Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Many critics question how a belief in one God can coincide with the idea of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Atheists often claim that Christianity contains hidden contradictions by promoting what they consider a confusing or illogical view of God. They argue that the doctrine of the Trinity undermines the biblical stance of monotheism, contending that no truly monotheistic faith could include three persons in one Godhead. Yet the consistent witness of Scripture shows that the teaching of one God is compatible with the simultaneous presentation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A careful application of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, coupled with a sincere reading of the biblical text, allows one to see that the Trinity, while admittedly mysterious to finite minds, does not contradict the monotheism of the Old and New Testament. Instead, it illuminates the wondrous identity of God.

The Old Testament’s Monotheistic Foundation

The Old Testament affirms that Jehovah God is one. When Moses exhorted Israel, he pronounced in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one.” This foundational confession shapes the entire theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, insisting that there is no other ultimate power or creator. Isaiah 45:5 underscores this point with the bold statement, “I am Jehovah, and there is no other.” Such passages deeply inform the biblical principle of monotheism. No matter how many times the Old Testament may use language or imagery to describe God’s attributes, the text insists that the God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures is the only true God.

New Testament Continuation of Monotheism

The New Testament likewise proclaims one God. First Timothy 2:5 declares, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Far from asserting polytheism, the New Testament stands on the same firm ground of monotheism set forth in the Old Testament. Early Christians, fully immersed in the worship of the one God of Israel, believed that this single divine essence included the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As they explored the teachings of the apostles, they saw that monotheism was not compromised.

Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Atheists often raise the objection that Scripture’s emphasis on one God cannot logically encompass three persons. Yet the biblical writers show no hesitation in ascribing divine qualities to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is recognized as the Creator and Sustainer of all (Isaiah 64:8). The Son is equated with the divine Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14). The Holy Spirit is characterized as the Spirit of God, performing divine actions (Genesis 1:2; Romans 8:11). All three appear in the New Testament narratives, and believers are instructed to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Critics argue that this formula is an attempt to smuggle a triad into a text that they claim was originally strictly unitarian, but there is no persuasive textual evidence for such a claim. The concept of three persons sharing the singular divine essence does not undermine monotheism, because the biblical authors insist that these three persons are not separate gods but rather share the one nature of God.

The confusion often emerges from misunderstanding the biblical use of person as it pertains to the Godhead. When thinking of three persons, critics sometimes imagine three separate beings with individual divine wills. Yet the earliest Christians did not assert three gods. They taught the mysterious unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each described in Scripture with personal attributes, but not divided into distinct deities. They pointed to John 10:30, where Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The word “one” indicates profound oneness of essence, not merely unity of purpose. Another striking declaration appears in John 14:9, when Jesus stated, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” underscoring a shared divine identity, not two gods acting in tandem. In addition, Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God,” a statement that unites Jesus with the singular divine nature, not placing him outside it.

Early Christian Understanding of the Trinity

Some skeptics assert that early Christians concocted the Trinity much later, as if it were an alien addition. They frequently point to the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. as the alleged moment when Jesus was “made God.” That argument, however, fails to account for the biblical evidence predating that council. The Nicene Council indeed addressed controversies concerning the Son’s eternal nature, but its participants referred back to Scripture to articulate their viewpoint. They did not create the concept that the Son is God’s exact representation. Texts such as John 1:1, John 20:28, and Philippians 2:5-6, which were penned centuries prior to 325 C.E., already identify Jesus with the nature of God. The apostles taught Jesus as existing “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and as the one through whom “all things were created” (Colossians 1:16). Therefore, the scriptural foundation for the Son’s divinity had already been set down long before ecclesiastical councils convened.

Atheists also claim that the Holy Spirit is merely an impersonal force, and thus the Trinity collapses into something unbiblical. Yet Scripture refers to the Holy Spirit not only as the power of God, but also as an active participant with divine prerogatives. Acts 5:3-4 shows that lying to the Holy Spirit is tantamount to lying to God. Second Corinthians 3:17 says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit,” affirming the Spirit’s divine identity. While we do not assert that believers today are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the New Testament times show that the Holy Spirit possessed the authority and nature of God. In that sense, the Spirit is much more than an abstract influence. While Jesus’ promise in John 16:13 was specifically addressed to the apostles, revealing how the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, the text nevertheless attributes personal agency to the Holy Spirit. This further demonstrates that Scripture portrays the Spirit as a person within the Godhead, not a mere force or subset of the Father’s power.

The atheist argument that the Trinity contradicts monotheism usually hinges on the idea that if God is one, God cannot also be three. This line of reasoning, however, misunderstands the historic Christian distinction between “being” and “person.” The Scriptures repeatedly testify that God is one being in essence. Within that single essence, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit possess personal distinctions yet share in the same divine nature. While there is no direct biblical term “Trinity,” the concept is the outcome of integrating all relevant passages under the principle that the Bible is in harmony. Atheists might claim that believers have introduced a non-biblical term, but the label “Trinity” is meant to encapsulate the reality that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are recognized in Scripture as fully divine and united in the being of the one God. Christians who hold to this view affirm the absolute oneness of the divine essence.

Some atheist critics argue that the biblical text does not explicitly detail how the Trinity works, suggesting that this vagueness is proof of a contradiction or an after-the-fact theological invention. Yet the historical-grammatical reading of Scripture does not demand an exhaustive metaphysical blueprint of God’s nature. It asks that we carefully read the text, establish its meaning according to grammar, context, and background, and integrate these findings into a coherent understanding. The biblical authors present the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as divine. They do so while steadfastly proclaiming that God is one. They never teach more than one God. They never imply that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each belong to separated divinities. Rather, they describe all three as active in creation, redemption, and the unfolding of God’s will. Genesis 1:1-2 attributes creation to God, with the Spirit of God “hovering over the face of the waters.” John 1:3 declares that “all things were made through” the Son, and Hebrews 1:2 echoes that God “created the world” through the Son. This unity of action strengthens the claim that Scripture teaches three who share the one divine essence.

Jesus’ prayer in John 17:1-5 vividly shows how the Son relates to the Father as a distinct person while at the same time claiming the same divine glory shared before the world existed. He says, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you… And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” This prayer underscores Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, not as a created being but as one who enjoyed a preexistent and glorious bond in the very presence of God. There is no sense that Jesus came into being at his human birth. Instead, he became flesh while already existing in the divine realm. This is entirely consistent with John 1:1, which states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word remained distinct in person but was fully divine in nature, even before creation.

