Is God Only One, or 3-in-1?
 |
Is God only one, or is he 3-in-1?
“The Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. ‘triad’, from trinus ‘threefold’)[1] is the Christian doctrineconcerning the nature of God, which defines one God existing in three, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons:[2][3] God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature (homoousion)”—Wikipedia
The important thing is, “What does the Bible say?” Let’s see, by examining the scriptures.
“Hear O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4 LSB). “Hear, O Israel: Our God YHWH – YHWH is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4 LSV). Trinitarians claim that God is 3-in-1. This verse proves that claim false. “One” translates the Hebrew word “echad,” which is the numeral “one.” “Echad” means “one,” as opposed to two or more. In Deuteronomy 17:6, “one [“echad”] witness” is contrasted with “two or three witnesses.” Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 at Mark 12:29, “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (NKJV), and agreed with the scribe (Mark 12:34) who commented on it, when he called Yahweh, “He” and “Him,” at Mark 12:32,33 (NJKV). “He” and “Him” are singular pronouns, and, in this case, describe the singular God, Yahweh. The Bible emphasizes that “God is only one” (Galatians 3:20 NASB), and is not ‘three-in-one.’
Mark 12:29 – “Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD” (NASB) – The greatest commandment is to love God, not Jesus or Trinity. “One” is the Greek word “heis”, meaning the numerical one, not a compound unity, as Trinitarians would have us believe. Not two or three, not divided, not Trinity. The main teaching of Jesus, he said, was that ‘God is one person only’, “God is only one [Greek: “heis”] (Galatians 3:20 NASB), which flatly contradicts the Trinity doctrine of a 3-in-one God.
Mark 12:32,33 – “He is one and there is no other but he. And to love him with all your heart . . . ” (NAB). God is referred to as being only “one” and by the singular personal pronouns “he” and “him”. Jesus confirmed that the scribes’ description of God was correct (Mark 12:34).
John 8:16-18 – “If I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me” (NIV). In these verses, Jesus twice says “the Father . . . sent” him, which means they are two separate and distinct people, because the sender and the one sent cannot be the same, nor can they be in the same location. He also says the Father is with him, indicating they are separate and distinct. Jesus also says the witness of “two” individuals is true. ‘I’m one and my Father who sent me is the other,’ he says. Obviously, Jesus and his Father are two separate and distinct people.
John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one”. Trinitarians claim this means Jesus is God. The Greek word translated “one” here is “hen”, in the neuter gender, which means it represents unity, and it’s not the Greek word “heis”, which is the numerical one. Thus, we read, “I and the Father are of one accord” (John 10:30 Lamsa). In 1 Corinthians 3:8, “he who plants and he who waters are one [“hen”]” (NKJV]. This verse is also accurately translated as, “The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose” (NIV). This shows that the Greek word “hen” means “one purpose”.
Also, notice the frank admission by a scholarly Trinitarian, “The Father and the Son are in perfect unity in their natures and actions, but the neuter form of ‘one’ rules out the meaning that they are one person” (Ryrie Study Bible note). John 11:52 says that Christ was to die that might make all of God’s “children” into “one”. Does that mean Christians would become “one being”? In John 17:11,21,22 Jesus prays that all his followers would become “one” just as he and his Father are “one”. Does that mean they would become “one substance”? How foolish it would be to think so!
Romans 3:30 – “God is one”. The Greek word for “one” is “heis”, which is the numeral one. This eliminates the possibility that God can be more than one person, such as a 3-in-1 God in three persons Trinity.
1 Corinthians 8:6 – “there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live.” (GNB) – ‘There is only one God, the Father’, not a 3-in-1 monstrosity. An obvious distinction is made here between God, who is “the Creator of all things”, and ‘Jesus Christ, through whom God created everything’. Even though Jesus is called “Lord”, that doesn’t make him either “God”, or “the Creator”. Those titles belong to the “the Father”, as we can see from this verse. Jesus is obviously excluded from being God in this verse, and the holy Spirit isn’t mentioned.
Galatians 3:20 – “Now a mediator is not for one person only, whereas God is only one” (NASB). The meaning is that God is only one person. The Greek for “one” here is “heis”, which is the numeral “one”, which eliminates the possibility that God could be more than one person, such as a 3-in-1 Trinity.
