Logical Inconsistencies in Trinitarianism | A Doctrine of Confusion
In 1877 Cardinal J. H. Newman stated that: “The mystery of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not merely a verbal contradiction, but an incompatibility in the human ideas conveyed…saying that one thing is two things.”
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE CONCEPT OF THE TRINITY:
1. Do the three persons have three minds, three wills or even three bodies?
2. If God is three co-equal persons in one substance, why is he often spoken of in terms whereby God the Father is the head of the Trinity with the Son as having been begotten, and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father or the Son or both? This is subordinationism.
3. How could Jesus have two natures in one person—the hypostatic union?
4. How could Jesus have two wills?
5. How could Jesus be 100% God and 100% man?
Since the fourth century Trinitarians have claimed to be monotheists; yet if they worship God as ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit’ then three co-equal Gods are being worshipped, each God being a separate and distinct person. This is tritheism and not biblical monotheism. Yet this anomaly is covered over by stating that it is a mystery. Indeed, Professor Ohlig also notes that: “the person of God, however, cannot be multiplied without creating a polytheism,” (p. 18). He concludes his book on pp. 129, 130 by stating that:
NOTE: monism means that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person—one being i.e. there is no distinction of persons in the Godhead. This was the heresy of Modalism.
THE TRUE DEFINITION OF TRINITARIANISM
An analysis of Augustine’s major work De Trinitas helps one to realize that Trinitarianism is, in reality, a vacillation between tritheism and modalism, which are contradictory positions. In his book God in Three Persons Trinitarian Millard Erikson notes that: “There is a fundamental difficulty that lies at the heart of discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity: The doctrine seems impossible to believe, because at its very core it is contradictory” (p. 130).
The Fallacy of the Trinitarian Analogies
Erickson further notes that the Trinity “appears to be without any real analogies,” (p. 21). In fact, all the modern-day analogies used in an attempt to prove the Trinity would actually prove modalism rather than Trinitarianism e.g.
1. The ice—water—vapour analogy. These are different modes of the same element.
2. The mind—knowledge—love analogy. These are different attributes of the same person.
3. The analogy of the same person being a son, a father and a grandfather. These are different roles of just one person.
Trinitarianism further appeals to such features of existence as:
In fact, as scientists have demonstrated, the universe must necessarily be treated as being four dimensional with time being included as the fourth because it runs forward in a single flow. It is particularly from the human perspective that there is past, present and future. Additionally, scientists also posit the concept that the universe began with eleven or more dimensions. However, this argument 2 of threeness is bogus because there are many aspects of nature which have other numbers attached to them, for example: male/female, single or dual organs in biological bodies, one sun and one moon for Earth, and sixty-two known moons for Saturn etc. As David Hume’s 1779 work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion showed concerning the nature of analogical reasoning, the strength of an analogical argument depends on the similarity of the things being compared. Yet there is little similarity between the Trinity doctrine and its supposed analogies. It is a doctrine with a contradictory nature—one that is a logical impossibility.
The general teaching of the Trinity involves the following:
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son—the Son is not the Holy Spirit —the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
5. There is only one God.
If #1, #2, #3 and #5 are true then—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one entity. Yet this means that #4 cannot be true because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate entities. The truth of the statement, “God is one,” implies the falsity of the statements indicating that “God is three.” Indeed, the average Christian seems to hold, at the same time, conflicting ideas in his mind about God and Jesus. These are that:
This also is clearly an inconsistent set of statements, that is, that not all of them can be true, because if a), b), c) are true then d) cannot be true and Christians cannot logically affirm that Jesus is God. Indeed, the inconsistency here doesn’t seem to have occurred to Trinitarian Bible students. If the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and each one is fully God, then it is logically impossible that there is only one God. This must make three Gods, no matter how much Trinitarians try to redefine the word “person,” or use non-biblical Greek or Latin terms in an attempt to explain this doctrine or to call it a mystery. So, at its very core the Trinity is contradictory. Furthermore, some Trinitarians propose that Yahweh is made up of three persons and that in later history Yahweh was replaced by Jesus. This, then, makes Jesus all three persons i.e. the entire Trinity.
