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]

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.

That sounds like modalism rather than trinity.

yeah. it is.

(grin)

But that's ONE of the reasons Catholics and mainstream Christians don't think I am.

Christian, that is.

Three parts to a whole makes way more sense than three wholes to one whole. Perharps you can tell me why mainstream Christians thinks it's important to treat Jesus as the entirely of God rather than a part of God? Is it because Jesus is referred to as God in some part of the Bible?

And what passages do you use to support your non trinitarian views - Surely it's not simply because 1+1+1 = 1 doesn't make sense?

How dare you question the mainstream christian mathematical prowess!! 1+1+1=1 is absolute solid math. Everyone knows this. You have merely been deceived by the evil Satan (education)! Repent now and forget your learnedness and become enlightened like them!

[theopoesis]

1. This line of Patristic thought seems to have reduced "God" to a collection of sentient minds. If such is the case, we cannot then assert that God is a "non-contingent" being, nor can we assert that God exists as an indivisible being. In regard to the former, according to your argument,the trinitarian God is made God by virtue of the persons which comprise it , in the absence of any one of these persons, "God" would cease to exists, thus the entity "God" is contingent upon the assemblage of its constituent properties (3 separate and distinct minds). God cannot therefore be named a "non-contingent" being. Regarding the later, if the existence of God is contingent upon the existence of its constituent properties, the entity "God" is reducible to its parts. Thus God cannot exist as a being indivisible (lacking constituent parts).

I still think this claim doesn't quite represent the model correctly. The three Persons are an existential category, not an ontological one. They describe how God exists. So to say that's God's existence is contingent on his Personhood is to say that God's existence is contingent on the way that God exists. If God did not exist as Persons, God would not exist. That's essentially saying "if God did not exist, God would not exist." I fail to see how that makes God continent.

Second, since the Persons are existential categories and not ontological categories, your claim as to constituent parts seems to fail. God isn't three ontological parts, nor is God three entities, nor is God three things. God is one ontological part, one entity, one thing that has a Tri-personal existence.

2. This depiction of "God" seems to render the notion of Jesus, the Father, and the spirit as each "God" patently false given that "God" is, according to patristic reasoning, an assemblage of its 3 persons. Independently, its persons lack the quality of God, in the same way that the atoms which comprise oxygen independently lack the quality of a molecule. Just as a proton is not Oxygen, Jesus, according to this line or reasoning, is apparently not "God".

This is a poor analogy, but perhaps it will help. Ionian_Tradition exists in three spatial dimensions: height, width, and depth. We cannot intelligibly speak of your height being Ionian_Tradition but your depth not being fully Ionian_Tradition. As the three dimensions if your existence, in your vertical and horizontal so to speak, you are simply you.

God does not exist spatially (debatable here but I'm just going to run with it). God exists as Father, as Son, and as Spirit. To say that these three "Dimensions" of God are not God doesn't really make sense, because the fullness of God exists in the form of Three Persons.

3. If God is a mere collection of 3 persons, then scriptural passages which refer to God as a singular person ("he", "him", "I") become contradictory ( I trust I need not list them). More accurate would be to refer to God as the great "we are" instead of the great "I am".

Some passages do use the plural (i.e. Genesis 1). Moreover, this can basically be interpreted as a "synecdoche", as long as you don't get to literal with the "part" in the definition of synecdoche. Finally, in the Greek, many non-personal words have a gender. So where the NT says "He" it can be a pronoun that simply means "God" and not "one masculine person." I do not know Hebrew to know how that works.

Scriptural passages such as Romans 11:34 ("Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" ) also seem problematic given that God is not a "him" (singular person) nor is God a sentient being which possesses a mind. God is no more sentient than a military tribunal. The only minds to be known are those which comprise the trinity (father, son, spirit), but as stated previously, not one of these minds exists as "God" independently, thus to assert that "God" possesses a mind, is to assert something quite false. God is a collection of beings (who are not independently God) which themselves possess separate and distinct minds.

"The Lord" is a title not fully equivalent with God. Thus, we see "Jesus is Lord" in Romans 10:9.

Beyond that, the same claims I made about synecdoche apply here.

Personally I believe that that trinitarian monotheism is "monotheistic" in title alone. 3 sentient beings possessing both divine omniscience and omnipotence are clearly Gods by any traditional definition of the term. Thus to make 3 divines into "one God" by redefining the term "God" into the amalgamate of 3 supernatural minds is to move the goal post indeed.

I'm not particularly concerned with the "traditional definition" of monotheism. I'm concerned with the Biblical witness. Trinitarianism can be a valid reading of the Christian Scriptures based on very thorough exegesis. Basil of Caesarea, for example, examined every preposition in the New Testament referring to the Father, Son, and Spirit to see if he could discern some difference between the three this way. He found there was no systematic differentiation between the prepositions which were used of them. Trinitarian theologians were very detailed in their analysis of the Old and New Testament, and though these can both be read in non-Trinitarian ways, they can also be read in very clearly Trinitarian.

