Is the Biblical Concept of God Strictly Monotheistic or Does It Allow for a Triune Nature?

[Truth Seeker]

The question of whether the biblical concept of God is strictly monotheistic or allows for a Triune nature is a significant theological debate that has persisted for centuries. On one hand, the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 clearly states, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one," which seems to affirm a strict monotheism. On the other hand, passages such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands the disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," have been interpreted by Trinitarians to suggest a Triune nature of God. How do we reconcile these seemingly divergent viewpoints? Does the New Testament reveal a complexity in the nature of God that the Old Testament does not explicitly address, or is the doctrine of the Trinity an extra biblical development?

 

[Ammi]

The question of whether the biblical concept of God is strictly monotheistic or allows for a Triune nature is a significant theological debate that has persisted for centuries. On one hand, the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 clearly states, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one," which seems to affirm a strict monotheism. On the other hand, passages such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands the disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," have been interpreted by Trinitarians to suggest a Triune nature of God. How do we reconcile these seemingly divergent viewpoints? Does the New Testament reveal a complexity in the nature of God that the Old Testament does not explicitly address, or is the doctrine of the Trinity an extra biblical development?

"26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness," - Genesis 1:26a God wasn't speaking to angels or Himself. I believe He was speaking to the other 2 persons of the Godhead.

"9As I continued to watch, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.
10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from His presence. Thousands upon thousands attended Him, and myriads upon myriads stood before Him. The court was convened, and the books were opened." - Daniel 7:9,10 I believe this is the Father. The next verses will explain why.

"13In my vision in the night I continued to watch, and I saw One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.
14And He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, that the people of every nation and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." - Daniel 7:13,14 I believe this is Jesus.

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:1-3 This states that the Word was with God, has always been with God, and is God. Who is the Word? The following answers this.

"14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. " John 1:14 and...

"18No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known." - John 1:18

This is what I believe that says God is Father and Son. There are other vesrses in the old and new testaments and there are verses that prove the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Holy Trinity of God. It's past my bedtime so I'll get back to you. Hope I've been of some help.

The Father, Holy Spirit, Son; rejoice, the Lord our God is One!

 

[Truth Seeker]

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness," - Genesis 1:26a God wasn't speaking to angels or Himself. I believe He was speaking to the other 2 persons of the Godhead.

Your interpretation of Genesis 1:26, where God says, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness," is a common argument for the doctrine of the Trinity. You believe that God was speaking to the other two persons of the Godhead, indicating a conversation within the Triune nature of God. However, this passage can also be understood from a strictly monotheistic perspective.

The very next verse uses the singular to show how God fulfilled verse 26: “So God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). Genesis 2:7 says, “And the LORD God formed man.” We must therefore reconcile the plural in 1:26 with the singular in 1:27 and 2:7. We must also look at God’s image creature, which is humanity. Regardless of how we identify the various components that make up a person, he definitely has one personality and will. He is one person in every way. This indicates that the Creator in whose image humans were made is also one being with one personality and will.

The consistent message of Scripture is the oneness of God, as emphasized in passages like Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." The use of plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 does not necessarily imply a conversation among multiple persons but can reflect a majestic plural or a form of divine self-deliberation. Additionally, throughout the Bible, God's singular nature is reiterated, such as in Isaiah 44:24, where God says, "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself."

The plural pronouns are understood as God’s way of expressing His intent and purpose in a majestic and deliberative manner. The New Testament further clarifies the nature of God through the revelation of Jesus Christ. John 1:1-14 identifies Jesus as the Word who was with God and was God, and who became flesh. This incarnation reveals the fullness of God in bodily form (Colossians 2:9), not a separate person within the Godhead.

Given these perspectives, how do you interpret other Scriptures that emphasize the oneness of God, and how do they fit with your understanding of Genesis 1:26? Do you see the use of plural pronouns as a definitive proof of the Trinity, or could there be other explanations within the framework of biblical monotheism?