Strict monotheism means that God is a single unified personal being in the normal sense in having a single centre of consciousness. He is one who does not produce incarnations of Himself, as in pagan religious thinking. Regarding the monotheism that Jesus believed, Ohlig explains that:
Although there was a certain differentiation between God himself (Yahweh) and his action in history and the cosmos (“word of Yahweh,” “spirit of Yahweh,” “wisdom of Yahweh”), this differentiation remained fundamentally integrated in the unity of Yahweh and had only functional significance, so that the monotheism was preserved.
This view of God was fully understood by the Jews and early Christians. Trinitarianism is really a redefining of monotheism into three persons who are all God.
The kinds of language used by Trinitarians to describe the Trinity, such as ‘hypostatic union,’ are not found in the Bible. Furthermore, terms that are used are often distorted by Trinitarians. For instance, the Greek word hypostasis is used five times in the New Testament. In four of those texts it means “confidence” (2 Cor. 9:4, 11:17; Heb. 3.14) or “reality/realization” (Heb. 11:1). However, in Hebrews 1:3 it is taken to mean “essence” or “essential quality” (Thayers Greek-English Lexicon); yet, it is often 3 rendered “substance” in Hebrews 1:3 as if Jesus is of exactly the same substance as God. However, ontology in Jewish thinking was not its general focus and so “essence” is here used in the sense of: “indispensable quality, especially something abstract, which determines its character” Oxford English Dictionary. Indeed, there are some renderings of Hebrews 1:3 which do not try to present Jesus as of the same substance as God. These show Jesus as being: “the stamp (Gk charakter) of God’s very being (Gk hypostasis)” (REB) and “the reflection of God’s glory, the representation of God’s very being” (S&G). Therefore, Jesus is a representation of God’s being—His essential character, and not of his substance. Furthermore, the Greek word ousia is another term used in Trinitarian thinking toward making Jesus to be of the same substance as God. However, this word is used only in Luke 15:12-13 where the Prodigal Son has wasted all is “substance” (in older translations) as meaning his “wealth,” “money,” “goods,” “property,” “estate,” or “everything he had” according to modern translations. This clearly does not refer to the substance of his body and so it was most unbiblical for Trinitarians to apply this term from the Greek language to Jesus.
TWELVE CHRISTIANS WHO DIDN’T KNOW OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Here we have believing Christian disciples who had “not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” Yet how could they have come to believe in the supposed central Christian doctrine of a Trinitarian God without knowing of ‘the Holy Spirit’ and understanding ‘him’ as a person distinct from the Father and Jesus?
NO TRINITY UNTIL THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 381
The modern-day Council of Churches claims that the doctrine of the Trinity is a central Christian teaching. This makes no sense because of the fact that ‘the Holy Spirit’ was not officially included in the Godhead formula to bring about the Trinity doctrine until about 345 years after the death of Christ. This strongly indicates that such a doctrine was not part of original Christian teaching.
In 1877 Cardinal J. H. Newman stated that: “The mystery of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not merely a verbal contradiction, but an incompatibility in the human ideas conveyed…saying that one thing is two things.”
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE CONCEPT OF THE TRINITY:
1. Do the three persons have three minds, three wills or even three bodies?
2. If God is three co-equal persons in one substance, why is he often spoken of in terms whereby God the Father is the head of the Trinity with the Son as having been begotten, and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father or the Son or both? This is subordinationism.
3. How could Jesus have two natures in one person—the hypostatic union?
4. How could Jesus have two wills?
5. How could Jesus be 100% God and 100% man?
Since the fourth century Trinitarians have claimed to be monotheists; yet if they worship God as ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit’ then three co-equal Gods are being worshipped, each God being a separate and distinct person. This is tritheism and not biblical monotheism. Yet this anomaly is covered over by stating that it is a mystery. Indeed, Professor Ohlig also notes that: “the person of God, however, cannot be multiplied without creating a polytheism,” (p. 18). He concludes his book on pp. 129, 130 by stating that:
NOTE: monism means that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person—one being i.e. there is no distinction of persons in the Godhead. This was the heresy of Modalism.
THE TRUE DEFINITION OF TRINITARIANISM
An analysis of Augustine’s major work De Trinitas helps one to realize that Trinitarianism is, in reality, a vacillation between tritheism and modalism, which are contradictory positions. In his book God in Three Persons Trinitarian Millard Erikson notes that: “There is a fundamental difficulty that lies at the heart of discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity: The doctrine seems impossible to believe, because at its very core it is contradictory” (p. 130).