Atheists sometimes point to statements where Jesus refers to the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3), alleging that this disproves his own divinity. That argument overlooks the biblical teaching that the Son took on human form. In becoming man, he voluntarily assumed a subordinate role to accomplish redemption. He acknowledged the Father as the ultimate authority, yet that does not negate his own eternal identity as God the Son. In John 10:30, Jesus’ words “I and the Father are one” indicate his unity with God’s essence. The early Christian witness does not depict Jesus as merely a human prophet or an exalted angelic figure. It presents him as the incarnate Word, who shares the same divine nature as the Father. The atheist objection implies that Jesus could not worship the Father if he himself were God, but the solution is found in the incarnation. Jesus, in his genuine humanity, prayed to the Father. This does not undermine his deity; instead, it reflects the fullness of his humanity and his role as the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).

Critics also argue that the Holy Spirit’s role has been inflated beyond biblical support. Some claim that references to the Spirit personify a mere attribute of God, such as his power or wisdom, rather than a distinct person in the Godhead. However, Scripture treats the Spirit as bearing personal attributes, such as in Romans 8:27, which speaks of “the mind of the Spirit.” Ephesians 4:30 instructs believers not to “grieve the Holy Spirit of God,” a statement implying that the Spirit can be treated in ways that would not apply to an impersonal force. While no Christian today is guided by a personal indwelling, the writings from the apostolic era demonstrate that the Spirit spoke, taught, and led, as recorded in Acts 13:2: “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’” If the Holy Spirit were just an impersonal force, it would be unusual to speak of “the Spirit” giving instructions and calling disciples to ministry.

The biblical concept of monotheism allows for the unique and transcendent unity of God. It never implies a simplistic uniformity in which God cannot express himself personally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Atheists may liken the Trinity to polytheism, but the earliest Christian authors and the biblical text itself repudiate such a notion. The Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 remains foundational, repeatedly quoted in the New Testament to reaffirm that God is one. Mark 12:29 records Jesus citing the Shema, stating, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one.” This commitment to monotheism is unwavering, yet Jesus is also revealed as the divine Son. Passages like John 20:28 show the apostle Thomas addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” This is a direct acknowledgment of Jesus’ divine status that stands alongside the oneness of God.

Atheists who charge Christians with inconsistency often focus solely on the historical controversies surrounding the doctrine, such as the debates with Arius, who denied the full divinity of the Son. They argue that the disputes signal a fundamental confusion about God’s nature. Yet the presence of such debates does not disprove the teachings of Scripture. Instead, they reveal the earnest effort of early believers to define the terms more precisely and to avoid beliefs that would either fragment God into multiple deities or reduce Jesus to a creature. From the biblical standpoint, the tension arises only when one demands a purely human explanation for the infinite nature of God. The Christian view simply affirms that Scripture’s self-revelation must guide our theology, even if certain aspects of God’s being surpass human comprehension.

Refuting Claims of Pagan Influence and Later Invention

Another related objection from atheists is that the concept of the Trinity is borrowed from pagan triads. They cite examples such as the ancient Egyptian or Babylonian pantheons, or certain Greek philosophical constructs, claiming that Christianity adapted those to make a new God. This argument, however, ignores the deep Jewish roots of Christianity. The apostles were steeped in the Scriptures, not in pagan traditions. When one reads the biblical testimonies, one does not encounter polytheistic models of rival gods. Instead, one finds the consistent application of Old Testament monotheism enriched by the revelation of Christ’s divinity and the personal nature of the Holy Spirit. There is no biblical evidence that the triune nature of God was borrowed from external sources; rather, it emerges from the integrated reading of both Testaments.

Attempts to discredit the Trinity often involve misquotations or misuse of church history. Critics may allege that Tertullian (late second to early third century C.E.), known for employing the Latin term “Trinitas,” was innovating a new theology. Yet even Tertullian argued from the biblical text, attempting to articulate the same scriptural convictions found in the New Testament. He recognized the depth of monotheism present in Christianity while drawing attention to the biblical portrayal of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It was not the creation of doctrine ex nihilo, but rather a faithful expression of what had long been taught in apostolic circles. The Greek fathers similarly spoke of “one essence, three persons,” indicating a desire to safeguard both the unity of God’s nature and the distinct personhood revealed in Scripture.

The Trinity’s Role in Scripture and Redemption

Some critics raise the question of whether the Trinity has salvific implications and how it relates to God’s redemptive plan. Since the New Testament proclaims that salvation is found only through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12), it portrays the Son as the means by which humankind is reconciled to the Father. The early Christians celebrated that the Father sent the Son, who willingly laid down his life to redeem humanity (Galatians 4:4-5). The Son’s death was a genuine sacrifice, bearing the sins of the world. After his resurrection, he ascended to the Father’s right hand, demonstrating once more that he shares in the Father’s divine authority (Ephesians 1:20-21). During the apostolic age, the Holy Spirit empowered the apostles, confirmed Christ’s message, and equipped them for the monumental task of bearing witness (Acts 1:8). Yet the Spirit was not some lesser manifestation; Scripture presents him as God at work among the believing community of that era. This synergy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was an essential part of the Christian message. Monotheism remains intact, because all of these works proceed from the one divine essence.

Another angle taken by atheists is that the Trinity is an attempt to solve conflicting statements in the New Testament. They note that Jesus sometimes prayed to the Father, or that the Father is portrayed as sending the Son, which might give an impression that Jesus is a lesser being or that multiple gods exist. Yet when examined more closely, those passages highlight the real humanity of Jesus while maintaining his divine identity. They do not teach that Jesus is a separate god, but they reveal how the incarnate Son related to the Father. In passages like John 1:18, the Son is the one who “has made [the Father] known.” The distinction of persons is evident, yet the unity of divine essence remains. Christianity never taught that the Son was self-sufficient apart from the Father, because Scripture consistently depicts the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit united in the being of the one God.

Skeptics sometimes single out John 1:1 for special attack, pointing out that in the Greek text, the final phrase could be rendered “the Word was God,” or they might argue for “the Word was divine.” This line of criticism tries to reduce the passage to saying that Jesus simply had God-like qualities rather than being fully God. However, the grammar of John 1:1, read in its historical and linguistic context, highlights the identity of the Word with God, without reducing the Word to being another god. The passage sets the Word “with God,” indicating a personal distinction, but then states “the Word was God,” affirming that the Word shares the divine nature. The simple phrase in Greek (kai theos ēn ho logos) is best understood as identifying the Word with the divine essence. Attempts to weaken this statement often stem from theological predispositions or from attempts to find naturalistic explanations for Christian doctrine.

