The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Oneness of God vs. The Trinity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 680 times Debate No: 76363
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




This is a debate concerning the Christian God. In this debate, we share the burden of proof. I will be arguing for the side of Oneness theology. If you accept this debate, you will be arguing for the opposition, Trinitarianism. I would like that a Trinitarian would accept instead of a "Devil's Advocate" such as an atheist or any other form other than a Trinitarian. Any Trinitarians are welcome although I prefer someone that has foundations in the King James Version Bible who is Protestant. Rules are listed below. If you don't like my rules, then please do not accept.

1. We will use the King James Version Bible and/or the English Standard Version only to prove our points. Any other form of literature such as the Apocrypha cannot be used. Basically, sola scriptura.

2. Do not make this debate about nit-picky things like grammar messups that the pro/con uses. That can make a debate lose it's whole point and is decided by the voters anyway.

3. We will be debating on the matter of the Godhead: Oneness vs. Trinitarianism. Please do not move this debate to other topics.

4. Have fun! <--- (cliche rule)


I am an Anglican who agrees with the belief that God has three parts yet is one God. Matthew 28:19 reads "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,", which is a clear reference to God himself being of three parts, and many other verses mention the same topic. Seeing as you used your first round to list rules, I will keep my introductory statements brief. Many verses in scripture refer to God as being of three parts, and many others refer to god as one individual. Since the Bile is completely true, that means that while there is one God, he is present in three parts, and that those parts are all equal, but fulfill different roles. It also can be explained in this diagram: and is mentioned in many different verses.
Debate Round No. 1


Opening Arguments

Thank you msl for accepting my debate! I'm looking forward to this a lot. I will start my opening argument by stating that I am an Apostolic. Basically, if you don't know what that is, I believe in the doctrine that was set forward by the Apostles. However, I do believe the rest of the Bible to be completely true. I believe in Deuteronomy 6:4 which states there to be only one God. ("Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:") I do not believe that this one God is separated into three persons. I do not find this mentioned anywhere in the Bible. I do find that in Galatians 3:20 it states, "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. It seems quite simple to me. If the Bible says that there is one God that just tells me how many Gods there are. If the Bible says God is one that would indicate how many God is. So, not only is there one God, but the one God is one.


You state that Matthew 28:19 is a perfect example of the Trinity. I would be inclined to persuade you otherwise. You see, Matthew 28:19 is a great example of who God is. It shows us who the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost actually are. Let me explain a bit better. We can see more clearly that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually just descriptive titles if we diagram the sentence partially. So here we go!

This shows the noun that the other prepositional phrases are modifying. (Below)


This shows that Father is a descriptive title that modifies the noun. (Below)


This shows how Son is also a descriptive title that modifies the noun. (Below)


Finally, Holy Ghost is also shown to be a descriptive title modifying the noun. (Below)


This clearly shows to be pointing to a name. It points to a person who embodies all of these titles. (Hint: Corinthians 2:9) Well, let us make this easy on everyone and figure out in what name the apostles baptized. Every time in the Bible, the apostles baptized in Jesus Name. Acts 2:38 says, "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." We also see that in Acts 8:16, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." It cannot get much simpler than this. Jesus is the Father of Creation. He is the Son in Redemption. He is the Holy Ghost in emanation. These describe who He is. He does not morph into these persons over time. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

P.S. If you cannot see the photos, check out my photo album labeled, "Debate Oneness." Thanks.



I agree with my opponent that God is the same always. But he is one being, who is in three distinct parts. 2nd Corinthians 8:6 and 13:14 say that is one father and one son, and also describe the roles of each. Why would the Bible refer to three separate individuals and one God. If God was not three in one, then why describe himself as such. Also, in Genesis 1:26, God says, Let US make man in OUR image. A single God would not refer to himself in such a way, whereas a triune God would.

The Nicene Creed is as follows:

WE BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.