[McCulloch]

And what passages do you use to support your non trinitarian views - Surely it's not simply because 1+1+1 = 1 doesn't make sense?

Trinity can be expressed as 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Modalism can be expressed as 1 × 1 × 1 = 1

Modalism makes more sense to me.

[99percentatheism]

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?

No. It is a way of describing the communication from God to us in the Bible. Obvioulsy, for those that believe im Maimonides' theololgy (Judaism: anthropomorphism is allusion), or people that are non or anti Christian in the sense of the declarations made by Christians about the Nature of God as Trinity, the trinity makes proper sinse in explaining all of the different aspects of the God as declared in the Bible. God is walking around in the Garden of eden, "He" is talking with Abraham, "He" is walking throughout the Israelite camp in such a real form that the Israelites are taught to bury their excrement. We have God the Spirit motivating the great heroes of the Bible and we have "The Word of the Lord" interacting wqith people in the Old and New Testament.

The very identity of any human being exists in a trinity. No one is "who" they are (personage and identity) if any aspect of their father, mother or themselves is altered. And, we are not Deity.

The Trinity is a very logical assertion.

[Rkrause]

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.

That sounds like modalism rather than trinity.

yeah. it is.

(grin)

But that's ONE of the reasons Catholics and mainstream Christians don't think I am.

Christian, that is.

Three parts to a whole makes way more sense than three wholes to one whole. Perharps you can tell me why mainstream Christians thinks it's important to treat Jesus as the entirely of God rather than a part of God? Is it because Jesus is referred to as God in some part of the Bible?

And what passages do you use to support your non trinitarian views - Surely it's not simply because 1+1+1 = 1 doesn't make sense?

How dare you question the mainstream christian mathematical prowess!! 1+1+1=1 is absolute solid math. Everyone knows this. You have merely been deceived by the evil Satan (education)! Repent now and forget your learnedness and become enlightened like them!

Not if God is pure energy outside of space and time and outside of our physical limitataions.

[Fides et Veritas]

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.

That sounds like modalism rather than trinity.

yeah. it is.

(grin)

But that's ONE of the reasons Catholics and mainstream Christians don't think I am.

Christian, that is.

Three parts to a whole makes way more sense than three wholes to one whole. Perharps you can tell me why mainstream Christians thinks it's important to treat Jesus as the entirely of God rather than a part of God? Is it because Jesus is referred to as God in some part of the Bible?

And what passages do you use to support your non trinitarian views - Surely it's not simply because 1+1+1 = 1 doesn't make sense?

How dare you question the mainstream christian mathematical prowess!! 1+1+1=1 is absolute solid math. Everyone knows this. You have merely been deceived by the evil Satan (education)! Repent now and forget your learnedness and become enlightened like them!

Not if God is pure energy outside of space and time and outside of our physical limitataions.

So... does this leave all the verses that describe God and Christ as having bodies, heads, arms, legs, hair, etc. as mere metaphors? If so where does that leave the inerrant word of God? It's one thing to allow for obvious metaphors (dreams, parables, visions, etc.), but to start reducing any scripture that runs perpendicular to your wanted beliefs, is in error. When you start going outside the Bible to find your truths is a very slippery slope. God is not described as mere energy but a Spirit being with a shape like ours, hence the 'created in... image and likeness."

[Rkrause]

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.

That sounds like modalism rather than trinity.

yeah. it is.

(grin)

But that's ONE of the reasons Catholics and mainstream Christians don't think I am.

Christian, that is.

Three parts to a whole makes way more sense than three wholes to one whole. Perharps you can tell me why mainstream Christians thinks it's important to treat Jesus as the entirely of God rather than a part of God? Is it because Jesus is referred to as God in some part of the Bible?

And what passages do you use to support your non trinitarian views - Surely it's not simply because 1+1+1 = 1 doesn't make sense?

How dare you question the mainstream christian mathematical prowess!! 1+1+1=1 is absolute solid math. Everyone knows this. You have merely been deceived by the evil Satan (education)! Repent now and forget your learnedness and become enlightened like them!

Not if God is pure energy outside of space and time and outside of our physical limitataions.

So... does this leave all the verses that describe God and Christ as having bodies, heads, arms, legs, hair, etc. as mere metaphors? If so where does that leave the inerrant word of God? It's one thing to allow for obvious metaphors (dreams, parables, visions, etc.), but to start reducing any scripture that runs perpendicular to your wanted beliefs, is in error. When you start going outside the Bible to find your truths is a very slippery slope. God is not described as mere energy but a Spirit being with a shape like ours, hence the 'created in... image and likeness."

Matter is made out of energy so a being composed of energy could convert that to matter. Dreams can be influenced by energy as well.