Atheists sometimes accuse Christians of making God into a puzzle. Yet the biblical revelation is less about constructing a complicated puzzle and more about receiving what God has made known of himself. Humans may find certain aspects of God mysterious because finite creatures cannot fully grasp the infinite Creator. Nevertheless, Scripture confidently teaches that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each share in the one divine nature (John 1:1; Matthew 28:19; Acts 5:3-4). While atheists object that this is contradictory, the church for centuries has observed that there is no contradiction if one accepts that God’s oneness refers to essence and that the distinction refers to person. The historical-grammatical interpretation does not force the text into unnatural shapes; it simply respects the biblical statements about God’s identity.

Critics also point to various illustrations that some have used to explain the Trinity, insisting those illustrations prove the doctrine fails. For instance, people may mention water as solid, liquid, and gas, or a man who is a son, a husband, and a father. Atheists then tear down such analogies, claiming they are either modalistic (one person playing three roles) or partialistic (dividing God into parts). Yet those were always mere human attempts to provide an illustration, never intended as perfect representations of God’s nature. The biblical teaching concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit transcends such illustrations. Scripture alone is the authority, and it presents God as one divine essence shared fully by three personal self-expressions. Those who rely on the historical-grammatical method see that each statement about God is consistent with the larger revelation of Scripture. It is not necessary for every single passage to detail the entire theology of the Trinity in isolation. Rather, we gather the full picture from multiple texts that reinforce the unity of God and the genuine distinction of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Atheists sometimes bring up the Shema’s monotheism to suggest that early Christians would never have accepted a triune God. But the New Testament authors, who upheld the Shema as fully as any Jewish believer, had no problem including Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the identity of the one God. Passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:6 rework the Shema to include Jesus, describing “one God, the Father,” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ,” all within the same monotheistic framework. The apostle Paul does not propose two gods but demonstrates the unity of Father and Son, paralleling the Old Testament’s language for Jehovah. It was not considered contradictory; rather, it was an expansion of understanding that the one God had revealed himself in the person of Jesus, while remaining the Father in heaven, and still acting powerfully in the Holy Spirit.

Some atheist writers propose that the biblical writers themselves were uncertain about the Holy Spirit’s identity, leading to the speculation that the Spirit was a later invention. However, from the earliest strata of Christian writings, the Spirit is acknowledged as active in creation (Genesis 1:2), overshadowing Mary to bring forth the Messiah (Luke 1:35), empowering the apostles (Acts 2:4), and searched even “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10). The historical-grammatical approach does not artificially segment these references but sees them as coherent depictions of the Spirit’s divine activity. That is why Paul concludes that the Spirit “searches everything, even the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10). It is not a created entity, nor a lesser deity, but the Spirit of God himself.

Some will ask why Scripture does not more overtly use the term “Trinity,” if it is so central to Christian belief. The answer is that the Bible predominantly provides doctrinal content rather than doctrinal labels. The word “Bible” itself is not in Scripture, but no one disputes that Scripture can be labeled as such. In a similar way, “Trinity” is a term coined to encapsulate the multifaceted testimony of Scripture: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there is only one God. When atheists claim that the Trinity is invented, they ignore the cumulative biblical evidence showing that the one God is revealed in three persons.

Some seek to pit Paul against John, contending that Paul taught a form of monotheism with a created Christ, whereas John taught a more exalted view of Christ. That approach neglects the many places where Paul writes of Jesus in terms of full deity. Colossians 2:9 states, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” That statement powerfully reveals that Jesus is not lacking anything that belongs to God’s essence. Philippians 2:6 affirms that Jesus existed in “the form of God,” reinforcing his eternal divine status. Likewise, John’s Gospel announces that Jesus is the Word who was with God in the beginning and who is God (John 1:1). There is no contradiction between Paul and John, but rather a uniform testimony to the Son’s deity within the framework of Jewish monotheism.

Atheists often highlight the alleged silence of Jesus himself about being God, asserting that the church fabricated such declarations. In reality, Jesus made pronouncements that only God could rightfully make. He forgave sins (Mark 2:5-7). He accepted worship (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38), something a devout Jew would never permit for a mere human or created being, and he invoked the divine name when he said, “before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). In the Old Testament, Jehovah identified himself with the phrase “I am” (Exodus 3:14). Jesus’ usage of this phrase incited immediate reactions from his Jewish audience, who correctly perceived it as a claim to divinity. This resonated with the oneness of God yet manifested in a new and startling way for those hearing it. Far from undermining monotheism, it demonstrated that the one God was present among them in the person of Jesus.

Critics also ask why the Old Testament does not more clearly teach a triune God if this is truly a biblical doctrine. However, the Old Testament provides hints and foreshadows that become clearer under the full revelation of Christ. Genesis 1:26 says, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” While not a definitive proof-text, it opens the door to understanding a plurality within God’s oneness. Isaiah 9:6 calls the coming Messiah “Mighty God,” suggesting that the Messiah’s identity would include the very nature of God. The Old Testament focus remained primarily on establishing unequivocal monotheism in contrast to the surrounding pagan cultures. Once that ground was firmly laid, the New Testament could clarify how God exists. That does not negate the Old Testament emphasis, nor does it create a second deity. Instead, it shows the organic growth of revelation culminating in Christ, consistent with the oneness of Jehovah declared in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Philosophical Objections and the Biblical Response

Atheists sometimes employ philosophical arguments against the Trinity, stating that it is logically impossible for three to be one. Yet Christians do not assert that God is both one person and three persons in the same way. Nor do they claim God is one being and three beings simultaneously. Rather, the Christian teaching is that God is one in being and three in person. This is not an assertion of mathematical contradiction; it is a statement of God’s unique existence beyond finite categories. Certain truths may be above full human comprehension, but that does not render them contradictory. For example, the infinite nature of God’s existence itself surpasses full human grasp, but the Bible never suggests a contradiction in God’s eternal being.