Ephesians 4:5,6 – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” (ESV) Jesus is the “one Lord” here, and Yahweh, his Father, is the “one God.” The Greek word “one” here is “heis”, meaning the numeral “one”, which eliminates the possibility that either God or Jesus could be more than one person. They are each only one person. A key takeaway from this verse is that the “one God” does not include the “one Lord”, Jesus Christ. Without Jesus being God, the Trinity doctrine collapses.
“There is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5 NAB). The verse plainly states “there is one God”. In addition to that, “there is also one mediator . . . Christ Jesus”. The Greek word used for “one”in both cases is “heis”, which is the numeral “one”, so the possibility that God could be more than one person, such as a God in three persons, is eliminated. By definition, the mediator cannot be either of the two parties that he mediates “between”. Therefore, it is obvious that Christ cannot be either”God” or “mankind”. No, Christ is “the man”, the “one mediator”. This one scripture is enough to obliterate Trinitarian notions.
“You believe that there is one God. Even the demons believe that — and shudder“ (James 2:19 NIV), as opposed to believing that other “gods” are also real. The Greek word for “one” is “heis”, which is the numeral “one”, and eliminates any possibility that God could be more than one person. The demons know that there is one “only true God”, who is Jesus’ “Father” (John 17:1,3). The Trinity doctrine asserts that ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the holy Spirit is God. That’s three Gods, despite Trinitarian denials. James 2:19 makes it perfectly clear that there is only one Almighty God, not three Almighty Gods.
Jude 3 – “Fight hard for the faith, which has been once and for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3 NJB). What is interesting about this verse is that ‘the Christian faith, or belief, was given to God’s people completely back there in the first century (John 16:13). Trinitarians admit that their “belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly a biblical belief” (Dictionary of the Bible, by John l. McKenzie, S. J.). The Trinity doctrine wasn’t even developed until long after the 1st century, and is demonstrably a “travesty of the truth” (Acts 20:30 NJB).
7 thoughts on “Is God Only One, or 3-in-1?”
If God did exist, he would be the only deity. But we now know and have proven that God does not exist.
GW—If God did exist, he would be the only deity. But we now know and have proven that God does not exist.
BA—Your unbelief is without excuse.
Romans 1:20 describes the truth of the matter. Notice how this is explained in the Bible Hub Study Bible:
“God’s invisible qualities”
These qualities refer to aspects of God that are not physically seen but are understood through His creation. Attributes such as His wisdom, creativity, and order are reflected in the complexity and beauty of the universe. This aligns with Psalm 19:1, which states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
“His eternal power and divine nature”
Eternal power refers to God’s omnipotence and timelessness, indicating that He is not bound by the constraints of time and space. Divine nature encompasses His holiness, righteousness, and other attributes that set Him apart from His creation. This is consistent with Isaiah 40:28, which speaks of God as the everlasting Creator who does not grow tired or weary.
“have been clearly seen”
The clarity with which God’s attributes are perceived in creation suggests that they are evident and unmistakable. This is supported by the intricate design and order found in nature, which points to an intelligent Designer. The clarity of this revelation is such that it leaves humanity without a valid argument against the existence of God.
“being understood from His workmanship”
Workmanship refers to the created world, which acts as a testament to God’s attributes. The complexity of ecosystems, the vastness of the universe, and the intricacies of biological life all serve as evidence of a purposeful Creator. This understanding is accessible to all people, regardless of their cultural or historical context.
“so that men are without excuse”
This phrase underscores the accountability of humanity in recognizing God’s existence and attributes. The natural revelation provided through creation is sufficient for people to acknowledge God, leaving them without excuse for unbelief. This is echoed in Acts 14:17, where Paul speaks of God’s kindness in providing rain and crops as a witness to His existence.
GW—If God did exist, he would be the only deity. But we now know and have proven that God does not exist.
BA—Your unbelief is without excuse.
GW: My belief is correct. I don’t need any excuses for it.
BA: Romans 1:20 describes the truth of the matter: “God’s invisible qualities”
GW: The author of Romans is mistaken. He is guilty of the error of “begging the question.” He assumes that God exists without proving it. Nonexistent persons do not have qualities, invisible or visible.
BA: These qualities refer to aspects of God that are not physically seen but are understood through His creation.
GW: You and the author of Romans are making irrational inferences. You both assume without good evidence or proof that the universe had a beginning, was created, and had a creator. In fact, nobody has proven this.