As far as being created in Gods image they mean Holy not with 10 fingers and toes.

Ephesians 4:24
New International Version (NIV)

24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Colossians 3:10
New International Version (NIV)

10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Romans 8:29
New International Version (NIV)

29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

1 John 3:2
New International Version (NIV)

2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Notice we don't have to look like Jesus rather we need to holy and righteous in likeness to him.

[dianaiad]

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.

That sounds like modalism rather than trinity.

yeah. it is.

(grin)

But that's ONE of the reasons Catholics and mainstream Christians don't think I am.

Christian, that is.

Three parts to a whole makes way more sense than three wholes to one whole. Perharps you can tell me why mainsteam Christians thinks it's important to treat Jesus as the entirely of God rather than a part of God? Is it because Jesus is referred to as God in some part of the Bible?

I don't know why mainstream Christianity thinks of trinitarianism the way it does, because the whole concept has never made sense to me.

Indeed, most of the time, when Christians start talking 'trinity,' they end up describing modalism--which almost everybody figures is a heretic notion.

And what passages do you use to support your non trinitarian views - Surely it's not simply because 1+1+1 = 1 doesn't make sense?

Nope. I have this problem with events such as the baptism of Jesus, where there He is, His Father's voice comes from elsewhere, and the Holy Ghost descends upon Him. The question I ask is....how did They do that if They are all One, and more importantly, WHY?

My view of the trinity is probably closer to the original Orthodox view, which has a great deal more separation of the Persons; that is, yes all Three are God...but they are very much separate Beings and Persons, complete unto Themselves.

Someone once likened it to three people sharing a job. As in, there is this "job,' or 'position' of 'God.' Three separate Persons share it. Like all other analogies attempting to explain it, that one is flawed, of course--but it's at least as good as the one using a three leafed clover!

[theopoesis]

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.

That sounds like modalism rather than trinity.

Nope. That's why the word "eternally" is important. Modalism suggests that there is one God who is manifest in several different subsequent modes throughout history. Trinitarianism says that there is one God who is eternally manifest in three persons. There is no confusion of persons, nor any subsequent manifestations. All are co-eternal.

[Ionian_Tradition]

1. This line of Patristic thought seems to have reduced "God" to a collection of sentient minds. If such is the case, we cannot then assert that God is a "non-contingent" being, nor can we assert that God exists as an indivisible being. In regard to the former, according to your argument,the trinitarian God is made God by virtue of the persons which comprise it , in the absence of any one of these persons, "God" would cease to exists, thus the entity "God" is contingent upon the assemblage of its constituent properties (3 separate and distinct minds). God cannot therefore be named a "non-contingent" being. Regarding the later, if the existence of God is contingent upon the existence of its constituent properties, the entity "God" is reducible to its parts. Thus God cannot exist as a being indivisible (lacking constituent parts).

I still think this claim doesn't quite represent the model correctly. The three Persons are an existential category, not an ontological one. They describe how God exists. So to say that's God's existence is contingent on his Personhood is to say that God's existence is contingent on the way that God exists. If God did not exist as Persons, God would not exist. That's essentially saying "if God did not exist, God would not exist." I fail to see how that makes God continent.

My comment refers to the conditions necessary in order for a trinitarian God to exist. It is possible that only 2 of the three members of the trinity could exist. The absence of the third would, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, cause "God" to cease existing. Thus we can imagine a scenario where elements of God exist while God itself does not, in the same way that atoms can exist in a form which is not Oxygen. Therefore, it seems clear that the existence of God is contingent upon a particular arrangement of divine persons, some of whom could theoretically continue existing in the absence of "God". This is quite different from saying "if God did not exist, then God would not exist".

Second, since the Persons are existential categories and not ontological categories, your claim as to constituent parts seems to fail. God isn't three ontological parts, nor is God three entities, nor is God three things. God is one ontological part, one entity, one thing that has a Tri-personal existence.

Minds are more than mere existential categories, they are beings which possess an ontological quality. Minds are necessary in order for persons to exist. Thus if the Trinity is tri-personal, it possesses 3 separate and distinct minds which together form a phenomenon we refer to as "God". This notion however, denotes that the entity God is reducible to its parts (three minds). To be sure, God is "one" as oxygen is "one", this is merely to say that God is comprised of constituent parts (3 minds) which together form a "whole" we call God, in the same way that oxygen is comprised of constituent atoms which together form a molecule. Unless I've overlooked something, which is certainly possible, I believe my claim stands lest you somehow demonstrate that minds are not beings which exist ontologically.

2. This depiction of "God" seems to render the notion of Jesus, the Father, and the spirit as each "God" patently false given that "God" is, according to patristic reasoning, an assemblage of its 3 persons. Independently, its persons lack the quality of God, in the same way that the atoms which comprise oxygen independently lack the quality of a molecule. Just as a proton is not Oxygen, Jesus, according to this line or reasoning, is apparently not "God".