There is also an objection that the Trinity is irrelevant if it cannot be fully understood or explained. Yet Scripture consistently presents the nature of God as an essential aspect of truth, whether or not every detail is fully explainable in human terms. Believers seek to honor God’s revelation rather than reduce him to a merely human framework. Those who embrace the biblical testimony about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit simply trust what Scripture reveals, even as they acknowledge that God’s being is beyond total human comprehension. The historical-grammatical approach ensures that interpretations remain faithful to the text instead of speculative philosophical exercises. The text indicates that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that God is one. Atheists may claim logical absurdity, but the problem often stems from imposing human limitations on the infinite divine nature.

When engaging with atheist objections, it becomes clear that the real question is whether one accepts the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. If Scripture is the inspired revelation from God, then biblical statements about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit form the ultimate guide to God’s identity. If, however, one approaches the text with the premise that God does not exist or that the text cannot be trusted, then no amount of biblical evidence will be convincing. Christians recognize that faith is a response to God’s revelation. The atheist argument that the Trinity contradicts monotheism presupposes that Scripture itself must be contradictory if it teaches both one God and three persons. But the biblical message does not teach three separate gods. Rather, it teaches that the one essence of God is shared fully among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In refuting atheist arguments, one can emphasize that the New Testament never strays from the Old Testament’s staunch monotheism. Romans 3:30 insists, “God is one.” James 2:19 also proclaims, “You believe that God is one; you do well.” The Christian tradition did not abandon these fundamental truths. Rather, the earliest believers understood that Jesus revealed a depth to God’s identity that was always present in the Old Testament but not fully elucidated until the Word became flesh. John 1:18 summarizes this reality: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” This passage identifies the one “at the Father’s side” as “the only God,” reinforcing that Jesus is not a secondary deity but indeed God himself who makes the Father known.

A frequent misunderstanding from atheists is that Christians somehow teach “three gods in one.” That claim distorts the actual doctrine, which insists on one God who eternally exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Atheist critiques often reduce the Trinity to simpler categories, thereby missing the nuanced scriptural portrayal. The question can be asked: Is there any logical contradiction in claiming one being with three personal self-expressions? Not if one properly distinguishes between the concept of essence (the what of God) and person (the who of God). Atheists object that these categories are artificial, but the earliest Christian thinkers merely employed them to make sense of the biblical teaching. They recognized the biblical mandates: maintain the unity of God and uphold the full deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Some wonder if the Trinity was meant for the earliest Jewish audience, given their intense devotion to monotheism. But the apostle Paul, a zealous Jewish follower of Christ, had no trouble integrating Jesus and the Spirit into the worship of the one God. He prayed and worshiped Jesus (2 Corinthians 12:8-9) and recognized the presence of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic age. While acknowledging the unique apostolic circumstances, these texts demonstrate that Paul saw no contradiction between devout Jewish monotheism and reverence for the Son and the Spirit. Likewise, the apostle Peter, another Jew, recognized the Father’s plan, the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and the sprinkling of Jesus’ blood all in one expression (1 Peter 1:2). These references show that the earliest Christian believers, all of whom were Jewish, regarded the identity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as central to the biblical revelation of one God.

Atheists might say that these references are sporadic and do not form a cohesive doctrine. That claim, however, ignores the principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. The historical-grammatical method collates and harmonizes all relevant texts, without forcing them into preconceived philosophical boxes. From the opening of Genesis, where God is active in creation and the Spirit of God hovers over the waters (Genesis 1:1-2), to the New Testament portrayal of Christ as the divine Word (John 1:1), the elements of triune unity appear. In the Great Commission, Jesus instructs, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The singular “name” in that commission underscores the unity of God, while the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit underscores personal distinctions. Atheists who accuse Christianity of straying from monotheism simply overlook the ways in which Scripture weaves these truths together.

Critics who assert that the Trinity is illogical often rely on a strict rationalism that refuses to allow for any aspect of God to be beyond human understanding. While Christians do not endorse blind faith, they do recognize that an infinite, eternal being may have qualities that exceed finite comprehension. It is not contradictory to say that we do not have exhaustive knowledge of God’s nature, yet we can know true things about him from Scripture. The presence of partial mystery does not mean the presence of irrational contradiction. The biblical record remains consistent in proclaiming that God is one and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each divine.

Some who reject the Trinity propose a purely unitarian view, claiming that it more faithfully represents monotheism. Atheists sometimes see unitarian arguments as further proof that the triune view is an innovation. Yet unitarian theology historically has to downplay or reinterpret many clear statements of Scripture, such as John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, and many other passages. It also has to ignore the personal references to the Holy Spirit as a subject of actions and worship in the apostolic era. The impetus for unitarianism often lies in rationalistic attempts to eliminate the mystery from biblical revelation. By contrast, the triune view accepts Scripture’s testimony in its entirety.

In dialogues with atheists, many believers emphasize that rejecting the Trinity usually comes after one has already rejected the authority of the Bible. The Trinity stands or falls with Scripture, not with human philosophy. If one accepts the biblical text as reliable and authoritative, then one is obliged to accept all that it teaches, including the full deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. If one denies Scripture’s validity, then no number of proof-texts will suffice. The conversation really becomes a broader inquiry about God’s existence and whether he has revealed himself in the Bible. Once one acknowledges the biblical record, the presence of a triune God is not contradictory, but rather the biblical witness concerning God’s own identity.

The monotheism taught throughout Scripture is unwavering. Jehovah God is one. The biblical text equally testifies that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Atheists see this as contradictory, but Christians throughout the centuries have recognized it as the fullest expression of who God is. Early confessions in the post-apostolic era elaborated on these truths to protect the church from distortions. The Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. was not an invention but a defense of the longstanding biblical position that the Son is eternally God. The Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. similarly affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These councils did not override Scripture; rather, they sought to preserve the scriptural teaching from new false interpretations that denied either Christ’s or the Spirit’s eternal deity.

Because atheists deny the supernatural, they usually cannot accept the reality of the incarnation (the divine Word becoming flesh) and, consequently, the triune nature of God. Their materialistic worldview demands that all phenomena be explained purely by natural causes. The doctrine of the Trinity, which proclaims the unique reality of an eternal Godhead, sits outside such a naturalistic framework. The result is that atheists place the Trinity in the same category as myths or legends, refusing to accept that the infinite God can be one in essence and three in person. Yet the biblical record, read historically and grammatically, does not teach polytheism or contradictory logic. It reveals a mighty, singular Creator who interacts with his creation in a deeply personal way as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Atheist arguments often fail to appreciate the historical continuity of the church’s confession. While there have always been fringe movements denying the Trinity, the main thread of Christian testimony has consistently held that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share one divine essence. The impetus for this testimony has been the teaching of Scripture, where Jesus is recognized as Immanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is recognized as the Spirit of God (Romans 8:9). If the New Testament had taught otherwise, mainstream Christianity would not have held to the Trinity as a defining mark of orthodoxy. That is why, even under persecution in the early centuries, believers unwaveringly acknowledged Jesus as God. They refused to accommodate those who insisted that Jesus was merely a created being or an exalted angel.