The Fallacy of the Trinitarian Analogies
Erickson further notes that the Trinity “appears to be without any real analogies,” (p. 21). In fact, all the modern-day analogies used in an attempt to prove the Trinity would actually prove modalism rather than Trinitarianism e.g.
1. The ice—water—vapour analogy. These are different modes of the same element.
2. The mind—knowledge—love analogy. These are different attributes of the same person.
3. The analogy of the same person being a son, a father and a grandfather. These are different roles of just one person.
Trinitarianism further appeals to such features of existence as:
- • The three dimensions of height, length and breadth.
- • Time running as past, present and future.
In fact, as scientists have demonstrated, the universe must necessarily be treated as being four dimensional with time being included as the fourth because it runs forward in a single flow. It is particularly from the human perspective that there is past, present and future. Additionally, scientists also posit the concept that the universe began with eleven or more dimensions. However, this argument 2 of threeness is bogus because there are many aspects of nature which have other numbers attached to them, for example: male/female, single or dual organs in biological bodies, one sun and one moon for Earth, and sixty-two known moons for Saturn etc. As David Hume’s 1779 work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion showed concerning the nature of analogical reasoning, the strength of an analogical argument depends on the similarity of the things being compared. Yet there is little similarity between the Trinity doctrine and its supposed analogies. It is a doctrine with a contradictory nature—one that is a logical impossibility.
The Logical Impossibility of the Trinity
The general teaching of the Trinity involves the following:
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son—the Son is not the Holy Spirit —the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
5. There is only one God.
If #1, #2, #3 and #5 are true then—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one entity. Yet this means that #4 cannot be true because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate entities. The truth of the statement, “God is one,” implies the falsity of the statements indicating that “God is three.” Indeed, the average Christian seems to hold, at the same time, conflicting ideas in his mind about God and Jesus. These are that:
- Jesus Christ is God
- God is our Heavenly Father
- Jesus Christ is not our Heavenly Father
- There are not two Gods.
This also is clearly an inconsistent set of statements, that is, that not all of them can be true, because if a), b), c) are true then d) cannot be true and Christians cannot logically affirm that Jesus is God. Indeed, the inconsistency here doesn’t seem to have occurred to Trinitarian Bible students. If the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and each one is fully God, then it is logically impossible that there is only one God. This must make three Gods, no matter how much Trinitarians try to redefine the word “person,” or use non-biblical Greek or Latin terms in an attempt to explain this doctrine or to call it a mystery. So, at its very core the Trinity is contradictory. Furthermore, some Trinitarians propose that Yahweh is made up of three persons and that in later history Yahweh was replaced by Jesus. This, then, makes Jesus all three persons i.e. the entire Trinity.
The Pure Monotheism of the Bible
Strict monotheism means that God is a single unified personal being in the normal sense in having a single centre of consciousness. He is one who does not produce incarnations of Himself, as in pagan religious thinking. Regarding the monotheism that Jesus believed, Ohlig explains that:
Although there was a certain differentiation between God himself (Yahweh) and his action in history and the cosmos (“word of Yahweh,” “spirit of Yahweh,” “wisdom of Yahweh”), this differentiation remained fundamentally integrated in the unity of Yahweh and had only functional significance, so that the monotheism was preserved.
This view of God was fully understood by the Jews and early Christians. Trinitarianism is really a redefining of monotheism into three persons who are all God.
The Bible Does Not Use Trinitarian Language
The kinds of language used by Trinitarians to describe the Trinity, such as ‘hypostatic union,’ are not found in the Bible. Furthermore, terms that are used are often distorted by Trinitarians. For instance, the Greek word hypostasis is used five times in the New Testament. In four of those texts it means “confidence” (2 Cor. 9:4, 11:17; Heb. 3.14) or “reality/realization” (Heb. 11:1). However, in Hebrews 1:3 it is taken to mean “essence” or “essential quality” (Thayers Greek-English Lexicon); yet, it is often 3 rendered “substance” in Hebrews 1:3 as if Jesus is of exactly the same substance as God. However, ontology in Jewish thinking was not its general focus and so “essence” is here used in the sense of: “indispensable quality, especially something abstract, which determines its character” Oxford English Dictionary. Indeed, there are some renderings of Hebrews 1:3 which do not try to present Jesus as of the same substance as God. These show Jesus as being: “the stamp (Gk charakter) of God’s very being (Gk hypostasis)” (REB) and “the reflection of God’s glory, the representation of God’s very being” (S&G). Therefore, Jesus is a representation of God’s being—His essential character, and not of his substance. Furthermore, the Greek word ousia is another term used in Trinitarian thinking toward making Jesus to be of the same substance as God. However, this word is used only in Luke 15:12-13 where the Prodigal Son has wasted all is “substance” (in older translations) as meaning his “wealth,” “money,” “goods,” “property,” “estate,” or “everything he had” according to modern translations. This clearly does not refer to the substance of his body and so it was most unbiblical for Trinitarians to apply this term from the Greek language to Jesus.