This is a poor analogy, but perhaps it will help. Ionian_Tradition exists in three spatial dimensions: height, width, and depth. We cannot intelligibly speak of your height being Ionian_Tradition but your depth not being fully Ionian_Tradition. As the three dimensions if your existence, in your vertical and horizontal so to speak, you are simply you.

God does not exist spatially (debatable here but I'm just going to run with it). God exists as Father, as Son, and as Spirit. To say that these three "Dimensions" of God are not God doesn't really make sense, because the fullness of God exists in the form of Three Persons.

Indeed, to use your analogy, height is not me, nor is width or depth. But I require these things in order to exist as I am. In the same way God is not Jesus, the father, or the spirit... but God requires these persons in order to exist as it is. So while it may be true that together the father, son, and spirit make a God, just as height, width, and depth (amongst other things) create an Ionian_Tradition, it is not true that Jesus is God independently, just as width is not Ionian_Tradition independently. It takes more than width to make a Ionian_Tradition, similarly it takes more than a Jesus Christ to make a God. Thus the claim that Jesus is fully God is demonstrably false. Jesus is fully Jesus. In the absence of the additional members of the trinity, he is nothing more. Only through the relationship of the trinity can he be said to be a part of God.

3. If God is a mere collection of 3 persons, then scriptural passages which refer to God as a singular person ("he", "him", "I") become contradictory ( I trust I need not list them). More accurate would be to refer to God as the great "we are" instead of the great "I am".

Some passages do use the plural (i.e. Genesis 1). Moreover, this can basically be interpreted as a "synecdoche", as long as you don't get to literal with the "part" in the definition of synecdoche. Finally, in the Greek, many non-personal words have a gender. So where the NT says "He" it can be a pronoun that simply means "God" and not "one masculine person." I do not know Hebrew to know how that works.

If your Genesis 1 reference relates to the term "Elohim", it is commonly used to denote a singular god (the one God of Israel), to include a few pagan deities. Only when used in conjunction with verbs and adjectives does its plural form typically manifest, usually referring to multiple Gods, or more accurately, "powers". Neither use seems to serve your argument. Regarding the Greek, are you arguing that the intention of the biblical authors was to use words like "he", "him" & "I" to refer to a multipersonal entity? Are you implying that the terms in question were employed in a metaphoric sense similar to the way seamen refer to a ship as "her"? If so, I admit I find this reasoning somewhat specious. When God speaks of "himself" does it do so metaphorically as well?

Scriptural passages such as Romans 11:34 ("Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" ) also seem problematic given that God is not a "him" (singular person) nor is God a sentient being which possesses a mind. God is no more sentient than a military tribunal. The only minds to be known are those which comprise the trinity (father, son, spirit), but as stated previously, not one of these minds exists as "God" independently, thus to assert that "God" possesses a mind, is to assert something quite false. God is a collection of beings (who are not independently God) which themselves possess separate and distinct minds.

"The Lord" is a title not fully equivalent with God. Thus, we see "Jesus is Lord" in Romans 10:9.

Beyond that, the same claims I made about synecdoche apply here.

Would the same apply for Leviticus 26:13 when God states "I am the Lord your God"? Is this Jesus speaking? If so, how can this be true given that Jesus is not himself God independently?

Personally I believe that that trinitarian monotheism is "monotheistic" in title alone. 3 sentient beings possessing both divine omniscience and omnipotence are clearly Gods by any traditional definition of the term. Thus to make 3 divines into "one God" by redefining the term "God" into the amalgamate of 3 supernatural minds is to move the goal post indeed.

I'm not particularly concerned with the "traditional definition" of monotheism. I'm concerned with the Biblical witness. Trinitarianism can be a valid reading of the Christian Scriptures based on very thorough exegesis. Basil of Caesarea, for example, examined every preposition in the New Testament referring to the Father, Son, and Spirit to see if he could discern some difference between the three this way. He found there was no systematic differentiation between the prepositions which were used of them. Trinitarian theologians were very detailed in their analysis of the Old and New Testament, and though these can both be read in non-Trinitarian ways, they can also be read in very clearly Trinitarian.

I suppose that my issue with this pertains to the arbitrary manner in which the term "God" is defined here to fit the trinitarian model. Why is it that 3 divines make a "God" and not merely 1, 6 or 100? I see no reason why the term "God" should refer solely to a collection of 3 supernatural minds. Moreover, I fail to see how such a being constitutes a "necessary being" or "maximally great" being. Surely 4 divine minds seem no less "necessary" than 3, and a union of 4 divine minds seems "greater" (if nothing else than in quantity) than 3. Moreover the fundamental distinctions between trinitarian monotheism and a somewhat unique brand of Polytheism seem quite vague.