In my discussions with trinitarians I've noticed certain frequently recurring themes in this post I would like to review four of the most popular ones:
1)"It's all an unfathomable mystery" Usually our protagonist would say something like:well of course you can't form a coherent concept of God if you could he wouldn't be God,he wouldn't be transcendent:This particular defense leaves me wondering why trinitarian apologists bother after all how could anyone possibly form any coherent argument in support of an incoherent idea.
If we can't evaluate your doctrine with the standard tools of scripture,logic and commonsense how can we separate truth from error to begin with.
Given the scriptures' stern warning against Idolatry/false worship 1John5:21 it seems only fair that the creator should grant his intelligent creation the capacity to clearly identify him i.e the ability to form a coherent concept of his true self/nature.
Jesus Christ suggested that the creator had in fact done so John4:22,8:54 Jesus Christ and his fellow 1st century Jews had both an accurate and coherent concept of the object of their devotion.
2)"Problem?What problem?" This time our protagonist would go in the other direction and insist that the trinity doctrine is not a morass of incoherence and self-contradiction and what's more he can prove it.Why should the worship of Christendom's trinity not be regarded as an exercise in polytheism when said trinity is said to be composed of three distinct persons each of whom is said to be "God"not to mention that the trinity itself is distinct from any of its constituents and is also called "God" by standard arithmetic that should add up to four Gods shouldn't it?Well you see,explain our trinitarian friends,When we say that each constituent of the trinity is "God" we are using that term as an adjective meaning something like "divine""Godlike" not as a noun,which would be the case if we use the the word with regard to the trinity as a whole.This causes me to wonder about peter's statement at Matthew16:16"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” "The living God" is clearly a reference to the supreme divinity not the Father according to the aforementioned logic the Father though divine/Godlike is not the supreme God according to trinitarians (At least if they wish to take their reasoning to its logical end) So Jesus must according to trinitarian logic be the Son of the Trinity which is said to include himself Does this make Jesus one third of his heavenly Father or one of his heavenly Fathers.
Commonsense demands that we abandon this particular instance of trinitarian logic as impractical and the Holy Scriptures concur At John8:54 Jesus clearly identifies his God and Father as the God Of Israel("God"is definitely a count noun in this passage of Scripture) So,as tends to be the case,the Holy Scriptures refuse to play along with trinitarians and their special pleading.
3)A unipersonal God cannot be love per John4:8
The Word "Love" in this passage is a rendering of the Greek word "agape" Our protagonists may say something like "Agape" cannot be felt in regard or expressed to oneself only others as "agape" means principled and unselfish kindness.So from this they deduce that God must be three persons.Now if,as trinitarians claim,The trinity is in fact a single being or life wouldn't that mean that the three constitute a single self and we haven't solved our conundrum.
If we accept trinitarian reasoning as fact then the only way out is for God to share love with (a) distinct God(s)/Goddess(es)from eternity.
Again the scriptures rain on trinitarians parade at mark12:31 Jesus lists the Command to 'Agape' one's neighbor as oneself as the second greatest command in the law.So according to the Lord not only can one validly possess 'agape' for oneself one should possess 'agape' for oneself 'agape' of self is to be the model for agape of other.
4)Jesus has some of Jehovah's titles he must be Jehovah.The problem with this logic is of course that it is Jesus specific trinitarians are not prepared to consistently employ this principle throughout the scriptures.or they would be faced with an ever expanding Godhead.The Prophet Moses for instance is declared to be God by Jehovah himself Exodus7:1
to name one of several instances where Jehovah's exalted servants heavenly and earthly are shown speaking and acting as if they're Jehovah himself and in turn being honored as if they're Jehovah himself See also Judges13:21,22,Exodus3:2-6,Acts7:53.
One can refer to these as zombie themes they have been debunked so many times in so many different fora and yet they keep walking like the undead.