Beyond academic debates, atheists sometimes level emotional objections, claiming that the Trinity is irrelevant to daily life or that it offers no practical value. Yet for believers, the revelation of God’s triune nature is not an abstract curiosity. It lies at the heart of understanding redemption: the Father’s plan, the Son’s sacrifice, and the Holy Spirit’s role in the apostolic mission. This does not mean the Holy Spirit dwells in each Christian today, but it acknowledges that in the apostolic era, the Holy Spirit was active, confirming the truth of Christ’s message. By seeing the interplay between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, one grasps how God has worked throughout history for the salvation of repentant sinners. That redemptive plan, culminating in the Son’s atoning death, demonstrates that the unity of God includes a relational dimension far more profound than a solitary, impersonal deity.

Some observers ask why the Trinity was not as clearly formulated in ancient Israel if it is truly essential. One should keep in mind that progressive revelation in the Bible reached its apex in the arrival of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament did not focus on enumerating multiple persons within God because its primary aim was to establish the exclusivity of Jehovah against pagan polytheism. With the coming of Christ, new facets of God’s identity were unveiled, fulfilling rather than contradicting the Old Testament. The earliest Jewish disciples of Jesus witnessed his divine authority and recognized that he was indeed the promised Messiah, more than a prophet or teacher. They worshiped him without discarding the Shema. The Holy Spirit’s activities among them further reinforced that the God of Israel was revealing himself in a triune manner. Atheists, committed to natural explanations, attribute these developments to theological creativity or syncretism, yet the biblical data reflects a coherent progression of revelation.

Another claim from atheists is that the Trinity seems to appear more in John’s Gospel than in the synoptic Gospels, hinting at later theological evolution. However, careful reading of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveals many trinitarian patterns. Matthew 3:16-17 recounts Jesus’ baptism, where the Spirit descends like a dove, and the Father’s voice affirms, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” That is a clear picture of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit simultaneously present. Similarly, Luke 1:35 describes the Holy Spirit’s role in the incarnation of Christ, while Mark 2:5-7 shows Jesus forgiving sins, an act reserved for God alone. These texts are thoroughly consistent with John’s high Christology, reinforcing rather than contradicting it. One must integrate all four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament to see the multifaceted testimony to the Trinity.

Some atheist critiques revolve around what they see as contradictory statements: Jesus says the Father is greater (John 14:28), yet he also claims oneness with the Father (John 10:30). This is reconciled by recognizing that Jesus was not disclaiming his deity in John 14:28. Rather, as the incarnate Son who took on human limitations, he acknowledged the Father’s position. The very act of the incarnation is one of self-humbling (Philippians 2:7). None of these verses suggest multiple gods. The same Jesus who says, “the Father is greater than I,” also asserts that “all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23). Rather than proclaiming a lesser divinity, he affirms a relationship in which he and the Father are equal in deity, while still fulfilling different roles in redemption. Scripture does not portray Jesus as a rival deity; it consistently portrays him as the Son who participates fully in the nature of the Father.

Others ask whether worship of the Holy Spirit occurs in the New Testament, since that might confirm the Spirit’s deity. Atheists sometimes highlight that direct addresses to the Spirit are not as common as those to the Father or to Jesus. However, the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in the worship rendered by believers. While public prayers were typically directed to the Father, the Spirit’s divine role is evident in passages like Acts 13:2, where the Holy Spirit speaks and directs, and 2 Corinthians 3:17, which explicitly states, “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” That statement alone would be unwarranted if the Spirit were not God. The question is not how frequently the Spirit is addressed in prayer, but whether Scripture attributes divine identity and works to the Spirit, which it does. The inseparable operations of Father, Son, and Spirit in the New Testament confirm that they share the same essence.

Atheists sometimes lean on reductive arguments, contending that the Trinity is a contradiction because “1+1+1=3, not 1.” Yet that line of reasoning conflates being and person. No Christian is saying that three separate deities can collectively be called one deity. The biblical position is that there is one divine essence. That essence is not divided into three parts; rather, it is fully possessed by the Father, fully possessed by the Son, and fully possessed by the Holy Spirit. This is not a matter of arithmetic but of theological understanding of God’s nature as revealed in Scripture. Atheists demand a simple formula, but the biblical data presents a God who transcends finite human categories.

Another popular atheist claim is that the Trinity is an unnecessary complication to a simpler concept of God. They say that Occam’s razor should lead one to choose the simplest explanation, concluding that either God is one (a unitarian approach) or does not exist at all. However, the “simplest” explanation, if it contradicts biblical revelation, is not a true explanation. The historical-grammatical approach means allowing the text to speak for itself. The text teaches a God who is one in essence, revealed in three persons. That is not an arbitrary complication but the consistent witness of Scripture. In matters of divine revelation, accuracy supersedes simplicity. If the triune nature of God is what Scripture teaches, that is the position believers embrace, even if it is more complex than a unitarian scheme.

Atheists might also try to undermine the Trinity by claiming that the biblical canon itself was manipulated. They suggest that books challenging the Trinity were excluded. Such conspiracy theories do not stand up to historical scrutiny. From the earliest times, the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of Paul, and other canonical writings have stood at the core of Christian Scripture. These texts, in their various contexts, all point to Jesus’ divine status and the Holy Spirit’s divine work, undergirded by the Old Testament’s monotheism. Alternative writings, sometimes labeled “Gnostic gospels,” appeared in later centuries and did not reflect the apostolic teaching. The idea that the church conspired to hide anti-trinitarian texts is pure speculation without credible historical evidence.

Many atheists misconstrue the biblical account of the Son’s submission to the Father as though it implies the Son’s lesser deity. Scripture indeed shows that the Son became fully human, subject to the Father’s will in accomplishing redemption. Yet it also proclaims his eternal preexistence (John 1:1), creative agency (John 1:3), and oneness with the Father (John 10:30). That is why Christian theology, sticking close to Scripture, draws a distinction between Jesus’ ontological equality with the Father (as God in nature) and his functional subordination during the incarnation (taking on the role of a servant). Atheists see this as contradictory. Those who adhere to Scripture see it as the profound truth of the incarnation, revealing both the humility of Christ and his eternal deity.