The ‘Holy Spirit’ as a Distinct Person from the Father
or Christ Was Not Original Christian Teaching
or Christ Was Not Original Christian Teaching
TWELVE CHRISTIANS WHO DIDN’T KNOW OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Here we have believing Christian disciples who had “not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” Yet how could they have come to believe in the supposed central Christian doctrine of a Trinitarian God without knowing of ‘the Holy Spirit’ and understanding ‘him’ as a person distinct from the Father and Jesus?
NO TRINITY UNTIL THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 381
The modern-day Council of Churches claims that the doctrine of the Trinity is a central Christian teaching. This makes no sense because of the fact that ‘the Holy Spirit’ was not officially included in the Godhead formula to bring about the Trinity doctrine until about 345 years after the death of Christ. This strongly indicates that such a doctrine was not part of original Christian teaching.
Further Trinitarian Problems to Ponder
- • Because the essential Trinity requires that the Father, the Son and the Spirit have separate centres of consciousness there is a tendency for Trinitarians to see more than one divine being in their worship of God—again this is tritheism in spite of contrary Trinitarian claims.
- • Because of the above, the Son and the Spirit tend to be viewed as second-rank Gods rather than co-equal. In Scripture it is the Father who sends both the Son and the Spirit, and so making them subordinate to Him.
- • Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is, “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of God’s very being.” Colossian’s 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God.” Someone who is the reflection or image of someone else cannot be that person. So, Jesus cannot be God.
- • The prophecy of Isaiah 11:2 says of the Messiah, “The spirit of the LORD [Yahweh] shall rest upon him…and the fear of the LORD.” How can a ‘God the Son’ fear Yahweh?
- • The idea that Jesus is God because he said “he who has seen me has seen the Father” could only lead to the confusing conclusion that Jesus is the Father i.e. God the Father.
- • If Jesus is of God as, for instance his being “the Son of God”, “the Lamb of God”, “the Christ of God” and his “sitting at the right hand of God” he cannot then be God. He must be distinct from God.
- • The supposed incarnation of the Second Person cannot be honestly explained in Trinitarian terms
- because, biblically, the relationship between God and Jesus is always as between God and man.
- • If Jesus had both a human nature and a God nature then he must simultaneously have perfect knowledge and limited knowledge. This is an impossible and contradictory position.
- • A first person in the Trinity cannot anoint a second co-equal person who is also supreme.
- • Jesus cannot be God because Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) meaning “anointed one.” God is never anointed—He cannot be His own anointed one—this would be a confusing of categories, but rather He always anoints those who serve him: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38).
- • “The song of the Lamb” in Revelation 15:3, 4 shows that Jesus sings praise to the “Lord God Almighty” and thereby showing that Jesus is not the “Lord God Almighty.”
- • God and Christ are differentiated in Revelation 20:6 where Christians are promised that, “they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”
- • In Revelation 22:1, 3: “... the throne of God and of the Lamb...” differentiate them.
- • If the Holy Spirit were a third Person of the Godhead it could not, as Romans 8:26 states, act as our intercessor because Jesus is already our intercessor (Rom. 8:34) and advocate (1 John 2:1) and there is only, “One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
- • There are no theos (God) texts where they should be if Jesus really is the Almighty God:
- I. In Jesus’ own sayings,
- II. In evangelizing speeches by the apostles/disciples in Acts,
- III. In descriptions of what the apostles proclaimed,
- IV. In definitions of the good news,
- V. In passages where the writer establishes just who Jesus is.
§
