Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[RedFan]

We can express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (three “persons” in one God) as a set of propositions in this way:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Holy Spirit is God.
6. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Son.

For simplicity’s sake we need consider only 1 through 4 (for 5 through 7 will stand or fall on the same logical analysis we apply to 1 through 4):

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

The difficulty in defending the Trinity has always been that these four propositions are, as a group, logically inconsistent when analyzed from the standpoint of the three basic rules of logical equivalence: self-identity (everything is identical to itself, i.e., x = x); symmetry (if two things are equivalent, they are equivalent in any order, i.e., if x = y, then y = x); and transitivity (if one thing is the same as another and that other is the same as a third, then the first is the same as the third, i.e., if x = y and y = z then x = z). The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity fares ill in this analysis.

To make them logically consistent, it is tempting to sacrifice one of the four tenets – and most early heresies took this tack. Thus, Arius sacrificed the third one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
3′. Therefore the Son is not God.

and Sabellius sacrificed the fourth one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4′. Therefore the Father is the Son.

Both Arius’ argument and Sabellius’ argument are logically consistent because, unlike the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, they satisfy all three of the aforementioned principles of logical consistency. Arius and Sabellius, although approaching the inconsistency from different perspectives, each preferred rationality to irrationality―even if it meant preferring heresy to orthodoxy.

Now, we Trinitarians have two choices. We can simply throw up our hands and declare that God does not have to play by the rules of logical consistency, thereby forever assigning the Trinity to the status of unfathomable mystery. Or, we can allow for identity and equivalence to be relative to their contexts. Thus, “Robert is good” can be consistent with “Robert is not good” as long as a different sense of “good” holds for each proposition (e.g., he is a good theologian; he is not a good golfer.)

To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. One can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” by separating out personhood from Godhood. How to tease them apart is the ultimate challenge of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

Who want to take a deep dive with me here?

 

[Wrangler]

Both Arius’ argument and Sabellius’ argument are logically consistent

Wrong. Both violate the Law of Identity, 1 is not 3.

 

[RedFan]

Wrong. Both violate the Law of Identity, 1 is not 3.

That's exactly what I said. 1 is not 3 according to both Arius and Sabellius. Each promoted the law of identity.

 

[Wrangler]

This thread should be re-titled

Exploring Trinitarian Anti-Logic​

 

[Lambano]

Made me look up hypostasis and ousia. I don't think Identity applies here. If we say Quartz is Rock and Basalt is Rock, we are not saying that Quartz is Basalt.

One of the many confusions here comes because we are used to using the word "God" to itself mean a distinct Person rather than a Nature or an underlying reality.

 

[Jack]

Genesis 18:1-2
1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,

 

[Galgal]

Who want to take a deep dive with me here?

God is one, meaning the unity of many in one. Literally in Hebrew God is Elohim, plural, "Gods". However, "Gods" in Genesis are spoken of as one.

So God can be 3, 4, 5, ... [as many as you like]. To say that God is only 3 is not correct, because in the Second Coming God will be incarnated in many people. And at the end of the Millennial Kingdom God will be incarnated in everyone.

 

[RedFan]

Thank for responding. I don't see how "one" means "the unity of many in one." The meaning of "One" just does not carry that implication. Whether "God is one" is a numerical declaration or a substantive declaration, or both, either way it doesn't support your "meaning."

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There is one God.

thje father is God
the Son is God
the HS is God.

so what is God? The issue is define God or the Godhead.

Thats why in reality, I do not think we will fully understand it until we see God.

We just need to take Gods word as what it says.and not worry about why it seems to contradict itself. just Have faith God knows what he is talking baout. and there are many thing we can not comprehend in this lifetime.

 

[Lambano]

so what is God? The issue is define God or the Godhead.

Thats why in reality, I do not think we will fully understand it until we see God.

Maybe not even then will we understand God.

 

[face2face]

Thank for responding. I don't see how "one" means "the unity of many in one." The meaning of "One" just does not carry that implication. Whether "God is one" is a numerical declaration or a substantive declaration, or both, either way it doesn't support your "meaning."

The Shema should be considered in this discussion:

Biblical Unitarianism provides the most straightforward interpretation of the Shema.

• The Shema does not support the Trinitarian concept of a triune personality, neither implicitly nor explicitly.
• God's identity was revealed at Mount Sinai without the need for further clarification.
• The Old Testament Jews understood the Shema in the same way that Biblical Unitarians interpret it today.

Nowhere in the Bible is the Shema redefined in fact the Lord Jesus Christ extols God's Oneness.

Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one Mk 12:28–29.

@Wrangler - If the Trinity were true, significant works of the Gospel like Romans and Hebrews would have devoted considerable attention to explaining it, especially since those who believe in it are supposedly the only ones who can be saved!