It just goes to show,as has been said,that reason and logic are not universal keys,indeed they're useless if those with whom we engage are not at the time prepared pursue the evidence and logic where ever they lead even/especially if their path traverses the carcasses of treasured falsehhoods.
Your objection misunderstands how mystery is understood within Christian theology. The doctrine of the Trinity is not "incoherent" but is a revealed mystery—meaning it transcends human comprehension but does not contradict reason. It is not that the Trinity cannot be logically articulated; rather, its depths cannot be fully exhausted by finite human understanding. Passages like Romans 11:33 ("Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!") affirm that God's nature transcends human understanding. While God's nature is beyond complete comprehension, Scripture reveals what is necessary for us to know and worship Him truly. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived directly from biblical revelation (e.g., Matt. 28:19; John 1:1, 14; John 10:30; 2 Cor. 13:14). Christian thinkers like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and others have offered coherent explanations of the Trinity. A mystery is not a logical contradiction; it is an invitation to delve deeper into God's revealed truth. Claiming that mystery invalidates the doctrine misunderstands the nature of divine revelation, which provides sufficient knowledge for faith without exhausting all knowledge of God.
ReplyDeleteYour objection misunderstands the distinction between person and essence in trinitarian theology. Trinitarian doctrine holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine essence (ousia in Greek, substantia in Latin). They are not three gods but one God expressed in three persons (hypostases). This distinction is central to the doctrine and resolves the alleged arithmetic issue. Scripture repeatedly affirms both the unity of God (Deut. 6:4; Isaiah 45:5) and the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Matt. 28:19; John 14:26; 1 Cor. 12:4-6). The persons are not separate beings but relational distinctions within the one divine essence. The claim that Jesus would be the "Son of the Trinity" misconstrues the relational dynamics of the doctrine. Jesus is the Son of the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16). The Trinity is not "composed" of parts or individuals but is one divine being. The argument’s appeal to “commonsense” betrays a lack of understanding of theological terms. The doctrine is complex but not contradictory, and its coherence is supported by rigorous theological reflection.
The Trinity uniquely explains how God can eternally be love (agape) because love inherently involves self-giving to another. The Father loves the Son (John 17:24), the Son loves the Father (John 14:31), and the Spirit participates in this eternal relationship (Romans 5:5; Galatians 4:6). The argument misinterprets Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor "as oneself" (Mark 12:31). While self-regard is appropriate, agape is fundamentally other-directed. The Trinity perfectly models this, as the persons eternally give and receive love within the Godhead. If God were a unipersonal being, love would depend on the existence of creation, making God contingent on His creation to express love. In contrast, the triune God is love in His eternal nature, independent of creation. This objection fails to understand how the Trinity provides a coherent explanation for God's eternal nature as love.
Jesus is explicitly identified as God in passages like John 1:1, Titus 2:13, and Heb. 1:8. His sharing of titles like "Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:8, 22:13) with the Father and the Spirit underscores the unity of the Godhead. The appeal to Exod.7:1, where Moses is called “God” to Pharaoh, ignores the context. Moses is described metaphorically as God’s representative, not as divine in nature. In contrast, Jesus is worshiped (Matt. 14:33; John 20:28), something reserved for God alone (Deut. 6:13). Judges 13:21-22 and other passages involving angelic figures reflect God working through agents. However, Jesus is unique in being worshiped and explicitly called God (Phil. 2:6-11). This objection fails to distinguish between representative and ontological uses of divine titles.
Here is good article on trinitarian concepts.
Deletehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/
The principle of occam's razor says prefer the simpler explanation that completely explains the phenomenon ,there is no need to posit any eternal relationship to explain JEHOVAH'S agape for his image, the distinction between essence and person is illogical if a person is the one God or the most high God then that person exhaust all that is essentially God the God and Father of Jesus is the most high God and the one God see luke ch.1:32 and acts ch.3:13 David is proskuneo see 1chronicles ch.29:20 so Jesus Godhood being a representation of his God's supreme Godhood us the simpler explanation.
ReplyDelete