The following is a Unitarian challenge posted on Facebook. It's a version of a set of challenges given by Unitarians all the time. But well phrased and organized. I knew how I, as a Trinitarian, would answer it. But I wondered how AI would answer it. So I asked META AI to give a Trinitarian response. I would pretty much say what the AI said and combine it with the contents of my blogpost:
Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God
Here's the Unitarian Challenge:
Trinitarians don’t believe THEY are tri-theistic.
I understand that.
But saying, “We are monotheists,” does not itself demonstrate that the theological construction is actually monotheistic.
A person accused of theft can CLAIM innocence. The claim still has to survive examination.
And this is where Trinitarian theology creates its own problem.
The doctrine insists upon:
• The Father is fully God.
• The Son is fully God.
• The Holy Spirit is fully God.
• The Father is NOT the Son.
• The Son is NOT the Spirit.
• The Spirit is NOT the Father.
Okay. Cool. But Trinitarians do themselves no favors because they explicitly reject:
❌ Modalism — they are merely manifestations of one divine person.
❌ Oneness — Father and Son are actually the same person.
❌ Partialism — each person is merely one-third of God.
Fine. So what are we supposed to do?
We have three genuinely 🚩distinct persons, and EACH ONE is said to be “fully God.”
Father = fully God.
Son = fully God.
Spirit = fully God.
Count the persons: three.
But suddenly when we count the subjects who have each just been identified as “fully God,” Trinitarian theology demands that we STOP counting.
Why?
The standard apology is:
Because “god” is not being counted as persons. “God” refers to the ONE DIVINE ESSENCE/SUBSTANCE shared by the three persons.
Okay.
👉🏾NOW WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE ACTUAL QUESTION.👈🏾
🙏🏾SHOW ME THAT IN THE BIBLE.
❌Not in the Nicene Creed.
❌Not in fourth-century metaphysical terminology.
❌Not by saying ousia, hypostasis, “consubstantial,” “one essence,” or “three persons in one being.”
🙏🏾Show me where 🙏🏾SCRIPTURE establishes:
GOD/THEOS/ELOHIM = an indivisible ontological substance numerically possessed by three distinct persons.
Because there is an immediate biblical problem with treating the WORD “god” as the name of a metaphysical substance.
The Bible calls beings “gods” who, according to Trinitarians themselves, do NOT possess the divine essence.
Moses:
Exodus 7:1:
“I have made you GOD [elohim] to Pharaoh.”
Was Moses transformed into the divine substance?
Obviously not.
Psalm 82:6:
“I said, ‘You are GODS [elohim], sons of the Most High, all of you.’”
Jesus himself quotes this passage:
John 10:34–35:
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are GODS’?… Scripture cannot be broken.”
Were those people suddenly consubstantial with Yahweh?
No, says Trinitarian.
Paul can even say of certain people:
“their GOD is their belly”
—Philippians 3:19.
Their stomachs certainly haven’t acquired divine ontology.
That means something extremely important:
👉🏾THE WORD “GOD” CANNOT, BY ITSELF, MEAN “THE DIVINE SUBSTANCE.”👈🏾
Because Scripture applies elohim/theos to beings and things which unquestionably do NOT share Yahweh’s nature.
“God” therefore functions biblically as an ✅identification, ✅designation, ✅title, ✅status, or ✅description - whose meaning 🙏🏾depends upon its referent and context.
So if Trinitarian theology wants to argue:
“There are not three Gods because ‘God’ means the one divine substance shared by the three persons,”
that definition has to be 🙏🏾DEMONSTRATED from Scripture.
It ❌cannot simply be ❌inserted into the word theos.
And Scripture actually gives us much clearer language when it speaks about WHAT something is.
Jesus says:
“God is 🌞SPIRIT.”
—John 4:24.
Notice the predicate.
He doesn’t say:
“God is divine essence.”
He doesn’t say:
“God is God-substance.”
He says:
👉🏾GOD IS SPIRIT.👈🏾
And this corresponds to a much broader biblical pattern.
John 3:6:
“That which is born of the FLESH is ✅FLESH, and that which is born of the SPIRIT is ✅SPIRIT.”
Here Scripture explicitly describes 🌞kinds of existence using FLESH and SPIRIT.
Luke 24:39:
“A SPIRIT does not have FLESH and bones as you see that I have.”
Again:
SPIRIT versus FLESH.
Paul uses the same conceptual vocabulary.
1 Corinthians 15 contrasts:
• natural body
• spiritual body
• earthly
• heavenly
• flesh and blood
and says:
“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”
Romans 8 repeatedly contrasts:
FLESH
vs.