Atheists may also point out that certain passages highlight the Father alone as God. Yet one should look at the entire witness of the New Testament. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also called God in multiple contexts. Thomas addressed Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Peter confronted Ananias for lying to the Holy Spirit and declared, “You have not lied to man but to God” (Acts 5:4). Each person of the triune God is referred to as God. Believers, throughout the apostolic testimony, never saw this as an offense to the Shema. They understood that these references manifested the deeper truth that God is tri-personal, not tri-theistic.

From a standpoint of faith, the triune nature of God magnifies the love and relational unity that God expresses. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work together in perfect harmony. This harmony does not imply multiple gods but rather one God whose personal distinctions enrich rather than contradict his oneness. The gospel message is inseparable from this truth, because it was the Father who sent the Son, it was the Son who laid down his life, and it was the Holy Spirit who confirmed and empowered the apostles to proclaim the good news in the first century. Atheists question how one God can have three persons, but the biblical record stands firm in its testimony that the triune nature of God is revealed from Genesis to Revelation.

Is the Trinity Clearly a Bible Teaching?

The claim that the Trinity contradicts monotheism hinges on the assertion that the doctrine should be explicitly and consistently presented in Scripture if it were true. This argument assumes that all fundamental doctrines must be overtly stated in the Bible, which can be seen as an oversimplification of how theological doctrines develop from scriptural texts.

Firstly, while it is true that the term “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, this does not necessarily mean the concept or the reality it describes is absent. The absence of the term “Trinity” in the Bible is acknowledged, but the concept is derived from scriptural evidence through the process of theological reflection and interpretation. For instance, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) suggests a three-in-one relationship, even if the word “Trinity” is not used.The New Testament, while not explicitly stating the doctrine in the form of a creed, contains numerous passages where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned together in a way that implies a unity and co-equality, such as in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where Paul invokes the grace of Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

The argument that the Hebrew Scriptures offer no testimony to the Trinity is correct in terms of explicit teaching. However, some scholars and theologians interpret certain passages, like Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”) as hinting at a plurality within the Godhead, which might be seen as an embryonic form of Trinitarian thought. This does not mean a fully developed doctrine, but rather elements or shadows of what would later be understood as the Trinity through the lens of Christ’s revelation and the apostolic teaching.

Regarding the Greek Scriptures, while it’s true that there isn’t a “formal or formulated doctrine” of the Trinity in the New Testament, the texts provide the foundational elements from which the doctrine could be deduced. The relationship between Jesus and the Father, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the divine titles and attributes ascribed to each are repeatedly presented in ways that suggest a complex unity. For example, Jesus’ claims of divinity, the Holy Spirit’s role in creation and redemption, and the distinct yet interrelated actions of each Person of the Godhead in salvation history all contribute to the Trinitarian framework.

Critics often point to the development of the Trinity doctrine in the post-apostolic era as evidence that it was a later invention rather than biblical. However, this overlooks the fact that theological understanding often evolves over time as deeper insights are gained into the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity was formalized in response to heresies like Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ, thereby necessitating clearer articulation of what was implicit in Scripture. The early church fathers, while not using “Trinity,” discussed concepts that would later coalesce into this doctrine, focusing on maintaining monotheism while acknowledging the divine status of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

While the Trinity is not laid out systematically in the Bible with modern theological precision, the elements from which it is derived are present. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict monotheism but rather defines it in light of the revelation of one God in three Persons, a mystery that transcends simple human logic but is consistent with the holistic interpretation of Scripture. The critique that the Trinity is not clearly a Bible teaching overlooks the nature of scriptural revelation, which often unfolds and deepens over time through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised in John 16:13. This understanding is part of the ongoing process of theological interpretation and reflection that the church has engaged in since its inception.

Debunking the Late Development Myth: The Trinity in Early Christianity

The argument that the Trinity doctrine was not part of early Christian teaching and only emerged through political and philosophical influences requires a nuanced examination. While it is true that the term “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, and the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. did not explicitly define a triune Godhead, these points do not conclusively disprove the doctrine’s scriptural foundation or its compatibility with monotheism.

Firstly, the development of Christian doctrine often involves moving from implicit to explicit understanding. The New Testament does not contain a formal creed of the Trinity, but it does offer numerous passages that suggest a triune relationship among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For instance, the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 speaks of baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” suggesting a unity of essence and purpose. This is not about coining a term but recognizing a theological reality present in the text.

The role of Emperor Constantine at Nicaea is frequently cited to argue that the doctrine was politically motivated rather than divinely inspired. However, Constantine did not formulate Christian doctrine; he only facilitated the gathering where bishops debated and clarified their beliefs. The Nicene Creed was an affirmation by the church leaders of Christ’s divinity in response to Arianism, which denied Christ’s full deity. The focus was on Christ’s relationship to the Father, not on fully defining the Trinity, as the Holy Spirit’s role was more explicitly addressed later at the Council of Constantinople.

The claim that the Trinity doctrine was influenced by pagan beliefs or Greek philosophy like Platonism oversimplifies the process of theological reflection. While it’s true that early Christian thinkers engaged with contemporary philosophy, they did so to articulate Christian truths in terms understandable to their time, not to adopt pagan concepts wholesale. The concept of the Trinity was an attempt to explain the scriptural portrayal of God’s nature in a way that preserved both the unity of God (monotheism) and the distinctiveness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Athanasian Creed, although not written by Athanasius, reflects the church’s effort to combat heresies by clarifying the Christian understanding of God. It does not imply a new doctrine but rather a clearer articulation of what was implicitly believed based on scripture.

Moreover, the assertion that if the Trinity were true, it should have been taught by prophets or explicitly by Jesus overlooks the nature of progressive revelation. Jesus’ teachings often built upon Old Testament theology, which, while monotheistic, hints at a complex unity within God (e.g., Genesis 1:26, Isaiah 9:6). The full revelation of the Trinity comes through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, further explicated by the apostolic writings.

The critique that the Trinity contradicts monotheism fails to account for the nuanced understanding of monotheism in Christian theology. The Trinity does not propose three gods but one God in three persons, each fully divine yet distinct in role and relation. This is not contradictory but rather a mystery that transcends human logic, akin to other theological truths in Christianity that go beyond simple explanation.