BA: Attributes such as His wisdom, creativity, and order are reflected in the complexity and beauty of the universe.
GW: It is highly likely that the order and complexity of the universe are intrinsic and eternal. They are just brute facts. “It’s beautiful” is just a subjective emotional reaction which some people have when they ponder the universe. But other people have the reaction “It’s ugly” especially when they observe destructive hurricanes, genocide, and cancer.
BA: This aligns with Psalm 19:1, which states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
GW: This author is just making irrational inferences from observations of the universe. He did not prove that somebody created the universe. You haven’t done that either. In fact, nobody has.
BA: “His eternal power and divine nature” Eternal power refers to God’s omnipotence and timelessness, indicating that He is not bound by the constraints of time and space. Divine nature encompasses His holiness, righteousness, and other attributes that set Him apart from His creation. This is consistent with Isaiah 40:28, which speaks of God as the everlasting Creator who does not grow tired or weary.
GW: In all my arguments, God is defined as a hypothetical person who is omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent, and perfectly moral. The problem is that God does not exist.
BA: “have been clearly seen”
GW: This is just false. Nobody has ever seen God. Why? Because he doesn’t exist! If he did exist, then EVERYBODY alive would see him AT THE SAME TIME. He would ensure this. Duh.
BA: The clarity with which God’s attributes are perceived in creation suggests that they are evident and unmistakable.
GW: This is just false. You are making irrational inferences from what you observe, as did the Bible authors.
BA: This is supported by the intricate design and order found in nature, which points to an intelligent Designer.
GW: You are confusing design and order when they are not the same thing. If there is design, then there is order, but if there is order, there is not necessarily design. For example, there is order in the way the planets orbit the Sun, but there is no good evidence that anybody designed it that way. And there is evidence that this order is just part of the inherent fabric of the universe. Gravity is a fact.
BA: The clarity of this revelation is such that it leaves humanity without a valid argument against the existence of God.
GW: This is a non sequitur error. Just because you mistakenly believe that order always implies design, it does not follow that nobody has devised a valid argument against the existence of God. I have at least a dozen such arguments, and you found no errors in the ones I presented to you.
BA: “being understood from His workmanship” Workmanship refers to the created world, which acts as a testament to God’s attributes. The complexity of ecosystems, the vastness of the universe, and the intricacies of biological life all serve as evidence of a purposeful Creator.
GW: You keep making the same error – you assume that whenever there is order there must be design and a designer. You don’t know this. Nobody does. In addition, if there were a designer, it might be some advanced alien or AI behind it. The designer could not be God because we no know that God does not exist.
BA: This understanding is accessible to all people, regardless of their cultural or historical context.
GW: This inferential error of yours is common among people across cultures and eras.
BA: “so that men are without excuse”
GW: I don’t need an excuse for my knowledge that God does not exist.
BA: This phrase underscores the accountability of humanity in recognizing God’s existence and attributes. The natural revelation provided through creation is sufficient for people to acknowledge God, leaving them without excuse for unbelief.
GW: No, it isn’t sufficient, not even close. On the other hand, my proofs are sufficient to conclude that God does not exist!
BA: This is echoed in Acts 14:17, where Paul speaks of God’s kindness in providing rain and crops as a witness to His existence.
GW: There is no good evidence that any deity makes it rain. Duh. How could you prove that? If you have a proof of that, present it. At one time people thought that a deity caused lightning; now we know better.
GW—-You are confusing design and order when they are not the same thing. If there is design, then there is order, but if there is order, there is not necessarily design. For example, there is order in the way the planets orbit the Sun, but there is no good evidence that anybody designed it that way. And there is evidence that this order is just part of the inherent fabric of the universe. Gravity is a fact.
B—There can be no order without design, and there can be no design without a designer (Hebrews 3:4).
There is no denying the law of gravity. Laws cannot exist without a lawmaker (Isaiah 33:22).
See the following quoted from “Evolution News and Science Today”:
Order Without Design?
Guillermo Gonzalez
May 22, 2009, 9:14 AM
New Scientist, is calling The Universe: Order without design by Carlos Calle “excellent.” Why?
