Is the Doctrine of Trinity a Logical Contradiction?

[McCulloch]

He [God] is not capable of instantiating logical contradictions. Why did you think He could? What did you take omnipotence to mean?

And yet Trinitarian Christians insist that God is a logical contradiction. There is one God. The Son of God is God. God the Father is God. But the Son is not the Father.

For one, Christians do not insist God is a logical contradiction. You might believe that the Trinity is a logical contradiction, but that is apart from it being the Christian's stated belief that God is a logical contradiction. Your objection here is completely irrelevant.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons (Greek: ὑποστάσεις): the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial (Greek: �μοο�σιοι). Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being (Greek: ο�σία). The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.

According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds". While distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed describes Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".

Question for debate: Is the Doctrine of Trinity a Logical Contradiction?

[Rkrause]

Just wondering, but but I think there is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen. It can be liquid where we call it water, or gas where we call it steam, or solid where we call it ice. Is this a logical contradiction?

I don't think so. Atoms have 3 seperate parts all different but make up one atom.

God has three persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit all different but make up one God, yet can act independently from each other.

If only it was that simple. The three persons don't make up one God, each person is God.

That's like saying the atom has three (kinds of) particles, the neutrons, the protons and the electrons, the neutrons is an atom, the protons is an atom and electrons is an atom; Water molecule has two parts hydrogen and oxygen, hydrogen is a water molecule, oxygon is a water molecule.

Trinitarian don't call it a divine mystery for nothing. What I don't get is why they insist on it when God being made up of three parts like you two think makes so much more sense.

There is only one God yet three independent persons. The trinity trys to explain that.

[McCulloch]

All analogies break down but here is another one that may help.

Think of a baseball team named God. The Father is the manager, Jesus is the star player and the Holy Spirit is the 3rd base coach. Humans are all on third base waiting to go to home plate (Heaven). The Father tells Jesus to sacrifice to get everyone home. Jesus does and the Holy Spirit tells everyone to run to home. Some people start to run and turn back, some don't believe and they stay on third, some run home.

The three are all one team. They can combine into one being if they wish. They can act independently as well.

So, in this analogy, Jesus is not God but part of the God team. This is not the Doctrine of Trinity.

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

I disagree. The problem is not with language. We can use language to express very subtle and very complex ideas. My claim is that the underlying idea is logically flawed. Jesus cannot be fully God and a separate person on the God team at the same time.

[Rkrause]

All analogies break down but here is another one that may help.

Think of a baseball team named God. The Father is the manager, Jesus is the star player and the Holy Spirit is the 3rd base coach. Humans are all on third base waiting to go to home plate (Heaven). The Father tells Jesus to sacrifice to get everyone home. Jesus does and the Holy Spirit tells everyone to run to home. Some people start to run and turn back, some don't believe and they stay on third, some run home.

The three are all one team. They can combine into one being if they wish. They can act independently as well.

So, in this analogy, Jesus is not God but part of the God team. This is not the Doctrine of Trinity.

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

I disagree. The problem is not with language. We can use language to express very subtle and very complex ideas. My claim is that the underlying idea is logically flawed. Jesus cannot be fully God and a separate person on the God team at the same time.

If God was pure energy rather than a type of material would that make sense?

Sorry, I am at a loss for words of what my mind is "seeing".

[Fides et Veritas]

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

and

Sorry, I am at a loss for words of what my mind is "seeing".

I find it amazing that language gets the blame. It has never crossed your mind that if you can't explain something from the book you base your faith on, that it might just not be there? If the Bible doesn't prove it out, without private interpretation and exegesis, then it probably isn't Biblical in the first place.

Just an observation.

[Rkrause]

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

and

Sorry, I am at a loss for words of what my mind is "seeing".

I find it amazing that language gets the blame. It has never crossed your mind that if you can't explain something from the book you base your faith on, that it might just not be there? If the Bible doesn't prove it out, without private interpretation and exegesis, then it probably isn't Biblical in the first place.

Just an observation.

Biblical proof and scientific proofs are two different things.

[Fides et Veritas]

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

and

Sorry, I am at a loss for words of what my mind is "seeing".

I find it amazing that language gets the blame. It has never crossed your mind that if you can't explain something from the book you base your faith on, that it might just not be there? If the Bible doesn't prove it out, without private interpretation and exegesis, then it probably isn't Biblical in the first place.

Just an observation.

Biblical proof and scientific proofs are two different things.

Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God, regardless if you believe in one god, ten gods or one thousand gods. The only proof is what you choose to see. When you see a sunset do you see only nature and science? Or do you see God and science? Thats about it for most people. However, I contend that the pagan trinity ideal is not only lacking of sound logic but also Biblical proofs.

[Rkrause]

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

and

Sorry, I am at a loss for words of what my mind is "seeing".

I find it amazing that language gets the blame. It has never crossed your mind that if you can't explain something from the book you base your faith on, that it might just not be there? If the Bible doesn't prove it out, without private interpretation and exegesis, then it probably isn't Biblical in the first place.

Just an observation.

Biblical proof and scientific proofs are two different things.

Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God, regardless if you believe in one god, ten gods or one thousand gods. The only proof is what you choose to see. When you see a sunset do you see only nature and science? Or do you see God and science? Thats about it for most people. However, I contend that the pagan trinity ideal is not only lacking of sound logic but also Biblical proofs.

Personally, I see nature, science and God during a sunset. However, if you turn around you can watch the dark rise and that is neat as well.

I had everything typed out and researched on my own a long time ago but I have no idea where it it so I will give you a link that I believe comes close to Biblical proofs of the Trinity.

http://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god

[Bust Nak]

There is only one God yet three independent persons. The trinity trys to explain that.

And God is made out of three parts with the son, the father and the holy spirit each being a third of the whole is a far better explaination than trinity. So I am wondering why many Christians subscribe to the trinity, why is divine simplicity so important that they are willing to accept this "divine mystery" or logical contradiction in all but name.

All analogies break down but here is another one that may help.

Think of a baseball team named God. The Father is the manager, Jesus is the star player and the Holy Spirit is the 3rd base coach.

That's still not trinity. Trinity says the Father is a member of the team - he is the baseball team. Jesus is not a member of the team - he is the baseball team. The holy spirit is not a member of the team - he is the baseball team.

[Flail]

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

and

Sorry, I am at a loss for words of what my mind is "seeing".

I find it amazing that language gets the blame. It has never crossed your mind that if you can't explain something from the book you base your faith on, that it might just not be there? If the Bible doesn't prove it out, without private interpretation and exegesis, then it probably isn't Biblical in the first place.

Just an observation.

Biblical proof and scientific proofs are two different things.

Is the Trinity Biblical? What Bible passages would you have us consider as proof of the Trinity?

[Rkrause]

The main problem with something like this is that language is symbolic and very limited but I hope that helps.

and

Sorry, I am at a loss for words of what my mind is "seeing".

I find it amazing that language gets the blame. It has never crossed your mind that if you can't explain something from the book you base your faith on, that it might just not be there? If the Bible doesn't prove it out, without private interpretation and exegesis, then it probably isn't Biblical in the first place.

Just an observation.

Biblical proof and scientific proofs are two different things.

Is the Trinity Biblical? What Bible passages would you have us consider as proof of the Trinity?

See the link about two posts above this one. It is the best I could find while at work.