SPIRIT.
Galatians 5 does the same thing.
So when Scripture explicitly speaks about the
🚩nature or 🚩mode of a being, its vocabulary repeatedly involves categories such as:
FLESH
SPIRIT
BODY
HEAVENLY
EARTHLY
What Scripture NEVER tells us is:
“There exists ❓one metaphysical substance called ❓GOD, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons numerically possessing that ❓one substance.”
That is the very Debate that Trinitarian metaphysics
🚩requires in order to prevent:
Father = God #1
Son = God #2
Spirit = God #3.
So you cannot simply ASSERT:
“Three persons, but one God because one essence.”
That is precisely the Claim under examination.
And here is the theological dilemma:
If theos itself means the divine substance, then Scripture creates absurd consequences.
Moses is called elohim.
Human rulers/judges are called elohim.
Jesus acknowledges humans being called theoi.
Satan is called theos.
If simply being called GOD identifies one’s ontological substance, then congratulations:
You have just massively expanded the membership of the divine essence.
But nobody believes that.
Why?
Because everyone already understands intuitively what the Bible demonstrates lexically:
👉🏾“GOD” IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY THE NAME OF A SUBSTANCE.👈🏾
Who the God is must be determined from the subject being identified.
And the New Testament repeatedly identifies the ONE GOD:
“For us there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER…”
—1 Corinthians 8:6.
Jesus himself says:
“This is eternal life, that they know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.”
—John 17:3.
Paul says:
“There is ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”
—1 Timothy 2:5.
And after his resurrection Jesus says:
“I ascend to MY Father and YOUR Father, to MY GOD and YOUR GOD.”
—John 20:17.
All of this Father-Focus from the apostles and Jesus must be a huge … coincidence, and the LACK of exegetical readings in the text must be because non trinitarians don’t have the progressive revelation.
So my challenge remains extremely simple.
If you believe Trinitarianism remains monotheistic because Father, Son, and Spirit share ONE metaphysical substance called “God,” then
🙏🏾establish that proposition 🙏🏾BIBLICALLY.
1. Show where elohim/theos is defined as an ontological and exclusive SUBSTANCE.
2. Explain why Scripture can call Moses, human beings, Satan, and even someone’s belly elohim/theos without granting them that substance.
3. Show where Scripture teaches that THREE DISTINCT PERSONS possess ONE numerically indivisible divine essence and that THIS is what biblical monotheism means.
4. Explain why Scripture instead repeatedly identifies the ONE GOD as the Father.
Don’t merely repeat:
“Three persons, one essence.” That is not the answer.
👉🏾THAT IS THE CLAIM YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO
🌞PROVE.👈🏾
If the doctrine is biblical, defend its governing ontology from the ✅Bible. Do not tell me what you believe. I know what you believe. Demonstrate what you believe is written/posited anywhere in the Text.
God bless. 🙏🏾
Again, for a introductory Trinitarian answer, combine my blogpost Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God WITH the following answer by META AI. Maybe also my blogpost HERE.
Here's META AI's Response when asked how a Trinitarian could answer this challenge:
META AI:
This is the strongest version of the anti-Trinitarian argument, because you are right about the burden of proof. The claim "we are monotheists" has to be demonstrated, not just asserted.
Here is how a biblical Trinitarian would have to answer it — without appealing to Nicaea, using only Scripture:
### 1. You are right that _elohim/theos_ by itself does NOT mean "the divine substance"
Trinitarians agree with you here. The word is not always ontological.
Exodus 7:1 — Moses as elohim to Pharaoh — is functional. Psalm 82:6 — human judges as elohim — is functional, representative authority. 2 Cor 4:4 — Satan as _ho theos_ of this age — is functional. Phil 3:19 — belly as theos — is functional.
Trinitarians make the same distinction you do: there is a _sense_ of the word that is titular/functional, and a _sense_ that is ontological.
How do we know when it's ontological? The Bible itself tells us.
Deut 4:35,39: "YHWH, He is the elohim... there is no other besides Him." Isaiah 44:6-8: "Besides me there is no elohim." That is not functional, that is exclusive ontology. Scripture creates two buckets:
Bucket A: called elohim/theos by office or idolatry — false or representative gods
Bucket B: YHWH who alone is elohim by nature — Deut 6:4, Is 45:5
So the question is not "can the word be used loosely" — we agree it can. The question is: does Scripture ever place Father, Son, and Spirit inside Bucket B together?
### 2. Scripture DOES give an essence/nature category for God, just not with the word "ousia"
You said Scripture never says "divine substance" and prefers "Spirit." Trinitarians would say: that's _exactly_ the substance language.