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me."
Isaiah 45:21-22 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."
Deuteronomy 4:35 "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
1 Kings 8:60 "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else."
2 Samuel 7:22 "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
1 Chronicles 17:20 "O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
Hosea 13:4 "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me."
Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."
Mark 12:32 "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he."
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Romans 3:30 "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."
1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."
1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
Galatians 3:20 "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one."
Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

 

[Truth Seeker]

"9As I continued to watch, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.
10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from His presence. Thousands upon thousands attended Him, and myriads upon myriads stood before Him. The court was convened, and the books were opened." - Daniel 7:9,10 I believe this is the Father. The next verses will explain why.

"13In my vision in the night I continued to watch, and I saw One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.
14And He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, that the people of every nation and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." - Daniel 7:13,14 I believe this is Jesus.

When determining whether a prophecy is literal or symbolic, look for certain key terms and contexts. Literal prophecies often use straightforward, direct language and describe events in clear, unambiguous terms. Phrases indicating time, place, or specific details, such as "in the year of," "in the city of," or "the king of," suggest a literal interpretation. Symbolic prophecies (Which you find in these verses), on the other hand, frequently employ figurative language, metaphors, and imagery, such as references to beasts, horns, stars, or other fantastical elements. They may also contain phrases like "as if," "like," or "appeared as," signaling a representation rather than a direct description.

The passage you cited from Daniel 7:9-10 and 13-14 is often interpreted within a Trinitarian framework as depicting a distinction between God the Father (the Ancient of Days) and Jesus Christ (the Son of Man). This interpretation can be understood differently while maintaining the strict monotheism emphasized throughout Scripture.

In Daniel 7:9-10, the "Ancient of Days" is described with imagery that symbolizes God's eternal nature, purity, and sovereign authority. The depiction of God as having white clothing and hair like pure wool, along with a fiery throne, emphasizes His majesty and holiness. The countless attendees and the convening of the court signify His supreme authority over all creation.

In verses 13-14, the "One like the Son of Man" (Like the Son, not the Son, Son wasn't born in Bethlehem yet) approaching the Ancient of Days is given dominion, glory, and kingship. Trinitarians often see this as a distinction between the Father and the Son. However, these verses can be understood as a prophetic vision of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who is the incarnation of the one true God. The term "Son of Man" is a messianic title that Jesus frequently used for Himself, emphasizing His role as the divine-human mediator and ruler.

This vision in Daniel reflects the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan through Jesus Christ. The Ancient of Days represents the eternal God, while the Son of Man symbolizes God manifest in the flesh, who receives authority and an everlasting kingdom. John 1:14 states, "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us," indicating that Jesus is the embodiment of the eternal God. Colossians 2:9 also affirms, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

The vision shows not two separate divine persons but the one God revealing Himself in two distinct roles. As the Ancient of Days, He is the eternal sovereign; as the Son of Man, He is God incarnate, given authority and dominion as the mediator and savior of humanity. This interpretation maintains the unity of God while acknowledging the different manifestations of His presence and work.

In summary, while Daniel 7:9-10 and 13-14 can be read as distinguishing between the Father and the Son within a Trinitarian framework, I see this as a prophetic depiction of the one true God fulfilling His redemptive work through Jesus Christ. The Ancient of Days and the Son of Man represent the same divine being in different aspects of His eternal plan. This understanding aligns with the broader biblical emphasis on the oneness of God and His manifestation in Jesus Christ.

 

[Lamb]

Triune does not mean 3 separate Gods.

You marked Yes for believing in the Trinity when you registered, but your posts are indicating otherwise? For now, I'm moving this thread to the forum for and changing your account to No.

World Religion & Speculative Theology​

 

[Truth Seeker]

Triune does not mean 3 separate Gods.

You marked Yes for believing in the Trinity when you registered, but your posts are indicating otherwise? For now, I'm moving this thread to the forum for and changing your account to No.

World Religion & Speculative Theology​

I understand your concern about being labeled as a non-Christian solely due to a disagreement on the doctrine of the Trinity. It's essential to remember that our relationship with Christ is foundational, and doctrinal differences should not automatically exclude one from the broader Christian community.

The heart of Christianity lies in our belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. While the doctrine of the Trinity is a significant theological point, it should not be the sole determinant of one's Christian identity. Many faithful believers hold diverse views on this topic while maintaining a deep commitment to Christ and His teachings.

