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?

[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.

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

Alright that is absolute exegesis. In its purest form. The fact that people choose not only to continue to believe in this pagan system but also to twist scripture upside down to 'reveal' hints and guesses and implications to 'prove' their point is beyond heretical.

I don't completely fault those who have been indoctrinated with it heir whole lives, but at some point one has to look at scripture and say “wait, that isn't correct!!�. But instead we get generation after generation of Trinitarians being told that scripture A and B plainly imply the trinity.

I find is sad really.

[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

Alright that is absolute exegesis. In its purest form. The fact that people choose not only to continue to believe in this pagan system but also to twist scripture upside down to 'reveal' hints and guesses and implications to 'prove' their point is beyond heretical.

I don't completely fault those who have been indoctrinated with it heir whole lives, but at some point one has to look at scripture and say “wait, that isn't correct!!�. But instead we get generation after generation of Trinitarians being told that scripture A and B plainly imply the trinity.

I find is sad really.

Thats fine, but looking and studying this for years I see the connections from the whole picture not just certain passages that I presented from a website.

[AquinasD]

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.

It's always the important jots and tittles one forgets. I'm sorry, that is should be an isn't.

As to whether the Trinity is logical, I want to get at this from a particular perspective. When we analyze a doctrine like that of the Trinity, we seem to be presented with a plain logical contradiction; God is One and God is Three. We can always introduce certain distinctions, but this glosses over a fundamental point which the Trinity hinges on. That is whether or not God must be enumerable.

For something to be enumerable, it follows that it can be brought to a parity with meaning. That is, there is some proposition that captures its whole reality and sets forth a set of logical entailments that constitutes its own paradigm.

Can God be enumerated in this way? I think we have good reasons for believing that this cannot be the case.

For one, God is the foundation of everything. He is the reason that there can be anything at all, and what there can be and how it can be is dependent on His reality. He is the principle of being, the source of order and reality. This includes the possibility of something's being enumerated.

However, if enumeration is in this sense posterior to God's reality, then God cannot be wholly enumerated, because He is prior to the possibility of enumeration. In fact, He founds the possibility of enumeration.

What does this produce for our analysis of God? It doesn't seem to imply that we can't speak of God whatsoever. At most, only that we can't speak directly of God; instead, we pick out the pillars of reality and see where they logically resolve. We can lay down straight lines which pick out a tangent on the circle, as it were. So we can still speak sensibly of God, only with that perpetual qualification on our language.

As such, this leaves wiggle room for conclusions about God which don't seem resolvable to each other. It is only required that they don't be contrary.

Is it contrary to say that God is Three Persons? No. Each Person is God, yes, but this is because God is necessarily those Three Persons. Unity and Trinity can't be resolved by our language, but on the other hand they can't be shown contrary. This is a philosophical justification for the possibility of revelation which provides access to these divine realities not otherwise known by reason.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 23:

...
For one, God is the foundation of everything. He is the reason that there can be anything at all, and what there can be and how it can be is dependent on His reality. He is the principle of being, the source of order and reality. This includes the possibility of something's being enumerated.

If only for me, this reeks of an a priori assumption or two. I'm hoping you can get around my notion.

...
What does this produce for our analysis of God? It doesn't seem to imply that we can't speak of God whatsoever. At most, only that we can't speak directly of God; instead, we pick out the pillars of reality and see where they logically resolve. We can lay down straight lines which pick out a tangent on the circle, as it were. So we can still speak sensibly of God, only with that perpetual qualification on our language.

I can't escape the sense that what is being got at here is, "We can't show none of it, but we can comment like all get out".

As such, this leaves wiggle room for conclusions about God which don't seem resolvable to each other. It is only required that they don't be contrary.

I'm always weary of those who need "wiggle room" in presenting their claims or conclusions.

Is it contrary to say that God is Three Persons? No. Each Person is God, yes, but this is because God is necessarily those Three Persons.

I contend he's 'necessarily' those three persons 'cause folks done called him that. I propose that if there were no a priori assumption, there'd be no need for an explanation regarding what we're essentially told is, "No contradiction, least not 'til I go to wigglin'".

Notice, the god in question is these three persons, but while he's being 'em, he ain't. And those same three persons god ain't, are. That's the kinda contradiction you can "wiggle" till your britches fall off, and that contradiction's gonna reach down and find out his did too.

