You’re welcome to chuckle, but that doesn’t actually answer the point.
If “there are so many Scriptures mentioning God as three,” then simply list
one where God is called:
- “three persons,”
- “three centers,”
- “three co-equal individuals,”
- or anything close to that language.
The fact remains:
No biblical author ever describes God as ‘three.’
We
do see:
- “One Lord”
- “One God”
- “I alone am God”
- “Beside Me there is no other”
- “To us there is but one God, the Father”
- “God is one”
But there is
not a single text where God is identified as “three persons,” or where “the Son” is spoken of as an eternal divine individual alongside the Father before the incarnation.
When the Bible says “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,” it does
not say:
- “three persons,”
- “three co-eternal centers of consciousness,”
- or “God is three in one.”
Those are
post-biblical categories.
And that’s fine—every doctrine develops language—but let’s at least be honest about it.
All I’m doing is asking:
If we are going to argue for a doctrine as foundational as the nature of God, shouldn’t the vocabulary come from Scripture itself?
If there are “many Scriptures” that describe God as three persons, then this should be easy:
Just show one.
Chapter and verse.
I’m not mocking, I’m not being harsh—just asking for the same thing we expect from every other doctrine:
Show the text.
Until then, we’re not talking about biblical revelation.
We’re talking about later metaphysics being read
into the Bible.
I appreciate the response, and this is exactly where the real discussion lies—
not in accusations, but in interpretation.
You said:
But that’s precisely the point of disagreement:
John 1 does not say that.
Here’s what it
does say
- “In the beginning was the Word”
- “The Word was with God” (pros ton Theon)
- “The Word was God”
- “The Word became flesh”
Nowhere in the text does John say:
- “the Word is a second divine person,”
- “the Word is an eternal Son distinct from the Father,”
- “the Word is a co-eternal center of consciousness,”
- or anything like that.
Those phrases are imported from later theological systems, not from the prologue itself.
1. “Word” in John 1 is not a second Person—it is God’s self-expression.
Jewish readers in the first century already had a robust concept of
Dabar Yahweh /
Memra—God’s self-revelation, God’s creative expression, God’s own active self-manifesting presence.
The “Word” is:
- God speaking,
- God revealing,
- God acting,
- God creating.
Nothing in the text implies a second divine
individual.
If John intended “a second Person,” he could have used
huios (Son) or
prosopon (person).
He didn’t.
He used
logos, a term that never meant “a second divine person” in Jewish theology.
2. “With God” (pros ton Theon) does not mean two divine persons.
Pros can mean:
- toward
- with
- in relation to
- in communication with
- in reference to
- in the presence of
It does
not require two divine individuals sitting face-to-face.
In fact, John uses
pros elsewhere of things that are not persons at all:
- “Our fellowship is toward (pros) the Father”
- “Prayer toward (pros) God”
- “The law was toward (pros) a testimony”
So “with God” here means
in relation to God, expressive of God, oriented toward God, not “Person A is in fellowship with Person B.”
3. If the Word is a second divine Person, you end up with two Gods.
John says:
Not “a second Person who is also God.”
Not “God alongside God.”
If “God” in the second clause means “the Father,”
and “Word” means “a distinct divine Person,”
then you now have:
- God (the Father)
- God (the Son)
Two who are fully God in their own right.
That’s not monotheism—
unless you redefine “one God” as “one divine nature shared by multiple Persons,” which again is
not the vocabulary John used.
4. John never calls the Word “Son” until verse 14—after the Incarnation.
This is huge.
John is extremely precise in his language:
- Before the Incarnation: Logos (Word)
- After the Incarnation: Huios (Son)
In other words:
The Word became flesh → and that is the Son.
The Son is the enfleshed Word, the incarnate manifestation of God—not an eternal second divine Person.
If John meant “eternal Son,” he could have simply said so:
But he didn’t.
Because that is not what he believed.
5. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
You said John “very clearly teaches” two divine persons.
I’m simply asking—
where in the text?
Not inferences.
Not later creedal categories.
Not theological necessity.
Just the text.
Where does John say:
- “the Father and the Word are two co-eternal persons”?
- “the Word is a second divine individual alongside the Father”?
- “two divine persons existed from eternity”?
If this is “clear,” then chapter and verse should be no problem.
Until then, the claim that John teaches “two eternal divine Persons” is an interpretation imposed on the text, not a reading drawn from the text.
I’ve heard that argument many times, and I understand why it sounds persuasive at first—but it actually doesn’t say what you’re claiming.
Let’s slow down and look at what the text
actually says at Jesus’ baptism:
- Jesus is in the water.
- The Spirit descends like a dove.
- A voice from heaven speaks.
That is
three manifestations,
three modes of operation,
three forms of divine activity—but the text does
not say:
- three divine persons,
- three co-eternal centers of consciousness,
- three individuals inside the Godhead,
- or that “God is three persons.”
The Trinity doctrine is
not “three things happened at the same time.”
The Trinity doctrine is “three co-equal, co-eternal divine Persons.”
Very different claim.
1. Multi-manifestation ≠ multi-personhood.
God appeared in a burning bush.
God appeared as fire on Sinai.
God appeared as a pillar of cloud.
God spoke through a donkey.
God manifested as glory in the temple.
God overshadowed Mary.
God filled believers at Pentecost.
None of those are “persons.”
They are manifestations.
In Matthew 3, the same God manifests:
- visibly (Spirit like a dove),
- audibly (voice from heaven),
- and bodily (in Christ).
That’s
God revealing Himself, not “three eternal persons.”
2. If three simultaneous manifestations = three persons, then theophanies would produce dozens of gods.
In Exodus 19, you’d have:
- God on the mountain,
- God in the fire,
- God in the smoke,
- God in the thunderous voice.
Four manifestations.
Are there four divine persons?
Of course not.
3. The voice identifies Jesus as “My beloved Son,” not “the second person of the Trinity.”
The term
Son is tied directly to:
incarnation (“This day have I begotten Thee”)
- birth (“made of a woman”)
- humanity (“Thou art My Son, today…”)
Not eternal personhood.
The voice does not say:
- “This is the co-eternal Son.”
- “This is the second divine Person.”
- “This is the eternal God the Son.”
Those are later categories not found in the text.
4. Even Trinitarian scholars admit the baptism scene does not prove the Trinity.
This is important.
It may fit
within Trinitarian theology, but it does
not prove it.
Karl Rahner (Roman Catholic theologian):
Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran NT scholar):
Even they know that Matthew 3 isn’t a “gotcha” text.
5. The baptism narrative fits perfectly with the Incarnation, not eternal persons.
What do we actually see?
- The Son (the incarnate humanity of God) is being baptized.
- The Spirit (God’s active power) descends upon the Messiah to anoint Him.
- The Father (the transcendent deity) bears witness from heaven.
That’s God:
- on earth as man,
- from heaven as God,
- and in power as Spirit.
One God.
Three expressions.
Not three persons.
So the real issue is still the same question:
Where does Scripture ever call God “three persons”?
If we’re building doctrine on explicit Scripture, not later philosophy, then:
- Matthew 3 doesn’t say “three persons,”
- John 1 doesn’t say “two persons,”
- and no verse in the Bible uses “persons” in the Trinitarian sense.
One God can manifest in multiple ways without becoming multiple Persons.
The baptism proves God is active in multiple modes at once—
not that the Godhead contains three eternal individuals.