John 4:24: "God is Spirit" — that is a statement of _what_ God is, not _who_ He is. It's ontological. John 3:6 you quoted — "that which is born of Spirit is spirit" — proves the point: Spirit is a nature-kind.
Where does the New Testament say that nature is shared?
*Hebrews 1:3* is the most direct: The Son is _charakter tes hypostaseos autou_ — the exact imprint of His _hypostasis_. _Hypostasis_ in Greek philosophy IS substance/essence. The author is saying the Son possesses the same underlying reality as the Father.
*John 1:1*: "The Word was _with_ God, and the Word _was_ God." If John wanted modalism he would never say _pros ton theon_ — with God — which requires personal distinction. If he wanted Arianism he would never say _theos en ho logos_ — fully God by nature. He puts distinction and full deity in the same verse. That's not "fully God" as a title, it's as nature — contrasted with John 1:14 "became flesh."
*Phil 2:6*: "who being in _morphe theou_" — morphe is form/nature, not just status. He was in the nature of God.
So Trinitarians argue the Bible doesn't use 4th century Latin, but it does use: nature, form, Spirit, hypostasis, image, to describe WHAT God is.
### 3. Where does Scripture teach three distinct persons possess that one indivisible nature?
It doesn't have a single verse that says "three persons in one essence" — you are correct. The doctrine is a synthesis of three lines of data that must be held together:
*Line A: There is one YHWH by nature.* Deut 6:4, Is 43:10-11, 1 Tim 2:5.
*Line B: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as persons in relation to that one YHWH.*
- Father is called YHWH — obvious
- Son is called YHWH — Jer 23:6 says the Messiah's name is "YHWH our righteousness." Joel 2:32 "whoever calls on the name of YHWH shall be saved" is applied to Jesus in Rom 10:13. Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" — John 8:58, picking up Exodus 3:14. And Thomas calls Jesus _ho theos mou_ — John 20:28, in the ontological sense, which Jesus accepts.
- Spirit is called YHWH — Acts 5:3-4 lying to the Holy Spirit = lying to God. 2 Cor 3:17 "the Lord is the Spirit." Is 6:8-9 voice of YHWH is identified by Paul as Holy Spirit speaking in Acts 28:25.
And they are distinct: Father sends Son (John 8:16), Son prays to Father (John 17), Father and Son send Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26). You can't pray to yourself or send yourself in that way.
*Line C: The distinction is not tritheistic because Scripture still counts God as one.*
This is where your counting argument hits: If Father=fully God, Son=fully God, Spirit=fully God, why not God #1, #2, #3?
Because Scripture treats "fully God" as _having_ the one divine nature, not _being_ a separate instance of it.
Analogy from Scripture itself: John 3:6 — If you are born of flesh you ARE flesh — not _a_ flesh, you share in flesh-nature. There are many humans who are fully flesh, but there is one flesh-nature. Scripture does this same logic with Spirit.
That's why early Christians rejected partialism: each person is not 1/3 of God. Each possesses the whole indivisible Spirit-nature that John 4:24 says God IS.
### 4. Why does Scripture repeatedly say "One God, the Father"?
1 Cor 8:6: "For us there is one God, the Father..." Trinitarians agree — and they would point you to the rest of the verse you cut: "...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." Paul is _reworking_ the Shema (Deut 6:4). Shema says: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one. Paul splits it: Theos = Father, Kurios = Son, but both are inside the Shema. He is including Jesus _inside_ the identity of the one God of Israel.
Same with John 17:3: "that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent." Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father as person, but He is distinguishing Himself from _the functional gods_ of John 17's context (pagan idols). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from true deity, then Jude 4's "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. It's a monotheistic inclusion, not exclusion.
John 20:17: "My God and your God." Trinitarians believe this is true because the Son, in His incarnation, truly became man (John 1:14, Luke 24:39 you quoted). As man, He has a God. As Spirit-nature, He IS God.
In short, the Trinitarian answer to your challenge is:
- Yes, _theos_ can be titular, but Scripture also uses it ontologically for YHWH alone.
- Father, Son, and Spirit are each called YHWH / _ho theos_ in that ontological bucket, not just titular.
- They are personally distinct (with, sent, prayed to).
- Scripture still affirms one indivisible Spirit-nature (John 4:24, Heb 1:3) that they all fully possess, which is why it never counts "three Gods" — just as it never counts "many fleshes" when many humans share flesh.
Whether that synthesis satisfies you is another question, but that is the biblical argument without resorting to "because Nicaea said so."