F2F

 

[TigersPaw]

I am not sure, why their is difficulty understanding the Trinity.
Its grade school logic, defined easily in scripture.

( face palm )

 

[RedFan]

The Shema should be considered in this discussion:

Biblical Unitarianism provides the most straightforward interpretation of the Shema.

• The Shema does not support the Trinitarian concept of a triune personality, neither implicitly nor explicitly.
• God's identity was revealed at Mount Sinai without the need for further clarification.
• The Old Testament Jews understood the Shema in the same way that Biblical Unitarians interpret it today.

Nowhere in the Bible is the Shema redefined in fact the Lord Jesus Christ extols God's Oneness.

Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one Mk 12:28–29.

@Wrangler - If the Trinity were true, significant works of the Gospel like Romans and Hebrews would have devoted considerable attention to explaining it, especially since those who believe in it are supposedly the only ones who can be saved!

F2F

I agree that we should consider the Shema in this discussion. The Shema first appears in Deuteronomy. In Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, however, we don't see that type of declaration. We see instead plural references to "gods" -- Elohim -- suggesting that the ancient Israelites believed in national gods (their own, of course, being the head of the pantheon). Even when the plural is not used, we see declarations like Ex. 20:2-3, rendered in the KJV as “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Saying “I am the Lord thy God,” rather than “I am the only God” as one would to a monotheist indicates how the ancient Israelites viewed their national God as one of many. (Ditto for Num. 15:41.)

That said, how are we to understand "The Lord is One" here? Numerically (there is one god, not more than one)? Substantively (God's nature is unity)? Something else?

 

[face2face]

I agree that we should consider the Shema in this discussion. The Shema first appears in Deuteronomy. In Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, however, we don't see that type of declaration. We see instead plural references to "gods" -- Elohim -- suggesting that the ancient Israelites believed in national gods (their own, of course, being the head of the pantheon). Even when the plural is not used, we see declarations like Ex. 20:2-3, rendered in the KJV as “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Saying “I am the Lord thy God,” rather than “I am the only God” as one would to a monotheist indicates how the ancient Israelites viewed their national God as one of many. (Ditto for Num. 15:41.)

That said, how are we to understand "The Lord is One" here? Numerically (there is one god, not more than one)? Substantively (God's nature is unity)? Something else?

Christianity did not alter the nature or identity of God but rather assumed the definitions and principles already established in Judaism. Biblical Unitarianism firmly aligns with the context of Old Testament Judaism and first-century Christianity; our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, John, and Paul.

To make the Trinity fit you need to redefine One, Person, He, Him etc etc.

When Jesus said, "Salvation is of the Jews," He recognized Himself as being Jewish and embraced the Jewish hope of the coming Kingdom. If there was a radical change where the Gospel was no longer "the Hope of Israel" which Paul was chained but something entirely different then possibly a change to the Godhead could be tenable.

The first-century Jewish critics of Christianity argued that it represented a heretical departure from Judaism. However, the New Testament shows that Christians proved them wrong, powerfully demonstrating from Scripture that Christianity is the fulfillment of a process that began with Israel. Therefore, as Christians, we must recognize and affirm the doctrinal continuity between Judaism and Christianity, a continuity that cannot be severed. The apostle Paul underscores this in Galatians 3:24, where he states that the Law of Moses was “…our instructor into Christ.”

Only a few in this forum will acknowledge that the first-century church was not Trinitarian, Trinitarians are now tasked with explaining (a) why this was the case and (b) how Trinitarianism eventually emerged from an ideological environment that was entirely hostile to it.

I'm a Unitarian believer for this and many other reasons....I have no need to explain the unexplainable.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Modern scholars are now facing the dilemma of defining the distinction between the pre‐existent logos and the pre‐existent Jesus without ever committing to a fully defined ontological unity between Father and Son.

My position is that Logos is from Everlasting to Everlasting and has no beginning or end. That God and His Word are inseparable and He does what He desires with His Word.

Angels, Creation, Christ and the Saints all have a beginning and end.

Yahweh, God, Jehovah, Elohim all speaks to a Single All Powerful Deity Who alone has Immortality and Power and gives it to Whom He wills.

F2F

 

[face2face]

I am not sure, why their is difficulty understanding the Trinity.
Its grade school logic, defined easily in scripture.

( face palm )

You are yet to ask intelligent questions...if you need help with this let me know

 

[face2face]

@RedFan

Attributes of God: Identity

God is a personal being who exists as a single divine Person (Yahweh; the Father). This attribute is arguably the most crucial, as it directly impacts our discussion. The identity of God is clearly defined in Scripture on numerous occasions, and the unity of His personhood is consistently emphasized. For example:

• Deuteronomy 6:4: "Listen, Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!"
• Deuteronomy 32:6: "Is this how you repay the LORD, you foolish, unwise people? Is he not your father, your creator? He has made you and established you."
• Psalm 89:26: "He will call out to me, ‘You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me.’"
• Isaiah 63:16: "For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not recognize us. You, LORD, are our father; you have been called our protector from ancient times."
• John 4:21, 23: "Jesus said to her, ‘Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem… But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.’"
• John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent."
• 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live."
• Galatians 1:1: "From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)."

