have to show you this – if Peter were to say, "you did not lied to the Roman authorities, but you lied to God". Such a sentence would make no sense unless the Roman authorities were somehow involved. Likewise, unless men were somehow involved in the lie, Peter's words make no sense.
If you can't see such simple and obvious truth, then you will only be wasting our time by further dialogue. Sorry to sound harsh, but time is precious.Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-05 08:19:35
Yes, that was harsh considering I conceded the point.
Grk “to men.” If Peter’s remark refers only to the apostles, the translation “to men” would be appropriate. But if (as is likely) the action was taken to impress the entire congregation (who would presumably have witnessed the donation or been aware of it) then the more general “to people” is more appropriate, since the audience would have included both men and women.
Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-05 08:37:42
Actually, you didn't concede the point, but only acknowledged it as a possibility. The point, which is in danger of being lost in all this back and forth is that since they lied to human beings, and through those human beings, lied to God, then we cannot reasonably conclude without ambiguity that the holy spirit is God, since lying to men (distinct from the person of God) constituted lying to God, then reasonably, lying to the holy spirit (distinct from the person of God) also constitutes in the same way as lying to God.
I grant that this isn't proof that the holy spirit is not a person, but you have to concede that neither can this passage be considered as proof that the holy spirit is a person and more, that it is God.
If you cannot admit that what we have here is at best ambiguity with regard to our point of discussion, then we have no basis to proceed further.Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-05 10:59:22
It's difficult to answer you as you haven't given any idea of what you believe the Holy Spirit to be. If from the scripture references that I gave on the person of the Holy Spirit, then there is no ambiguity "for me", the Holy Spirit is a person and therefore God; and as such was lied to primarily and to the people secondarily (there's my concession ;-). The ambiguity lies with you as to the nature of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit is some kind of force as the Jw's suggest then you would be right, it's impossible to lie to some kind of impersonal energy, but, as you have rightly said we have to take the entirety of Scripture on the subject otherwise we end up with eisegesis.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-05 17:43:14
I held out hope that at least you would admit the ambiguity inherent in this passage, though I'm not surprised you can't.
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-06 04:15:04
Oh yes, I do admit the ambiguity in this passage Eric, forgive me if I didn't make that clear. And it is "more" than possible it included other people, the NET notes that I posted make that abundantly clear.
However, my understanding of this passage is that Ananias and Sapphira conspired in their heart/mind, they were so short-sighted that they thought their deception was before men and nobody would know. I believe supernaturally God revealed their deception to Peter and then the congregation got to know about it. Peter points out that their deception was to God and not men or not "only" men. Primarily the lie was to God and secondarily to men.
You said, "Quote" "So is it a force. No, it is much more than that. Is it a person, no. If it were a person it would have a name. It is something else. Something more than a force, but something other than a person."
My position as to the Holy Spirit (the Helper) being a person is not based on any one scripture.
ACTS 13:2. While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which "I" have called them.”
And:
Acts10:19 While Peter was still thinking seriously about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Look! Three men are looking for you. 10:20 But get up, go down, and accompany them without hesitation because "I" have sent them.
Could you admit that these scriptures are to be understood due to the use of personal pronouns in reference to himself? That is, I prove my own personhood by speaking of myself as “I” and “me.” ?
Again to reflect back on you, I hold out hope that you can, but, I won't be surprised if you can't.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-06 12:07:55
The private said, "Captain, we just got a message from headquarters."
"What does the message say, private?"
The private replied, "The message says we are to break camp immediately."
Since the message is saying something and giving a command, it must be a person.
"I heard a voice in the night saying, "I commend you to stand and listen.""
The voice must be a person because it is speaking in the first person and giving me a command.
Using your logic, the statements must be true.
If we read the context of Acts 13:2 we find that the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit". (Acts 13:52)
So we were filled with joy and with the person.
We know that Jesus was a person. There is no ambiguity in any sense. We know that God is a person, a distinct being. Again no ambiguity about that. Such is not the case with the Holy Spirit.
Of course, even if it could be established the Holy Spirit is a person, that does not make him God. God has sent angels who speak in the name of God and yet they remain separate entities. So you have a double task. Proving that the Holy Spirit is a person, and then proving that the Holy Spirit is the person of God himself.
Now I'd like to ask you a few questions:
At Romans 8:17 we read, "And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him."
If Christ is God, how can he inherit from God? If Christ is God, how can we be co-inheritors since to inherit with someone is to acquire something that neither you nor they already have, but something which is bequeathed by another, in this case God?Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-06 15:50:04
Take the private away and we have a letter that can talk? Did someone speak on behalf of the Spirit?