[AquinasD]

If only for me, this reeks of an a priori assumption or two. I'm hoping you can get around my notion.

The question is about whether the doctrine of the Trinity is logical. To even ask that question we need to import some idea about God and logic. Unless you want me to start from the very beginning of our knowledge, you're just going to have to either address those assumptions or roll with them for the purposes of the thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

If only for me, this reeks of an a priori assumption or two. I'm hoping you can get around my notion.

The question is about whether the doctrine of the Trinity is logical. To even ask that question we need to import some idea about God and logic. Unless you want me to start from the very beginning of our knowledge, you're just going to have to either address those assumptions or roll with them for the purposes of the thread.

In seeking to ensure I don't derail the thread...

Can I put my previous comments on hold for now, and reserve the right to put 'em back into play?

I respect that I ain't the brightest of bulbs, and there you are one of 'em, but I do (did?) feel my comments were legit and / or on topic.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

For one, God is the foundation of everything. He is the reason that there can be anything at all, and what there can be and how it can be is dependent on His reality. He is the principle of being, the source of order and reality. This includes the possibility of something's being enumerated.

Is "enumerated" just a fancy word for "counted" or is there some distinction?

[McCulloch]

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

Not much. By the way, energy and matter are fundamentally equivalent: E = mC².
I thought that God was Spirit, not energy.

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

I am sorry as well.

Biblical proof and scientific proofs are two different things.

They certainly are. Scientific proof is based on observable reality. Biblical proof is based on the unverified musings of ancient mystics.

Can God be enumerated in this way? I think we have good reasons for believing that this cannot be the case.

So you disagree with the fellow who claimed, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God; the LORD is one. "

Unity and Trinity can't be resolved by our language, but on the other hand they can't be shown contrary.

Yes, they can.

[font=Times New Roman]1[/font] represents a single entity.

[font=Times New Roman]3[/font] represents more than one entity. Three is the first odd prime number, and the second smallest prime.

Can you explain how a person, Jesus, can be both part of something and entirely something? I cannot.

[theopoesis]

There are various formulations of the Trinity which one can find in the history of Christian doctrine. Some formulations do seem to involve a logical contradiction. Others do not seem to involve a logical contradiction. Some formulations, "Jesus is God, the Father is God, Jesus is not the Father" seem to be contradictory. Others, such as "There is One God who eternally subsists in Three Persons" would not fall subject to this same contradiction.

Furthermore, to claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is a "mystery", while true, can mean many things. To some, "mystery" is "the fullfillment and manifestation of the divine being" as in the mysteriam tremendum. This doctrine would indicate that "The Trinity is a mystery" actually means "The Trinity is the phenomenological manifestation of the One God experienced in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Yet, these three Persons are all part of One amazing experience we call God." To others, "mystery" means the negation of all our rational, experiential, and ontological categories. In this way, God is pure transcendence, transcending even basic created categories such as number or being. So Vladimir Lossky can say that the Trinity is the ultimate mystery but by this can mean that, by being both one and three, God even transcends our basic categories of number and being, and so we are left contemplating the ineffable, inconceivable, infinite God by continually trying to focus our minds on the two polarities of the divine being, ultimately collapsing into silence and awe. For others, "God is mystery" means that we cannot know God in his immanence, but only in His economy, in the way God has worked in the world. And this work has consisted of three persons who claim to be one, and this work is the immanent trinity as far as we are concerned. Each of these three formulations mean very different things.

So, in short, a few conclusions:


(1) Not all Christians believe that 3=1 and dismiss an obvious contradiction as an unknowable mystery
(2) There is not one doctrine of the Trinity, but many. So even if one fails, the basic idea may not
(3) It is usually best to study these things as part of a larger theological system, rather than through an analogy or one monolithic sentence or a single picture.

[theopoesis]

[font=Times New Roman]1[/font] represents a single entity.

[font=Times New Roman]3[/font] represents more than one entity. Three is the first odd prime number, and the second smallest prime.

Can you explain how a person, Jesus, can be both part of something and entirely something? I cannot.

This is not orthodox trinitarian theology as formulated by most of the Church fathers.

God is one entity, which eternally exists as three persons. A person does not equal an entity, but is a particular way that an entity can exists. So, an entity can exist as a person, as an object, as an idea, as a possibility. God is one entity who exists as three distinct persons, three distinct simultaneous modes. This objection fails to understand the basic patristic conception of a person.