I refer to the second and final verses in saying that:

1. The Nicene Creed is Trinitarian


2. The Nicene Creed is correctly Apostolic

I do not use this as irrefutable evidence, but wish to point out that to be Apostolic you can be Trinitarian. All Apostolic means is that you agree with the Apostles, not that you are not Trinitarian. To quote the Apostle Peter, (1 Peter 1:2) According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Peter clearly separates the distinct parts of God but does not say that they are also not one God. In this way he affirms that God is Triune.

I wish to close by saying that Matthew 3:13-17 describes each person of God not simply as roles but as individuals. Isiah 43:11 refers to God as one being. Since the Bible is completely true, then both statements must be true simultaneously.

(please pardon the use of the Nicene Creed, it was for demonstrative purposes not to prove anything just to explain)
Debate Round No. 2


Con states, " If God was not three in one, then why describe Himself as such?" He also uses Isaiah 43:11 to prove that the Bible says that there is only one God. Both of these statements go against his actual argument, that God is one made up of three persons.

Both of these seem to make it sound like a fourth person is speaking for the three persons that are already there. "I, even, I am the Lord; and besides me there is no saviour." -Isaiah 43:11 Using this verse to prove the Trinity is very flawed. If the Trinity is true, then whoever is speaking in this verse (presumably the Father) is saying that the other members of the Trinity do not exist. In the later chapters this same person says, "there is no God beside me" and "I am the Lord is there none else". The absolute only way a Trinitarian could justify this is by saying the "essence of God" said this. If this wasn't the essence of God, then these verses directly contradict the idea of a Trinity.

The Nicene Creed is absolutely not Apostolic as it was defined in AD 325. This was over 200 years sinced Jesus' apostles had been alive. This is entirely irrelevant anyway. The apostles could not have consented to this creed as they weren't alive to even hear about it.

Matthew 3:13-17 is a commonly used Trinitarian verse. To understand this verse, we have to understand the point of this account entirely. The whole point of this was for John to know who the Messiah was. John obviously didn't know who it was because he said, "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." The dove coming from heaven was a sign from God. Since God was a spirit that could not be seen, He manifested His presence upon Jesus in the sign of a dove. Also, the way John relates it to us in Scripture seems to infer that he alone saw the dove as it was a sign only for him. In Scripture, only the voice from heaven is shown as factual history. So like the sign of the dove, so also was the voice from heaven a sign to the people that witnessed the event. Again, God has manifested Himself to His people in various ways. This does not mean these manifestations are a person in the Godhhead.

Question to Con: Jehovah says in Isaiah 45:23 that every knee shall bow to HIm. He also says every tongue will swear unto Him. Wait a minute though. In Philippians 2:10, it says that every knee shall bow unto Jesus. Also, guess what? Every tongue shall swear unto Him. So, who will we be bowing down to? Perhaps, we will all be bowing down to the same person... Jesus.

PS: I will speak on Gen. 1:26 next round. Enjoying this!


msl101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since msl has forfeited I'm not sure what exactly to do. I believe I have stated my argument quite well. I have also defeated most of his main points. It was fun debating you and thank you for accepting!


msl101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Kyle_the_Heretic 2 years ago
No problem. I don't blame you for sticking to your criteria. I would have done the same.
Posted by TheContendr 2 years ago
I'm sorry @kyle_the_heretic, I would rather debate a Trinitarian this time around. In the future, I'll consider doing a similar one with you. Thanks! :D
Posted by Kyle_the_Heretic 2 years ago
No argument here. That's why I presented my position before accepting the challenge.
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
Then you're not a trinitarian, Kyle.
Posted by Kyle_the_Heretic 2 years ago
As I understand it, Trinitarian belief is that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one being (based on the Nicene Creed). I do not believe that. I believe that all three exist, but as separate and distinct beings.
Posted by TheContendr 2 years ago
@kyle_the_heretic Would you consider yourself a Trinitarian? (ex. You believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.)
Posted by Kyle_the_Heretic 2 years ago
I am not a protestant, nor do I believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one. I believe they are three separate individuals. I am well acquainted with the KJV, having studied it exclusively. If you can accept my position, I would be glad to accept the challenge if someone doesn't beat me to it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70