There’s nothing new here, just the same old multiverse stuff that has been critiqued. The author combines a bunch of highly speculative, mostly metaphysical, controversial theories to reach his conclusions: eternal inflation, string theory and colliding branes. There will ALWAYS be speculative, untestable “cosmological” theories, so someone can always point to the latest ones and say, “See no need for a beginning or fine-tuning by a designer–the latest science says so!” These speculative theories have half-lives measured in years, unlike the now well-established Big Bang theory.
In any case, multiverse speculations do not explain those aspects of our existence that are not necessary for our existence or survival, such as the discoverability of the universe.
GW—-You are confusing design and order when they are not the same thing. If there is design, then there is order, but if there is order, there is not necessarily design. For example, there is order in the way the planets orbit the Sun, but there is no good evidence that anybody designed it that way. And there is evidence that this order is just part of the inherent fabric of the universe. Gravity is a fact.
B—There can be no order without design, and there can be no design without a designer (Hebrews 3:4).
GW: This is just false! Neither you, nor the author of Hebrews, nor anybody else has proven this claim. What are some pieces of evidence for design, when there is order?
1. The actual presence of the designer or producer.
2. Blueprints or plans or descriptions.
3. Factories, equipment, and tools.
4. Raw materials.
5. Models of the eventual product.
6. Failed trials.
All of these pieces of evidence are available and obvious for the creation of an automobile, but none (except maybe #4) are for the alleged creation of a solar system or universe.
BA: There is no denying the law of gravity. Laws cannot exist without a lawmaker (Isaiah 33:22).
GW: False. I’ve informed you about this many times, but either you don’t understand it or you refuse to accept it. There are two types of laws. One type is rules for future behavior legislated by persons. The other type is descriptions of the regular or orderly behavior of things in nature, discovered by scientists. You are just claiming that the latter are the same as the former, when they are not. You are making a category error. You have produced no good evidence that the laws of the universe were legislated or produced by a person – a deity, an alien, an AI, or a human person.
BA: See the following quoted from “Evolution News and Science Today”: Order Without Design? Guillermo Gonzalez. May 22, 2009, 9:14 AM. New Scientist, is calling The Universe: Order without design by Carlos Calle “excellent.” Why?
BA: There’s nothing new here, just the same old multiverse stuff that has been critiqued.
GW: In my opinion, the multiverse hypothesis and the creator hypothesis are both short of supporting evidence.
BA: The author combines a bunch of highly speculative, mostly metaphysical, controversial theories to reach his conclusions: eternal inflation, string theory and colliding branes. There will ALWAYS be speculative, untestable “cosmological” theories,…
GW: How do you know they will always be untestable? You don’t know that.
BA: so someone can always point to the latest ones and say, “See no need for a beginning or fine-tuning by a designer–the latest science says so!”
GW: Nobody has provided good evidence for or proof of a beginning of the universe. If the universe is eternal, and it probably is, then there would be no creation or creator. The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God has been debunked many times, even by me in my first book. If God did exist, he would not need to fine tune and would not fine tune because he would just exactly specify the set of conditions necessary to later produce intelligent life. He could specify any set of conditions for this since he would be all powerful. He would not be constrained to select from some set of many or infinite conditions.
BA: These speculative theories have half-lives measured in years, unlike the now well-established Big Bang theory.
GW: I think the BB theory is proven, but it’s not what you think it is. You keep misinterpreting it. We have discussed this many times.
BA: In any case, multiverse speculations do not explain those aspects of our existence that are not necessary for our existence or survival, such as the discoverability of the universe.
GW: This is a straw man argument since I am not promoting multiverse speculations. The universe is discoverable and understandable because we evolved big complex brains. That is just a brute fact about the universe.
GW–Nobody has provided good evidence for or proof of a beginning of the universe. If the universe is eternal, and it probably is, then there would be no creation or creator. The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God has been debunked many times, even by me in my first book. If God did exist, he would not need to fine tune and would not fine tune because he would just exactly specify the set of conditions necessary to later produce intelligent life. He could specify any set of conditions for this since he would be all powerful. He would not be constrained to select from some set of many or infinite conditions.
BA—“A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted”—Wikipedia
The Big Bang theory is almost certainly true and is “essentially universally accepted” by physicists. However, it includes no assumptions about a beginning, creation, or creator of the universe. About 13.8 billion years ago a very small, dense, and hot packet of energy started a rapid expansion. This was a transition event in an already existing universe.