The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

My opponent states that the New Testament is usually what is used to provide proof for the doctrine of the trinity. This statement is only partially true. The trinity is revealed in the New Testament, to be sure, but we can look back on the Old Testament and see the consistency of Scripture. This can be seen in Hebrews 1, where the author applies descriptions used of Jehovah God in the Old Testament to Jesus Christ in the New. But my opponent says that the New Testament itself does not support the doctrine of the trinity. Here were the reasons given:1) There are different versions of the Bible, and thus different “translations of the trinity.”This does not make any sense. The doctrine of the trinity is taught in the exact same way by all Christians who affirm it. There is no dispute. Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. all affirm the same doctrine of the trinity despite the various translations being used. I use many translations in my day to day studies of the Scriptures. I use the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc. All of them support the doctrine of the trinity. The passages that I provided in the previous round can be looked up in any translation of the Bible and found uncontested. The only exceptions would be the passages that utilize Sharp's Rule. 2) Different Christians come up with different “translations of the trinity.” Assuming that “translation” means “doctrine,” then this is a false statement. As previously stated, the doctrine of the trinity is not contested among Christians who accept it. The Catholics use the same definition as the Protestants. The Eastern churches use the same definition as the Western churches. There is no disagreement. The only disagreement that exists is between those who reject the doctrine of the trinity and those who accept it.My opponent goes on to say that the New Testament “does not contain the developed doctrine of the trinity.” I am not sure what this means. The Bible as a whole most certainly contains the doctrine of the trinity. There is not one passage that dogmatically defines the doctrine of the trinity and we should not expect such a passage to exist. My opponent states that the Apostles did not teach a “trinitarian doctrine.” This is completely false, as I have shown in the previous round. Regarding the official dogmatic definition of the trinity, my opponent says that it was not developed until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. While I disagree with the statement, I do not see any real significance in mentioning it. There were many beliefs and doctrines that were never dogmatically defined until serious objections were made. Prior to Arianism, there was no real need to define the doctrine of the trinity in a dogmatic way. It was a belief that was universal among the Body of Christ. We know that the early church held these beliefs because they are not only found in Scripture (see previous round), but also found in the writings of the early church. Consider the following examples:“For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,- even Jesus Christ our Lord.But some most worthless persons are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, and hold opinions contrary to the doctrine of Christ, to their own destruction, and that of those who give credit to them, whom you must avoid as ye would wild beasts. For ‘the righteous man who avoids them is saved for ever; but the destruction of the ungodly is sudden, and a subject of rejoicing.’ For ‘they are dumb dogs, that cannot bark,’ raving mad, and biting secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, since they labour under an incurable disease. But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Ignatius of Antioch (died 98 AD); letter to the Ephesians; Ch. 7.)“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Tertullian (160-215 AD), Against Praxeas 2)My opponent ends by saying that the name “Christian” was formulated by non-believers. I do not see the significance as it pertains to this debate. I also want to note that my opponent failed to utilize a single passage from Scripture regarding his refutation to the doctrine of the trinity.