Debate: Is the Trinity Monotheism? | Dr. Ali Ataie vs. Dr. Joshua Sijuwade

Summary of the Debate: “Is the Trinity Monotheism?” (Dr. Joshua Sijuwade vs. Dr. Ali Ataie)

Framing and core question

The debate asks whether Christian Trinitarian doctrine—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God—can be consistent with monotheism (strict one-God worship).

• The Muslim side argues the Trinity amounts to polytheism or at least fails monotheism’s strict meaning.
• The Christian side argues the Trinity remains monotheistic under historically grounded philosophical definitions.

---

Dr. Joshua Sijuwade’s opening case (Trinity = monotheism)

1. Defense of a “historically grounded” Trinity

   • Sijuwade affirms the standard Niceno-Constantinopolitan creedal structure: one God (Father) and two other divine persons (Son and Spirit) who are of the same substance/nature as the Father.

   • He distinguishes:

     • Ontological equality: all three share the same divine nature/substance.
     • Relational distinction: they differ by relations of origin:
       • Father uncaused/unbegotten
       • Son eternally begotten
       • Spirit eternally proceeds (described as a weak/modified filioque-type view)

2. Why “one God” can still be the Trinity

   • Sijuwade argues that “God” is ambiguous and can be used in two ways:
     • Nominal sense: God as the fundamental source (the Father)
     • Predicative sense: calling the Son/Spirit “God” because they share the divine nature, not because they are the fundamental source
   • Therefore:
     • the Father is “the one God” in the key nominal sense
     • the Son and Spirit are divine, but not the fundamental source

3. Definition of monotheism

   • He offers a philosophical definition: Monotheism = belief in one fundamental divine entity (not necessarily “only one divine person,” and not necessarily “no other divine beings”).

   • He claims this aligns with scholarship on ancient Jewish monotheism, where other divine beings might exist, but YHWH alone is sole creator/ruler.

   • Under this definition, Trinitarianism is monotheistic because only the Father is fundamental while the others are non-fundamental though divine.

4. Philosophical model to address unity

   • Sijuwade proposes preserving unity by positing:
     • one divine substance/trope that is multiply located (aspects/locations corresponding to Father, Son, Spirit)
   • The goal is to avoid treating the Trinity as three numerically separate divine entities.

Conclusion of his side: “Trinity is monotheism” because it has one fundamental divine entity (Father) and one divine substance/trope shared across the persons.

---

Dr. Ali Ataie’s opening case (Trinity is not monotheism)

1. Critique: incompatible with strict monotheism

   • Ataie argues that both monarchical models and standard Trinitarian readings face a core “one-true-God vs. multiple divine persons” problem.
   • He implies that if Father, Son, and Spirit are each fully divine “in the strong sense,” then this effectively becomes multiple gods.

2. The New Testament presents “a god hierarchy”

   • Ataie claims the New Testament indicates:
     • the Father is the one true God
     • the Son is a “second god” / lesser god
   • He cites passages he interprets as supporting subordination or distinct divinity, including:
     • Jesus “not knowing” things (e.g., Matthew 24:36 and related claims)
     • Jesus’ dependence/limits (power, knowledge, temptation, death)
     • themes like “only the Father is absolutely good/perfect”
   • He concludes this points to henotheistic polytheism (multiple gods in hierarchy), not unitary monotheism.

3. Nicaea and later creeds as a shift

   • Ataie argues later creed language (e.g., “God from God,” “consubstantial”) tries to address earlier problems but leaves tension with texts like:
     • John 17:3 (“only true God”)
   • He frames Nicene development as attempts to mitigate polytheistic implications rather than remove them.

4. Ataie’s core argument against “grounding”

   • He challenges the idea that the Father’s role as “grounding” makes it monotheism.
   • Analogy: even if one person causes the others in a house, you still don’t call it “one human.”