The argument against the Trinity on the grounds of its historical development or lack of explicit biblical mention does not hold when considering the broader scriptural narrative, the nature of doctrinal development, and the theological necessity of explaining the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the framework of monotheism. The Trinity, while not immediately apparent or fully articulated in early Christianity, is a doctrine deeply rooted in the biblical text, emerging as a response to both scripture and the challenges posed by heretical views.

What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?

The argument that the Trinity contradicts monotheism often hinges on a literalist reading of the Bible without considering the theological depth and the development of doctrine over time. This perspective claims that reading the Bible without preconceived notions would not lead one to the concept of the Trinity. However, this view does not account for the nuanced understanding of the text that has evolved through centuries of Christian reflection.

Firstly, the assertion that the Old Testament strictly advocates for a singular, individual deity without any hint of plurality is an oversimplification. While the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 does emphasize the oneness of God, the Hebrew Scriptures also contain passages like Genesis 1:26, where God speaks in the plural (“Let us make man in our image”), suggesting a complexity within the divine identity. This does not directly assert a Trinity, but it does open the possibility of understanding God’s nature as more than a simple unitarian entity.

The New Testament continues and deepens this monotheistic tradition but introduces elements that suggest a triune nature of God. For instance, Jesus’ own words in John 17:3 where he refers to the Father as “the only true God” does not negate his own divinity but rather points to a unique relationship where he, the Son, shares in the divine nature while being distinct from the Father. The phrase “only-begotten Son” in John 1:14, 3:16, and elsewhere does not preclude Jesus from being divine; rather, it indicates a special relationship of origin from God, which is consistent with Trinitarian thought where the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Regarding Jesus’ role and nature, the Bible presents him not merely as a created being but as one who was with God in the beginning (John 1:1), through whom all things were made (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). This does not position Jesus as a lesser being but as an integral part of the divine creative act, which supports the Trinitarian view of Jesus as divine, co-eternal, yet distinct in person from the Father.

The argument that Jesus could be tempted because he was not God misunderstands the nature of temptation as it applies to Jesus’ human nature while he was on earth. Hebrews 4:15 clarifies that Jesus was tempted as we are, yet without sin, emphasizing his human experience without denying his divinity. The temptation narrative in Matthew 4 is consistent with the Chalcedonian definition, which states that Christ is fully divine and fully human, thus capable of experiencing temptation in his human nature.

Moreover, the ransom doctrine does not negate Jesus’ divinity. The ransom was paid by his human life, not by his divine nature. The doctrine of the Trinity posits that Jesus, while fully God, took on human form to fulfill the role of mediator and ransom for humanity, as stated in 1 Timothy 2:5-6. This does not mean that the divine nature was compromised or that the ransom was inadequate; rather, it shows the profound humility and love of God in the act of redemption.

Lastly, the use of plural terms like ‘Elohim’ for God does not directly support polytheism or a Trinity in a straightforward sense, but it does reflect a complex understanding of God’s nature that has been interpreted through Trinitarian theology as suggesting plurality within unity.

While the Bible does not use the word “Trinity,” the scriptural testimony, when examined in its fullness, provides the theological groundwork for understanding God as one in essence but three in persons. This does not contradict monotheism but rather enriches it, offering a nuanced view of God’s nature that was recognized and articulated by the early church, not as an invention but as an unfolding of scriptural truth.

Refuting the Subordination Argument: The Divine Equality Within the Trinity

The argument that Jesus is always subordinate to God and thus cannot be part of a Trinity oversimplifies the complex relationship described in the New Testament. While it’s true that Jesus often speaks of his obedience to the Father and acknowledges God’s supremacy, this does not negate the doctrine of the Trinity but rather complements it.

Firstly, the subordination of Jesus to the Father, especially in terms of roles and functions, does not imply a difference in essence or nature. In the Trinitarian view, Jesus, while fully divine, took on a submissive role to fulfill the plan of redemption. This is typified in Philippians 2:6-8 where it states that Jesus, though in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. This act of humility is not about diminishing divinity but about the divine choice to save humanity through obedience.

The citation of Jesus’ statements like “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) is often used to argue against His divinity. However, in the context of the Trinity, this can be understood as referring to the economic subordination within the Godhead, where the Son submits to the Father’s will in His earthly mission, not in His divine essence. It’s about roles within the Trinity, not about the nature of their divinity.

Moreover, the fact that Jesus refers to God as “my God” (e.g., John 20:17, Revelation 3:12) does not preclude His divinity. This can be seen through the lens of the Incarnation, where Jesus, having taken on human nature, engages in human expressions like prayer and worship, thereby relating to God in both His human and divine aspects. The dual nature of Christ allows for this complex relationship where He can both be God and have God as His Father, without contradiction.

The argument that Jesus did not know certain things (Mark 13:32) as evidence against His divinity misunderstands the nature of the Incarnation. In His human capacity, Jesus might not have known certain things that were known only to the Father, reflecting the mystery of His dual nature: fully God yet fully man. This is not about lacking divinity but about the voluntary limitation of His omniscience during His earthly life for the sake of His mission.

Regarding the resurrection, the claim that Jesus could not have raised Himself if He were dead might seem logical, but it overlooks the Trinitarian understanding where all three Persons of the Godhead are involved in divine acts. Acts 2:24 says God raised Jesus, but this does not exclude Jesus’ own divine power in His resurrection; it emphasizes the unity of action within the Trinity where the Father, through the Spirit, raises the Son.

Finally, Jesus’ role in heaven as described in Revelation and elsewhere does not diminish His divinity but shows His continued mission in service to the Father’s plan. The transfer of the kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) speaks of the completion of Christ’s mediatorial role, not of any ontological change in His divine nature. The subordination here is functional, for the purpose of redemption, not intrinsic to His being.

While Jesus is indeed depicted as subordinate in certain scriptural contexts, this is consistent with Trinitarian theology where equality in essence does not preclude a hierarchy in roles for the purpose of salvation. The Trinity is not about three equal persons in all aspects but about one God in three distinct persons, each fully God, yet with different roles in the divine economy. This nuanced understanding aligns with the broader scriptural narrative, affirming both the unity and diversity within the Godhead.

Refuting the Misinterpretation of Trinity “Proof Texts”

The argument that so-called “proof texts” for the Trinity are misinterpretations or do not support the doctrine when examined in context requires a closer look at the scripture and its theological implications. While it’s true that the term “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, the concept is derived from the cumulative evidence of various passages, understood through both the immediate context and the broader biblical narrative.