Some of these verses present significant challenges for Trinitarian theology, as they clearly differentiate between the Father and the Son as distinct persons, each existing as individual beings. As the discussion progresses, we will see how Trinitarians have developed an increasingly complex system of "solutions" and "workarounds" to explain away the many Bible passages that use strictly Unitarian language. In contrast, Biblical Unitarianism maintains a straightforward interpretation of these passages.

Unitarians can accept all of these verses at face value without needing to resort to lengthy "explanations" for statements that require no explanation.

For example, in Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Listen, Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!"), known as the Shema in Hebrew, this statement was cited by Jesus as the greatest of all God's commandments (Mark 12:28-29). It is clear and straightforward Unitarian language.

Biblical Unitarians can read this verse and accept its meaning without any qualification: Yahweh is one, meaning one person. Our understanding of this "oneness" aligns exactly with that of Old Testament Judaism. However, Trinitarians cannot accept the Shema without qualification, as to them, Yahweh is not one but three. (This may vary depending on which Trinitarian you ask; some might claim that the Trinity is three but Yahweh is one, though they often struggle to explain what this means in practical terms).

F2F

 

[Wrangler]

@Wrangler - If the Trinity were true, significant works of the Gospel like Romans and Hebrews would have devoted considerable attention to explaining

In the beginning God whose nature is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever created the heaven and Earth.

Moses at the burning bush: God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh,[a] the God of 3-in-1—has sent me to you.

This is my eternal name for 1700 years,
my name to remember for all generations not remember after that.

Rev 1. This is the revelation of the 2nd person given by the 1st person …

And not one single sentence would juxtapose God and Jesus. The Father, who so loved the world, gave his only begotten God the Son … And on and on and on - not just Roman’s and Hebrews.

 

[face2face]

In the beginning God whose nature is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever created the heaven and Earth.

Moses at the burning bush: God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh,[a] the God of 3-in-1—has sent me to you.

This is my eternal name for 1700 years,
my name to remember for all generations not remember after that.

Rev 1. This is the revelation of the 2nd person given by the 1st person …

And not one single sentence would juxtapose God and Jesus. The Father, who so loved the world, gave his only begotten God the Son … And on and on and on - not just Roman’s and Hebrews.

God’s nature is characterized by several divine attributes, most of which are unique to Him. The first of these is omnipotence, meaning "all-powerful."

This attribute is clearly stated in Revelation 19:6 ("...For the Lord our God, the All-Powerful, reigns!").

While Jesus expresses himself this way:

Jesus is described as both the "root" and the "offspring" of David in Revelation 22:16 and other biblical passages (Matthew 1:1, Romans 1:3). This phrase highlights two key aspects of Jesus' identity:

1. Root of David: As the "root" of David, Jesus is portrayed as coming from the source or origin of David's fleshly lineage.
2. Offspring of David: As the "offspring" or "descendant" of David, Jesus is a literal descendant of King David through His earthly mother, Mary. This emphasizes Jesus' humanity and His rightful place in the line of David as the promised Messiah. (e.g., 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Isaiah 11:1).

How do you reconcile these two identities?

How did the philosophers come up with a three headed god?

One issue I notice in these discussions is how difficult it is for some to believe that a man of human descent, with God as His Father, could overcome the flesh and ascend to such a glorious position.

One thing is certain: the "root" and the "offspring" is coming to establish and sit on David's throne, and I wouldn’t want to be the one who misrepresents the Lion of the Tribe of Judah or His God!

F2F

 

[Wrangler]

God’s nature is characterized by several divine attributes, most of which are unique to Him. The first of these is omnipotence, meaning "all-powerful."

I'm not sure about that. In Ex 3:14 God states what he considers his primary unique attribute. The VOICE translation renders it Eternal. Some translations improperly render it "I AM" and trinitarians make a big deal out of Jesus using this very common expression in Greek. However, it Hebrew the more direct translation would be, "I was. I am. And I am becoming." Jesus never said this.

Even if one argues that now that Jesus was given all authority, he is all powerful now, it does not detract from him not meeting the Eternal quality because we all know he died. To get around this basic fact and the inescapable logic of it, the invoke dualism. They claim that only his human half died. My 2 stock responses are:

1. God does not have a human half.
2. Where is Jesus 2 natures taught in Scripture?

To the question, it is great fun the artificial dichotomy lengths they go to read into text whatever they want.