5. Islamic framing

   • Ataie uses Islamic teaching (Quranic prohibitions against saying “trinity”) to argue the Trinity violates strict divine unity:
     • God “did not beget nor was begotten”
   • He claims that “God having a literal son” necessarily moves away from monotheism.

Conclusion of his side: Trinity is not monotheism because it posits multiple fully divine persons—ultimately multiple gods—even if one is “fundamental.”

---

First response round (key exchanges)

Sijuwade responds to Ataie’s critiques

1. Reasserts definitional priority

   • Sijuwade argues the debate depends on definitions and that Ataie does not accept Sijuwade’s working definition of monotheism.
   • He presses Ataie to provide a definition that would allow the Trinity to count as non-monotheistic.

2. Extrinsic vs. intrinsic aseity

   • Sijuwade clarifies that dependent relations (e.g., creator/grounding) do not necessarily negate independence/aseity in the grounding sense.

3. Subordination and hierarchy

   • In Q&A, he clarifies that hierarchy is relational (Father as causal source) rather than ontological (no different kind of divinity).

4. History of terms (homoousios, etc.)

   • He argues Ataie misrepresents how pro- and anti-Nicene views developed and how “same nature” language was used to secure equality of divinity.

Ataie responds to Sijuwade’s answers

1. Disputes monotheism-as-qualitative

   • Ataie argues Sijuwade’s “fundamentality” criterion tolerates multi-god realities that still “feel like polytheism.”
   • He gives the intuition that even “a million gods” could be declared “monotheistic” under a grounding rule—something he rejects.

2. Pushes “NT henotheism”

   • Ataie argues the New Testament supports multiple divine beings in a hierarchy, consistent with “two powers” and mediation theology.

3. Critiques trope/divine-substance model

   • He calls the trope/substance model insufficient:
     • it may not remove the impression of multiple divine persons
     • it risks collapsing into modalism-like sameness
     • it allegedly misses interpersonal/biblical relational distinctions
   • He criticizes the model as potentially becoming “word games” to avoid multiple gods.

---

Second response and Q&A highlights

Definitions dispute resurfaces

• Sijuwade: Even by Ataie’s implied standard (“one God, one person”), the Trinity might qualify because the Father is the one God in the nominal sense, while others are not counted as God in that same nominal way.
• Ataie: Sijuwade’s “God” usage is evasive or semantic, undermining monotheism.

Quran / New Testament continuity tension

• Sijuwade’s continuity challenge: If the New Testament teaches henotheism (multiple gods) and the Quran confirms earlier scriptures, then the Quran would be affirming henotheism—problematic for strict monotheism.
• Ataie’s response: Emphasizes Quranic authority to correct earlier narratives and implies the New Testament is not fully aligned with original revelation or trinitarian doctrine.

Q&A topics

• Matthew 24:36 and whether the Holy Spirit knows the hour
  • Sijuwade answers using a restrictive-quantifier approach: the verse denies knowledge for certain agents without explicitly negating it for the Spirit.
• Personhood and the role of the Holy Spirit
  • Ataie argues the Spirit is not clearly a distinct divine person in Scripture, often functioning as God’s power/agency.
  • Sijuwade argues the Spirit has person-like functions (intercession, mind, advocacy) and is distinct from the Father.

---

Main conclusions each side left with

• Sijuwade (affirmative): The Trinity is monotheism because:

  • there is only one fundamental divine entity (Father)
  • the Son and Spirit are divine but not fundamental
  • the Trinity has one shared divine substance/nature (modeled philosophically to preserve unity)

• Ataie (negative): The Trinity is not monotheism because:

  • it implies multiple fully divine persons—therefore multiple gods
  • “grounding” does not change the numerical count of divine realities
  • relevant scriptural passages (notably “only true God”) and Islamic teaching reject the Son’s/Spirit’s divinity in the sense needed for Trinitarianism

---

Presenters / contributors

• Dr. Joshua Sijuwade
• Dr. Ali Ataie
• Paul (host/moderator of the livestream debate; sets format/timing and reads audience questions)