Firstly, the citation of 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, and Matthew 28:19 as mere lists of three does not adequately address the implications of these texts. These passages do not just list names but describe active, relational roles within the Godhead. In Matthew 28:19, the baptismal formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” does not imply three separate gods but one God in three persons sharing one name, indicative of unity and equality in essence. This is not about three individuals like Tom, Dick, and Harry; it’s about three divine persons in one divine nature.

The argument that these texts do not explicitly state equality in substance, power, and eternity misses the point of theological development. The equality is inferred from the consistent portrayal of each person’s divine attributes and actions in scripture. For instance, Jesus’ miracles and authority over nature, sin, and death in the Gospels are not human feats but divine acts, suggesting His divinity.

Regarding John 10:30 where Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” the context indeed points to unity in purpose and essence, not merely cooperation. Jesus’ prayer in John 17:21-22 for unity among believers “just as” He and the Father are one, uses the same term for “one” (hen). However, this unity for believers is clearly different in nature; it speaks to a spiritual and moral oneness, whereas between Jesus and the Father, it implies an ontological unity, which is distinct from human unity.

The interpretation of Philippians 2:6, where Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, is often misunderstood. The Greek term “harpagmos” does not suggest Jesus was not equal but that He chose not to cling to His divine privileges for the sake of redemption. This humility does not deny His deity but highlights His willingness to serve in His redemptive mission.

John 8:58, where Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” is significant because it echoes the divine name given to Moses in Exodus 3:14, indicating Jesus’ eternal existence and divine nature. The argument that translations vary does not negate the implication of Jesus claiming a divine identity, which was understood by the Jews who attempted to stone Him for blasphemy.

Lastly, the translation of John 1:1, where “the Word was God,” must be understood in the context of Greek grammar and the theology of John’s Gospel. The absence of the definite article before “God” in reference to the Word does not make Jesus “a god” in the sense of a lesser deity but emphasizes the qualitative aspect of His deity, distinct yet one with God.

While individual verses might not explicitly spell out the Trinity, they collectively, when viewed through the lens of the entire scripture, support the doctrine. The Trinity is not about three separate entities but one God in three persons, each fully divine, sharing one essence, an understanding that harmonizes with the monotheistic framework of the Bible. The interpretation of these texts must not only fit the immediate context but also align with the overarching narrative of scripture, where Jesus is shown to be divine, co-eternal, and co-equal with the Father, yet distinct in person.

The Trinity Doctrine: A True Reflection of Biblical Monotheism

The assertion that the Trinity doctrine dishonors God or contradicts His monotheistic nature requires a careful examination of the biblical text and its theological implications. Firstly, Jesus’ prayer in John 17:3, stating, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,” does not negate the divinity of Jesus but rather highlights the relational aspect within the Godhead. This text acknowledges the Father as the “only true God” in a way that does not exclude the deity of Jesus Christ but rather specifies the roles within the Trinity. Knowing God accurately includes understanding the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The claim that the Trinity dilutes or nullifies God’s oneness misunderstands the nature of the doctrine. The Trinity does not propose three gods but one God in three persons, maintaining the unity of the divine essence while recognizing the diversity of persons. This is not about adding to God’s oneness but about how this oneness is expressed through distinct yet inseparable persons.

Regarding the accusation that Trinitarian belief leads to confusion, it’s important to note that the concept of God’s nature being beyond full human comprehension is consistent with biblical themes of God’s transcendence (Isaiah 55:8-9). However, this does not mean that the Trinity is unbiblical or contradictory to monotheism. Instead, it provides a framework for understanding how God can be both one and triune, as evidenced by the interaction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout scripture.

The critique that Trinitarian Christianity has led to ungodly actions like persecution and war is an indictment of human sinfulness rather than the doctrine itself. The misuse of doctrine does not invalidate its truth. Jesus’ command for love among His followers (John 13:35) stands as a condemnation of such actions, regardless of theological stance. The presence of hypocrisy or failure within a group does not disprove the theological truths they hold; rather, it highlights the need for true adherence to Christian principles.

The claim that rejecting the Trinity is necessary to worship God on His terms assumes that the doctrine is false, yet this assumption does not hold when the full breadth of scriptural witness is considered. The Trinity is not a post-biblical invention but a theological articulation of what is implicitly presented in scripture, from the Old Testament hints of plurality in God (e.g., Genesis 1:26) to the New Testament’s explicit expressions of the divine relationship (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14).

Finally, the argument that the Trinity serves Satan’s interests by confusing people about God’s nature overlooks that confusion often arises from human misinterpretation, not the doctrine itself. The Bible does speak of spiritual blindness but in terms of rejecting the gospel, not in understanding the Trinity. The doctrine, when taught correctly, aims to clarify rather than obscure the nature of God, providing a comprehensive view of how God relates to humanity.

The Trinity doctrine, when understood as the biblical and historical Christianity has interpreted it, does not contradict monotheism but rather expresses it in a way that accounts for all the scriptural data about God’s nature, His Son, and His Spirit. It honors God by reflecting the complexity and relational depth of His being, as revealed in His Word.

Conclusion: One Essence, Three Persons

Thus, the charge that the Trinity contradicts monotheism rests on a misunderstanding of the biblical definitions of oneness and personhood. The Christian Scriptures unambiguously assert one divine essence. Within that unity exist Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This doctrine is not a departure from the Old Testament but a further disclosure of God’s identity in the New Testament era. Atheists who deny the supernatural inevitably reject this revelation, but their rejection does not emerge from any inherent contradiction in Scripture. Rather, it arises from a worldview that does not allow for any supernatural truths.

The biblical teaching about the Trinity does not undermine the principle that Jehovah is one. It confirms that the God of Israel, who declared, “I am Jehovah, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5), has chosen to reveal himself as three persons sharing that one divine essence. The earliest Jewish Christians, beginning with the apostles, recognized this truth as they saw Jesus fulfill ancient prophecies and witnessed the Holy Spirit’s work in their midst. The atheist assertion that the Trinity is logically impossible and fundamentally contradictory overlooks the nuanced yet coherent statements of Scripture. When the entire biblical testimony is considered, the Trinity emerges not as a contradiction but as the consistent revelation of the one true God.

You May Also Enjoy

“Why Does That Sound Different?”: Harmonizing the Gospels

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).