.
Rebuttal to Opposition Opening Statement:
"Does the Bible substantiate that the Holy Spirit is divine via reasonable interpretation?" That is the question before us. The debate concerns the divinity of the Third Person: I taking the affirmative, Packermann taking the opposition. The issue of our opening statements, then, is did we accomplish the goal: To reveal an affirmative to the question or to reveal a negative. Both of us now have an opportunity to give a rebuttal to the opening statement of the other.
Ironically, the Opposition's opening statement seems to not support an opposition at all, but actually seems to substantially agree with mine! It begins with this stunning admission: "It may be implied, it may even be strongly implied." The issue is: is it a reasonable interpretation from the words of the text that the Holy Spirit is divine? The Opposition begins its Opening Statement by essentially saying, "Yes."
The Opposition Statement is entirely built on the premise that there is a BETTER, MORE reasonable interpretation of the words in the text which denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit and teaches instead that the Holy Spirit is but a representative or messanger of God - as is Peter. Here is the crux of the position: "It could be that the Holy Spirit serves as a messenger of God, and to lie to God's messenger is to lie to God, since the Holy Spirit would be a representative of God. The same could then also be said of the apostles. Since the apostles are ultimately representatives of God, to lie to the apostles is to lie to the one they represent."
My reply:
1. It was never established that the Holy Spirit is a messager or representative of God at all - from this text or any other. It's just put out there as "could be...." It should be noted, if only in passing, that "It could be..." is a violation of our debate. We mutually reject that any possible interpretation ("could be") would be allowed.
2. The Opposition's supposed "more reasonable" alternative interpretation of Acts 5:3-4 is that the Holy Spirit merely REPRESENTS God or is a MESSENGER of God. This was never in any sense supported from the text or anywhere else - it is simply the Opposition's imputed unsubstantiated theory interjected into the text as a "could be." The text says nothing of "represents." Thus, the entire interpretation (and thus Opposition Statement) rests entirely on what the text does NOT say rather than on what it does.
3. The Opposition's "more reasonable" interpretation of Acts 5:3-4 requires that Peter and the Holy Spirit be equated so that what is said of PETER elsewhere may be imputed here to apply to the Holy Spirit. To accomplish this, the Opposition must re-arrange the verses so that verse 8 comes before verse 3 and then verse 4 references also verse 8, thereby indicating that Anaias was lying to BOTH Peter and the Holy Spirit. This is not what the text says. In verse 3, Anaias has not told Peter ANYTHING. To whom has he lied at this point? To the Holy Spirit, we are told; then, in the same sentence, it continues by insisting, "you have lied to God." Textually, who is the ONLY one he has lied to at this point? The Holy Spirit. Thus, "lied to God" can here refer only to the Holy Spirit. The words of the text say Anaias lied to the Holy Spirit (no other is mentioned) and it says he lied to GOD.
The Opposition desired to blend all this with something FIVE VERSES LATER, in another paragraph, in another situation sometime later, with othe characters. In verse 3, Sapphira lies to PETER. But there's NOTHING here about lying to God! There is no connection between Peter in verse 8 in that situation, and with the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and the statement that Anaias had lied to GOD.
For the "more reasonable" interpretation to even be possible (much less, more reasonable), verse 8 would need to be placed before verse 3 and Peter's teaching in verse 4 would need to link to Saphira's lie to him (which textually hadn't happened) with Anias's like to the HOLY SPIRIT. But, indeed, verse 8 follows verse 3 - so the whole basis falls apart. Along with the interpretation. Along with the Opposition Statement.
Again, Acts 5:3-4 says that Anaias lied to the Holy Spirit.... God (see my Affirmative Opening Statement). There's nothing about Anaias lying to Peter and certainly nothing anywhere about Peter being God. The associating of the Holy Spirit with Peter in the text is pure theory ("could be...") without a shred of anything textually to support it. It is not "more reasonable," it is baseless. Now, the Opposition brings forth some Scriptures to suggest that PETER is a non-divine representative of God, but that's entirely moot to the Opposition's entire argument vis-a-vis Acts 5:3-4: that this verse indicates that because PETER is a non-divine representative of God therefore the Holy Spirit is, too. In my Scripture, it's not Peter but the Holy Spirit who is lied to, and that Spirit is NOT referred to as a representative as Peter elsewhere is but as God.
The Opposition's "better, more reasonable" interpretation is nothing more than a jumbling of the order of things and an interjection of an entirely unsubstantiated "could be." It is certainly not textual or reasonable.
The Opposition states, "In the previous verses it says that Ananias and Sapphira deceived the Apostles." No. It says that Anaias lied to the Holy Spirit (NO other is mentioned) and Peter says therefore Anaias lied to God. The Opposition continues, "In verse 8, Sapphira is lying to Peter. So we see that Ananias, Sapphira to three persons - they lied to the Apostles, they lied to the Holy Spirit and they lied to God." No. Read the text. In the first situation, Anaias is stated as lying to the Holy Spirit - God. NO other is mentioned. Later, in a different paragraph and different situation, Sapphira lied to Peter but here there is NO mention whatsoever of God. The entire basis of the Opposition rests on mixing up these situations so that it can somehow put Peter with the Holy Spirit - and thus God. But it is textually baseless. The Opposition: "Now, if we apply the logic that since they all lied to the Holy Spirit and they lied to God then they lied to God, then we would have to be consistent and say that since they lied to the Apostles they lied to God." Again, the "logic" has a false premise - that Anaias and Sapphira BOTH lied to the Holy Spirit AND to Peter and that this was before verse 4 so that BOTH Peter and Holy Spirit are referenced as God. We have shown how this contradicts the text; it is baseless. It is not a better, more reasonable interpretation, it is a baseless one.
In conclusion:
In the Affirmations Opening Statement, it was revealed that even though space permitted a discussion of only one Scripture, reasonable interpretation of the words is that the Holy Spirit is divine.
The Opposition actually essentially yielded the point but then tried to offer an "alternative" interpretation as "more reasonable." As has now been shown, this is nothing more than a pure, unsubstantiated theory ("could be...") interjected into the text with nothing textual to support it. Indeed, it requires a twisting of the order of the verses, a blending of separate instances, and a confusion of declarations. It is not a "better, more reasonable" interpretation of the words of the text, it's not even a pure "could be" as suggested, it is baseless.
This ends my one permitted rebuttal. My sincere prayer is that God will use the Affirmation side here to strengthen faith. My thanks to the Opposition for a polite, articulate and thoughtful presentation, and to the Staff for their serving in making this possible. I look forward to the Opposition's closing rebuttal and then, perhaps, to a discussion in the Peanut Gallery.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.