Did the voice come out of thin air? If a voice is communicating it must have had agency, let’s put in agency and see what happens.
John said in the night, “I command you to stand and listen” The voice came from John therefore John must be a person because he is speaking in the first person and giving me a command.
The logic stands and the statement is true.
If we read the context of Acts 13:2 we find that the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit”. (Acts 13:52)
So we were filled with joy and with the person.
Again misdirection, they were filled so as to be completely yielded to the Holy Spirit so that He can possess us fully and, in that sense, fill us, not filled with His person, I think that would be enough reason to be joyful.
You said to me: Now I’d like to ask you a few questions:
At Romans 8:17 we read, “And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him.”
If Christ is God, how can he inherit from God? If Christ is God, how can we be co-inheritors since to inherit with someone is to acquire something that neither you nor they already have, but something which is bequeathed by another, in this case God?
Again a misunderstanding of the incarnation, as a “man” Jesus had something to inherit. As a “man” He had a God, he wouldn’t have been an atheist.
Heb 2:17. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect.
Now here are some things you can answer for me (it's not mandatory).
Rom 8:27 [NET] The Holy Spirit has a mind. (And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God’s will.)
How can a force or an extension of God (finger, arm) have a mind that the Father knows?
Will this be explicit enough for you that the Holy Spirit speaks (pun intended).
1 Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the .faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings.
Can you explain who is talking here in its context?
Heb 8:7. Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-06 16:47:17
So you acknowledge that the voice or message comes from a person, but the voice or message is not that person, even though it is referred to with the same grammatical structure that would be used were "person" substituted for "voice" or "message". Likewise, Holy Spirit is not a person, but represents the person of God. Like we say "voice of God", we say "spirit of God".
I'm going to ignore the rest because you failed to answer my question, and it is now your turn to answer.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-07 08:56:46
But for the Trinity to be true, Jesus could not be a man, but God. He could not abandon his godhood for 33 1/2 years. This is where the doctrine really becomes non-sensical and your explanation, brief as it, just doesn't work.
As for Romans 8:27 to accept your point at any level, I have to accept the rendering of a Bible translated by Trinitarians who take a word, phronéma, which means "thought, purpose, aspirations" and render it as mind which can be literal (the brain in function) or metaphorical. All you're "proof" to date requires interpretation and inference. Hardly the basis to determine the nature of the holy spirit, but even if we could determine without question that it is a sentient being, like the angels and like Jesus is, it is still a huge leap to conclude it is not a being, but a non-being person (if such a thing even exists) which is one third of a single being, God.
But before we get into that, let's finish with Romans 8:17, because you don't address how Jesus can exist as a man, not God, and in the state of a man, inherit from himself as God, in the same way as his brothers do.Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-07 09:37:49
Can't see any of my replies, is there a problem?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-07 10:03:25
If you reply to the question on Romans 8:17, we can then proceed with the rest.
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-07 11:10:46
You're censoring me?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-07 11:48:42
Yes, of course. This site was not created to give everyone with a personal point of view a soapbox to preach from. I thought that would have been clear. If you want to engage in a discussion or debate on a bible topic, you have to conform to site guidelines (See FAQ) One of the key ones is the requirement to fully and reasonably respond to a question that might be uncomfortable because answering it will compromise your argument.
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-07 13:39:50
I'll stick to refutations on youtube then. Goodbye.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-07 17:46:27
I understand.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-07 17:54:55
Understood. I would have approved your latest reply had you engaged in an open and honest discussion of Romans 8:17, instead of continuing to promote more "proof texts".
Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-03-08 06:42:09
So you say, And my views were not a personal point of view, they were derived by Greek Grammarians and theologians that understand the tense in the original languages to come up with the correct meaning. Do you still stick to your point of view over and above the translations of Greek experts on Rom 8:27.?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-09 07:35:53
In 1 Cor. 1:10 we are told to be united in the "same mind" (Gr. autō noi). Since a single mind is referenced, is this proof that whenever "mind" is used it is referring to a person, and not in a figurative sense?
Reply by ironsharpensiron on 2022-12-29 23:30:06
I wall of proof texts all at once is called the Gish Gallop technique.
The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one's arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution. It is similar to another debating method called spreading, in which one person speaks extremely fast in an attempt to cause their opponent to fail to respond to all the arguments that have been raised.
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place, which is known online as Brandolini's law. The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.
Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than a free-form one. If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by pre-empting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop