I resist it because I refuse to internally divide an indivisible God.
Scripture consistently presents God as one and undivided in being, not one essence shared among multiple divine persons.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh repeatedly emphasizes His absolute singularity:
Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.”
The word for “one” is אֶחָד (’echad) — meaning a single, unified being, not a composite of persons. It is used of one person (Gen. 2:24; Num. 13:23), one king (2 Sam. 5:3), one people. It stresses unity without internal division.
Isaiah intensifies this:
• “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me” (Isa. 45:5)
• “Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me” (Isa. 43:10)
• “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no savior” (Isa. 43:11)
The Hebrew phrases לְבַדִּי (levaddi – by Myself alone) and אֵין עוֹד (’ein ‘od – no other besides) explicitly exclude any internal plurality of divine persons.
When we come to the New Testament, the Greek continues this same indivisible oneness:
1 Corinthians 8:4
“There is none other God but one.”
The Greek is εἷς θεός (heis theos) — one God, singular and exclusive.
James 2:19
“You believe that God is one (εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός) — you do well.”
Never once does Scripture say God is “three” in any sense of personhood or being.
And when the New Testament reveals Christ, it does not divide God — it identifies God:
• “The Word was God” (John 1:1)
• “God was manifest in flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16)
• “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9)
Not part of God.
Not one person of God.
But all the fullness.
The Bible’s consistent testimony is not an internally divided deity, but one indivisible God who makes Himself known in different ways — most fully in Jesus Christ.
So I resist the idea of three divine persons not because I deny Christ’s deity — I affirm it fully — but because Scripture never teaches that God is divided within Himself.
From Moses to the apostles, the revelation is the same:
One God. Alone. Undivided. Fully revealed in Christ.
So do Trinitarians. We refuse to divide the one indivisible God.
If you mischaracterize and fail to understand what the Church historically confesses and believes, this is not the fault of the faith of Christ’s Church.
We do not divide God. God is not divided. He is One.
And this one Indivisible God is truly three Divine Persons.
@The_Omega, your reply doesn’t make any sense. Here is Matthew’s account:
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Here you have three distinct Persons: the Father, who is speaking; the Son, Jesus; and the Holy Spirit. Jesus became the Father’s Son at his conception and birth; says that he has come down from the Father several times in the Gospel of John; and is acknowledged as the Son at his baptism, which begins his ministry. This passage shows the three Persons clearly. What do you say? Of course, God is also only one God, the true God.
To deny that God was fully in Christ while the voice spoke from heaven is to deny what Scripture clearly affirms:
“In Him dwells ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”
Matthew’s account describes a voice from heaven, the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and Jesus standing in the water. What it does not do is identify these as three distinct divine persons. Never anywhere says they are separate distinct persons, you and the creeds say that.
Scripture simply presents three simultaneous witnesses: God’s voice, God’s Spirit, and God as the incarnate Son. If the passage were meant to teach three persons within God, we would expect the text to say so plainly. Instead, it speaks in the straightforward biblical way—God acting, God speaking, and God revealing Himself in Christ.
The voice from heaven is God testifying.
The Spirit of God is God’s own Spirit manifesting as a sign of anointing.
Jesus is God come in flesh beginning His ministry.
Nothing in the passage requires three eternal centers of divine consciousness. It only requires recognizing that the one God is not limited by space and can simultaneously speak, manifest His Spirit, and be present in the incarnate Son.
So the baptism scene doesn’t define three persons—it shows the one God revealing, approving, and commissioning Jesus in a visible, audible, and powerful way.
The interpretation of “three persons” is an added theological framework. The text itself simply presents one God acting in three simultaneous ways.
I don’t doubt that Trinitarians sincerely affirm God’s oneness and indivisibility. The question is not whether God is one, but what kind of oneness Scripture actually describes.
In the biblical text, God’s oneness is consistently presented as singularity of identity, not a unity that contains multiple divine “whos.” The language used excludes the idea of internal divine plurality rather than explaining it.
Isaiah’s repeated emphasis is not merely that God is unified, but that He alone is God, with no other alongside Him in any sense — “by Myself,” “beside Me,” “no other.” That kind of exclusive language naturally communicates an undivided personal identity, not a shared divine life among multiple persons.
When the New Testament carries this forward, it never redefines that oneness. It simply identifies Jesus with that same one God — not as one member within a Godhead, but as the very presence of the one LORD now made visible.
This is why the apostles can speak so straightforwardly: God has come, God has acted, God has saved — in Christ.
The later language of “one essence and three persons” is an attempt to systematize Scripture, but it goes beyond the categories Scripture itself uses. The Bible never explains God’s oneness as a unity of persons; it proclaims a single divine identity revealed fully in Jesus.
So when I say I refuse to divide an indivisible God, I mean I’m staying with the way Scripture itself speaks:
not one being composed of three divine persons,
but one LORD who makes Himself known in Christ.
The New Testament doesn’t restructure Old Testament monotheism — it reveals who that one God truly is.
Just a quick question that just popped into my head.
Where does it say Jesus spoke in tongues? Where does it say the Disciples spoke in unknown tongues? I mean, if the Dove was a symbol of what happened in Baptism, wouldn’t this imply that Jesus was now filled and ready to begin his ministry? He often led by example. Why would Jesus Himself not teach about speaking in tongues?
Scripture itself explains why you don’t see the disciples speaking in tongues before Pentecost.
Scripture plainly said:
“The Holy Ghost was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:39)
The outpouring of the Spirit in His indwelling, empowering fullness could not happen until Christ completed redemption through His death, resurrection, and glorification.
So during Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Spirit was working with them — but not yet in them in the New Covenant sense.
That’s why Jesus told them later:
“He dwelleth with you (Jesus talking to them), and shall be in you. (His Spirit –Holy Ghost– now dwelling in them)” (John 14:17)
There is a clear transition:
• With you during Jesus’ ministry
• In you after His glorification
When Jesus breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:22) — that was not the Pentecostal outpouring.
It was an impartation of authority and empowerment for proclamation, healing, and deliverance, when He commissioned them to go (Luke 9–10).
They cast out devils.
They healed the sick.
They preached the Kingdom.
But they were still told to wait for something more:
“Tarry… until ye be endued with power from on high.” (Luke 24:49)
That “power from on high” came on the Day of Pentecost — and that’s when they all (including Disciples) spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave utterance (Acts 2:1–4).
So biblically:
The disciples did speak in tongues once the Spirit was poured out after Jesus was glorified
The breathing in John 20 was empowerment for ministry, not the New Covenant indwelling baptism
And Jesus absolutely did teach about this coming experience.
He promised:
• The Spirit would come
• The Spirit would dwell in them
• The Spirit would empower them
The fulfillment of that promise is what we see in Acts.
The Holy Ghost is not a different Spirit from Christ.
He is the Spirit of Christ coming to live within believers in a new and powerful way under the New Covenant.
Just as Jesus said:
“He is now with you, and shall be in you.”
Pentecost wasn’t symbolism.
It was the moment the Spirit moved from working around God’s people to dwelling inside them.
And the outward sign Scripture records again and again is speaking with tongues.
And it’s also important to recognize that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is presented in Scripture as part of New Covenant salvation experience, not simply a ministry tool.
On the Day of Pentecost, when the people were convicted and cried out,
“Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)
Peter didn’t answer with symbolism or theology alone.
He said plainly:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)
Receiving the Holy Ghost was God’s direct answer to the salvation question.
That’s why tongues consistently appear as the initial sign when people received the Spirit throughout Acts.
So the Holy Ghost baptism isn’t something Jesus needed to demonstrate for Himself.
Jesus didn’t need to be saved.
He is the Savior.
He came to redeem humanity and open the way for the Spirit to dwell in believers under the New Covenant.
Tongues are the sign that follows those who receive — not something the sinless Savior Himself required.
Jesus led by example in obedience, humility, prayer, and submission to the Father.
But redemption experiences belong to the redeemed — not the Redeemer.
Pentecost wasn’t about Jesus needing power.
It was about humanity receiving the promised indwelling Spirit made possible by His finished work.
So biblically speaking:
• The Holy Ghost baptism is part of New Testament salvation response
• It came after Jesus was glorified
• It was given to sinners being redeemed — not to the sinless Savior
That’s why Jesus promised it.
That’s why the disciples waited for it.
And that’s why the church received it beginning in Acts 2.
Short answer first, because suspense is overrated and people have been arguing about this for two thousand years already. There is no passage anywhere in Scripture that says Jesus spoke in tongues, and there are explicit passages that say the disciples did, with the KJV even using the phrase “unknown tongues” in Paul’s letters.
There is nowhere in the Gospels, Acts, or Epistles where Jesus is described as speaking in tongues, praying in tongues, or teaching others to do so, and that absence is striking precisely because the New Testament is not shy about recording tongues when they occur.
Your observation about the dove at Jesus’ baptism is perceptive and textually grounded, because the descent of the Spirit is explicitly presented as a public, symbolic event marking the inauguration of His ministry rather than a private empowerment experience like those later described in Acts.
Mark records this moment with deliberate restraint in Mark 1:10–11[1], and the emphasis is on divine identification and approval, not on ecstatic speech or charismatic manifestation.
The New Testament itself quietly guards this distinction when Jesus promises the Spirit to the disciples only after His death, resurrection, and ascension, as stated in John 16:7[2], which places charismatic manifestations squarely in the post-cross,post-resurrection economy rather than in Jesus’ earthly ministry.
This is also why Jesus teaches extensively about prayer, obedience, humility, love, endurance, and reliance on the Father, yet never commands or explains tongues, because tongues function in the New Testament as a sign-gift for the church, not as a moral or devotional norm for all believers.
Paul makes this limitation explicit when he asks rhetorically in 1 Corinthians 12:30[3], where the expected answer in Greek syntax is no, undermining the idea that tongues are either universal or foundational.
So the pattern that emerges is internally consistent rather than suspiciously selective.
Jesus receives the Spirit as the Son and Messiah to inaugurate His ministry, the disciples receive the Spirit as witnesses of the risen Christ to inaugurate the church, and tongues appear not as a model Jesus forgot to demonstrate, but as a specific sign tied to redemptive history after the cross and the resurrection, not before it.
If that feels unsatisfying, it is usually because modern debates are trying to retrofit later charismatic expectations back onto Jesus Himself, when the New Testament very carefully refuses to do that, even when it would have been convenient for winning arguments.
Shalom.
J.
And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. - KJV ↩︎
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. - KJV ↩︎
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? - KJV ↩︎
What source do you use to get this definition of Isaiah’s language? I mean to say that his language could also mean that he as the three Persons in one God is the only true God.
The language Jesus and John use in the Gospel of John points to three Persons in the one God, clearly. Why do you resist that understanding of God’s Word, @The_Omega?
I see that we can agree to disagree, because we aren’t getting anywhere in convincing each other. When we go to be with God, we probably will find out more about God’s character. I don’t think any more discussion will be any benefit, since you and I will always disagree.
However, the sharing of our differing beliefs does have value. We are still brothers in Christ; that’s the most important thing. If you would answer my questions, I would appreciate it, though.
I’m not appealing to an external source or private definition for Isaiah’s language. I’m reading Isaiah on his own terms, within his own historical and linguistic context.
When Isaiah says “I am the LORD, and there is none else,” “beside Me there is no God,” “by Myself,” and “I know not any,” the force of that language is exclusive, not merely competitive. He is not contrasting Yahweh with false gods only; he is denying any divine other alongside Him in any sense. That is how such language functions in Hebrew prophetic monotheism. If Isaiah had intended to teach an internal plurality of divine persons, this would have been the very place to clarify it—but instead the language shuts that door.
As for the suggestion that this language could mean “three Persons in one God,” my hesitation is precisely this: Scripture never says that, never explains oneness that way, and never introduces “persons” as a biblical category for God’s inner life. That framework is read into the text after the fact, not drawn from it.
Regarding John’s Gospel, I don’t resist it—I take it very seriously. I simply don’t assume that personal distinction in narrative or relational language requires eternal distinctions of divine persons. John explicitly identifies Jesus as the one God made visible (“the Word was God … and the Word became flesh”), not as a second or third divine “who” alongside Him. The Father–Son language explains incarnation and revelation, not a redefinition of God’s singular identity.
So my position isn’t a refusal to believe Scripture—it’s a refusal to let later theological categories override the Bible’s own way of speaking. I’m content to let Scripture say exactly what it says, even if that leaves mystery rather than systematization.
I appreciate your closing words, and I agree: we are brothers in Christ. I’m not trying to win an argument, only to remain faithful to the biblical witness as I understand it. If you have a specific text where Scripture itself defines God’s oneness as a unity of three divine persons, I’m always willing to look at it carefully.
@The_Omega, brother, I think that the Scriptures provide progressive revelation from the Old to the New Testament. That means that John’s presentation of Jesus’ words expands and amplifies the words of Isaiah, who presents the oneness of God. What would you say to the theologically-liberal scholar who wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John and who didn’t believe in the Bible’s inspiration. However, he said that he was convinced that John believed in the Trinity. How would you respond to his conclusion?
I don’t deny progressive revelation in Scripture. What I deny is progressive redefinition of God’s identity.
Progressive revelation means God reveals more about Himself over time, not that later writers overturn or fundamentally recast what earlier revelation explicitly denies. Isaiah does not merely say that God was understood as one in his time; he records God’s own self-testimony: “I am the LORD, and there is none else… beside Me there is no God… by Myself.” That language does not leave conceptual space waiting to be filled later. It deliberately closes the door on divine plurality of identity.
So when I read John, I read him as faithful to Isaiah, not as quietly correcting him.
As for the liberal scholar’s conclusion that John “believed in the Trinity,” I would respond this way:
that conclusion tells us far more about the interpretive lens the scholar brought to John than about what John explicitly taught. John never uses the categories “three persons,” never explains God’s oneness as a shared divine life, and never signals that Israel’s understanding of God’s singular identity needs to be revised. Those conclusions are inferred, not stated.
John’s Gospel certainly deepens our understanding — God has made Himself visible, tangible, and relational in Christ. But John himself explains that depth in incarnational terms, not ontological division. “The Word was God… and the Word became flesh.” That is not the introduction of another divine “who,” but the one God acting, revealing, and entering history in a new form of existence while still being Omnipresent simultaneously.
If John intended to teach that God’s oneness now must be understood as three eternal divine persons, this would have been the moment — the Gospel most concerned with God’s identity — to say so plainly. Instead, John anchors Jesus squarely within Israel’s monotheism, identifying Him as the very self-expression of the one God Isaiah proclaimed.
So I respect scholarly opinions, whether conservative or liberal, but Scripture itself remains the final authority. And Scripture never defines God’s oneness as a plurality of divine persons — not in Isaiah, not in John, and not anywhere else. Progressive revelation unfolds the mystery of how the one God saves and reveals Himself, not who God is in contradiction to His own earlier declarations.
That’s why my position isn’t anti-scholarship or anti–New Testament. It’s simply this:
later theology must serve the text, not supply categories the text itself never introduces.
And on that point, I’m always willing to keep reading the Scriptures together.
Johann, this is precisely where Matthew 15:7–9 becomes decisive, because what you describe as a “New Testament–forced formulation” is, in reality, a post-biblical theological framework that is being imposed onto the text and then treated as non-negotiable doctrine. Jesus warned explicitly against this very move. He said, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” The issue Jesus identifies is not sincerity or intellectual effort, but authority—when human formulations are elevated to the level of divine command.
You say the New Testament forces three non-negotiable truths, especially the claim that “the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit.” But Scripture itself never presents that distinction as a doctrinal rule. It is assumed, not stated. The apostles never instructed believers to confess God as “three not-each-other divine persons,” nor did they warn that failure to adopt such a formulation collapses into Judaism, modalism, or polytheism. That trilemma only works if one accepts later philosophical categories that Scripture itself never introduces.
The accusation people keep making that what I believe is “modalism” is especially misplaced. What I believe is Incarnational Monotheism. Scripture does not teach God merely switching masks or roles. It teaches incarnation. Paul states plainly, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). Not God alongside Christ, not one divine person cooperating with another, but God Himself present in Christ. That alone dismantles the caricature. Jesus does pray, the Spirit does descend, and a voice does speak from heaven—but Scripture never explains these realities as separate divine persons. At Jesus’ baptism we see Jesus in the water, the Spirit descending like a dove, and a voice from heaven—three manifestations, not three identities. Jesus Himself clarifies this when He says, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” (John 14:10). This is not interpersonal dialogue between distinct divine beings; it is mutual indwelling within the one God revealed in flesh.
What decisively exposes the weakness of your third premise is Isaiah 44–45, where God defines His oneness using exclusive identity language that leaves no room for internal divine “whos” alongside one another. God declares, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5). The Hebrew phrase ʾên ʿôd milləḇaddî means there is absolutely none remaining beside, alongside, or in addition to Me. This is not merely a denial of pagan gods; it is the exclusion of any other divine identity alongside Yahweh. Isaiah presses this further: “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8). God does not say, “no other beings of a different kind,” nor “no other separate centers of consciousness.” He says none beside Me—period. The category your argument depends on simply does not exist in Isaiah’s theology.
Isaiah 45:21 is even more devastating to the “not-each-other persons” claim: “There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.” Yahweh explicitly identifies Himself alone as Savior. Yet the New Testament repeatedly identifies Jesus as Savior. Either Isaiah was wrong—which is impossible—or Jesus is not another divine person beside Yahweh, but Yahweh Himself come to save. That is not modalism; it is biblical continuity.
This brings us back to Jesus’ warning in Matthew 15. When Scripture defines God as having no one beside Him, but later theology redefines that as three divine persons who are “not each other,” and then insists that this redefinition is mandatory for orthodoxy, we are doing exactly what Jesus warned against: making the commandment of God of none effect by tradition. Isaiah never allows for internal divine plurality, the apostles never redefine Isaiah’s language, and Jesus never authorizes such a formulation. The New Testament does not “force” your system—it reveals who Yahweh is when He comes in Christ. And Isaiah already told us plainly: “Beside me there is no Saviour.” If Jesus is Savior—and He is—then He is not another beside Yahweh. He is Yahweh manifested. Anything else requires importing categories God never gave us, and Jesus has already told us where that leads.