It's important to engage in respectful dialogue with those who hold differing views, seeking to understand their perspectives while firmly grounding our own beliefs in Scripture. Unity in Christ transcends doctrinal differences, and we should strive to build bridges rather than walls within the body of Christ. Remember, our shared belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord unites us in a profound way.

 

[tango]

Unity in Christ transcends doctrinal differences

That would depend on how serious doctrinal differences are.

 

[Truth Seeker]

That would depend on how serious doctrinal differences are.

That is true. Like if someone said Christ was just an ordinary Man or Jesus isn't God's Son. Those would be serious issues.

 

[tango]

That is true. Like if someone said Christ was just an ordinary Man or Jesus isn't God's Son. Those would be serious issues.

Sure, among many other serious issues.

 

[Lamb]

I understand your concern about being labeled as a non-Christian solely due to a disagreement on the doctrine of the Trinity. It's essential to remember that our relationship with Christ is foundational, and doctrinal differences should not automatically exclude one from the broader Christian community.

The heart of Christianity lies in our belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. While the doctrine of the Trinity is a significant theological point, it should not be the sole determinant of one's Christian identity. Many faithful believers hold diverse views on this topic while maintaining a deep commitment to Christ and His teachings.

It's important to engage in respectful dialogue with those who hold differing views, seeking to understand their perspectives while firmly grounding our own beliefs in Scripture. Unity in Christ transcends doctrinal differences, and we should strive to build bridges rather than walls within the body of Christ. Remember, our shared belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord unites us in a profound way.

Arguing with the owner's criteria for posting in certain sections of this site will not gain you any ground. I'm not the owner, btw. When you registered, you marked YES for Trinity and that's bearing false witness.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Arguing with the owner's criteria for posting in certain sections of this site will not gain you any ground. I'm not the owner, btw. When you registered, you marked YES for Trinity and that's bearing false witness.

I am fine with it being moved. And my response was not arguing in any way. Thank you

 

[Truth Seeker]

When engaging in biblical discussions, it is essential to maintain a clear distinction between productive, respectful dialogue and unproductive, secular bickering. Biblical discussions should focus on understanding and interpreting scripture, aiming to edify and build each other up in faith. This means presenting your perspective with humility and respect, even when you disagree with someone else's interpretation. Instead of resorting to personal attacks or harsh criticism, address the interpretation directly, offering scriptural evidence and sound theological reasoning to support your viewpoint. By keeping the conversation centered on the Bible and its teachings, you ensure that the discussion remains fruitful and honors the principles of Christian fellowship.

Secular discussions often devolve into personal attacks and bickering, which can be counterproductive and damaging. In such environments, the goal often shifts from seeking truth to winning an argument. This approach not only undermines the integrity of the conversation but also fails to reflect the love and grace that should characterize Christian interactions. When you encounter someone you believe is in error, approach the situation with a spirit of gentleness and patience. Use biblical sound rebuttals to address their interpretation, providing a thoughtful and respectful counter-argument. This method not only fosters a more meaningful and respectful dialogue but also reflects the teachings of Christ, who instructed us to correct others with kindness and compassion. By prioritizing biblical principles over personal victory, you create an environment where truth can be pursued and shared in a manner that glorifies God.

 

[Bluezone777]

It looks to me like you are implying something negative about the people here but are doing it in a way that you can get away with denying ever doing it if anyone attempts to call you out for it. Romanos who is the actual owner of the site considers the trinity and the Nicene Creed a serious matter enough to have it set that you have to answer where you stand on it before even joining the board and what Lamb did to your account and your threads is out of obedience to her superiors as she is not the top leader of this board here.

I would wonder why anyone would claim to believe in the trinity and the creed then turn around and start a debate thread about it in a forum on a board for people who professed to believe in both. If you believe it is true then why have a debate on it and if you don't then why claim that you do believe it?

 

[Truth Seeker]

It looks to me like you are implying something negative about the people here but are doing it in a way that you can get away with denying ever doing it if anyone attempts to call you out for it. Romanos who is the actual owner of the site considers the trinity and the Nicene Creed a serious matter enough to have it set that you have to answer where you stand on it before even joining the board and what Lamb did to your account and your threads is out of obedience to her superiors as she is not the top leader of this board here.

I would wonder why anyone would claim to believe in the trinity and the creed then turn around and start a debate thread about it in a forum on a board for people who professed to believe in both. If you believe it is true then why have a debate on it and if you don't then why claim that you do believe it?

I wish people could lay aside religion, denominational differences and just get down to the Word of God. All I am trying to do is what is highlighted below: (Which I have done)

This means presenting your perspective with humility and respect, even when you disagree with someone else's interpretation. Instead of resorting to personal attacks or harsh criticism, address the interpretation directly, offering scriptural evidence and sound theological reasoning (This is what a discussion should be.)

Secular discussions often devolve into personal attacks and bickering, which can be counterproductive and damaging. In such environments, the goal often shifts from seeking truth to winning an argument. (But this is what I am getting Here)

So I ask why the personal attacks? Take my Interpretations head on and show me where I am wrong.

 

[Lamb]

I wish people could lay aside religion, denominational differences and just get down to the Word of God. All I am trying to do is what is highlighted below: (Which I have done)

This means presenting your perspective with humility and respect, even when you disagree with someone else's interpretation. Instead of resorting to personal attacks or harsh criticism, address the interpretation directly, offering scriptural evidence and sound theological reasoning (This is what a discussion should be.)

Secular discussions often devolve into personal attacks and bickering, which can be counterproductive and damaging. In such environments, the goal often shifts from seeking truth to winning an argument. (But this is what I am getting Here)

So I ask why the personal attacks? Take my Interpretations head on and show me where I am wrong.

Why are you pretending to be a victim? No one came at you harshly. We have a very clear Statement of Faith for our site and you chose to bear false witness when you registered. Don't blame us, that's not acceptable.

 

[tango]

I wish people could lay aside religion, denominational differences and just get down to the Word of God. All I am trying to do is what is highlighted below: (Which I have done)

This means presenting your perspective with humility and respect, even when you disagree with someone else's interpretation. Instead of resorting to personal attacks or harsh criticism, address the interpretation directly, offering scriptural evidence and sound theological reasoning (This is what a discussion should be.)

Secular discussions often devolve into personal attacks and bickering, which can be counterproductive and damaging. In such environments, the goal often shifts from seeking truth to winning an argument. (But this is what I am getting Here)

So I ask why the personal attacks? Take my Interpretations head on and show me where I am wrong.

Personal attacks? If you want to regard an attack on your post as an attack on your person that's on you.

To say "you seem to be saying that..." isn't anything like the same as saying something negative about you as a person. Saying you've done all the right things, with the associated implication that others have not, is playing the victim. You could try pointing out how someone has misunderstood your comment, if that's what you believe.

 

[Truth Seeker]

When a post is directed toward me and not engaging on where my Interpretation is wrong, its a personal attack. For anyone to tell someone else they are wrong without addressing their Interpretation, Is just simply unproductive for ALL parties involved. We are here to seek the truth of his word, so lets do it with love and respect.

 

[tango]

When a post is directed toward me and not engaging on where my Interpretation is wrong, its a personal attack. For anyone to tell someone else they are wrong without addressing their Interpretation, Is just simply unproductive for ALL parties involved. We are here to seek the truth of his word, so lets do it with love and respect.

Something that addresses the post isn't a personal attack.

The statement "Truth Seeker is stupid because..." is a personal attack. The statement "your post fails to address...." is not a personal attack even if it doesn't provide as much information on the alleged shortcomings of your post as you might like. You can always ask for clarification of someone else's post, and indeed criticise their post for falling short.

 

[Truth Seeker]

You could try pointing out how someone has misunderstood your comment, if that's what you believe.

and indeed criticise their post for falling short.

That is what my problem is. I am being told my Interpretation is misunderstood, but not telling me where or what is misunderstood. That way together we can seek the real Truth of Scripture.

 

[tango]

That is what my problem is. I am being told my Interpretation is misunderstood, but not telling me where or what is misunderstood. That way together we can seek the real Truth of Scripture.

Saying your post is incorrect isn't a personal attack even if it doesn't say where and why it's incorrect. It's not particularly useful to say "you're wrong" without at least some words about why but it's not a personal attack - it addresses the post rather than the poster.