podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS

In trinitarian tradition, the one God is the Trinity. In the New Testament, the one God is the Father. One can’t consistently affirm both claims, which is why there is a clash between trinitarian traditions (since about the late 300s) and the New Testament. Protestants, I suggest, should stick with the latter.

But the social pressures, at least for the theologically educated, are so strong that we should not deviate from longstanding Catholic and Protestant tradition. For many, it is just unthinkable that the mainstream could have made a mistake here. The NT just must be consistent with catholic traditions here – it must.

One answer to that is: wait – you’re a Protestant, right? You can’t say that! (Supply your own counterexamples from church history.)

At any rate, it is demonstrably a mistake to think you can coherently affirm both that God is the Father and that God is the Trinity. The demonstration is below. I use that word “demonstration” very deliberately. I mean that there is a proof of inconsistency that any trinitarian can see is valid (i.e. there is no mistake in reasoning) and it employs only premises to which the trinitarian is committed simply by being a trinitarian. This proof puts the trinitarian in a very hard spot. She can either embrace the apparent contradiction, which looks very foolish when you actually say what that apparent contradiction is (instead of obliquely gesturing at it), or she can deny obvious biblical teachings, or she can deny obvious, self-evident truths. Any way she turns, her Trinity theory comes at a high price!

First, I need to explicate a foundational, unanalyzable concept that you already have and regularly use: the concept of numerical identity or sameness. Let me try to explain it by means of scenarios in which you habitually employ that concept.

Out hiking, you point and say: “There is a big rock!” You’re asserting that (1) there is big thing over there – call it b, (2) there is a rock over there, call it r, and (3) that the one just is the other, that b = r (and vice versa). So in some existence claims, you’re employing the concept of numerical identity (=).

Again, in a theological conversation, you say “Only God is uncreated.” What you’re saying is that God is uncreated, and also, for any x whatever, if x is uncreated then x just is God. In other words, God is uncreated and nothing else is. So in “all” or “only” statements, cases of what logicians call universal quantification, you’re employing the concept of numerical identity.

Again, suppose you’re reading Genesis for the first time, and not paying attention very well, you’re thinking this “Abram” is one character and “Abraham” is another. But the, you suddenly realize your mistake, and you as it were collapse the “two” of them into one. You now see that Abram just is Abraham, and vice-versa. (Abram = Abraham) Now imagine that you’re reading some funky OT translation, and the translator sometimes uses “Abe” once in a while. But you realize that this is supposed to be the same character as Abraham; the translation assumes that Abe = Abraham. You realize that also in this translation, it must be that Abe = Abram – because things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other – that is obvious. (Abe just is Abraham. And Abram just is Abraham. Thus, Abe just is Abram – this is all one being we’re talking about here, via three different names.)

Of course, as a Christian you don’t think this variously named fellow is only a fictional character; you think this is a true narrative. So in your view, Abraham and Abram are the same man. This is to make three claims: (1) Abraham is a man, (2) Abram is a man, and (3) Abraham just is Abram (they are numerically identical).

In sum, don’t confuse numerical identity (aka numerical sameness) with qualitative identity/sameness. Human “identical twins” are by definition (normally) qualitatively the same (to a high degree) but if they are twins they can’t be numerically the same. (As twins, they are two similar things, not one thing.) Notice that similarity comes in degrees and kinds, but it seems that numerical sameness does not; it is all-or-nothing, and doesn’t come in various kinds. Also, while both relations can be reflexive – just as one thing can be similar to another, so everything surely is similar to itself, and maximally so, only numerical sameness is necessarily reflexive. In other words, what are really two things can be similar, but they can’t be numerically the same. Only a single thing/entity/being can be numerically the same as itself. In any true statement of numerical sameness, we’re just referring to one and the same thing twice, using two different but co-referring terms or names or expressions. e.g. Slick Willy = Bill Clinton, The Donald = Donald Trump.

Having said all that, our proof employs only the concept of numerical identity. Call it the argument for the Incoherence of Biblical Trinitarianism. Take note: the argument doesn’t try to show, nor does it presuppose, that the idea of the Trinity (supposing that is one idea!) is incoherent. (So you’re missing the point if you chime in here with the standard opening move.) Rather, the argument shows that some clear claims of biblical theology together with claims needed by any Trinity theory – those two together are incoherent, as they imply a contradiction. How so? Like this:

1. God just is Yahweh.
2. Yahweh just is the Father.
3. God just is the Father. (1,2)
4. God just is the Trinity.
5. It is not the case that the Trinity just is the Father.
6. The Trinity just is the Father. (3,4)

For the logically educated, I provide the sentences using the standard symbol “=” for numerical identity, and g for the one God, y for Yahweh, f for the Father, t for the Trinity, and “-” for the negation operator. (Skip this bit if you’re not familiar with modern symbolic logic. You can understand the argument without this notation.)

1. g = y
2. y = f
3. g = f (1,2)
4. g = t
5. -(t = f)
6. t = f (3,4)

Note that 5 and 6 together are a formal contradiction, a denial and affirmation of the same claim. Whatever the letters refer to, we all know that no pair of sentences with those structures (-P, P) could simultaneously be true.

Let’s walk through the argument now and see the alleged justification for each step.

1. “God just is Yahweh” is a premise, and is clearly taught throughout the OT. “Yahweh” is just the proper name of the one God there. Yahweh is not supposed to be one being while God is another!
2. “Yahweh just is the Father ” is also a premise, this time clearly assumed throughout the NT. The NT doesn’t use the Hebrew name “Yahweh” because that was then thought to be improper, and also, the NT is all in Greek. They call Yahweh “God” (Gr: ho theos) or “the Lord God.” But is is clear that this is none other than the Father. Notice how John, just for stylistic reasons, swaps the terms “God” and “Father” at John 6:46, John 10:36, and John 13:3. This is because he assumes them to be numerically one. In his setting, “God” and “the Father” are normally understood as co-referring terms.
3. “God just is the Father” is a conclusion from 1 & 2. Numerical identity is transitive: if a = b and b = c, then a = c. In this case, g = y (1), y = f (2), therefore g = f. (3) Happily, this assertion that g = f is a clear NT teaching too, independently of the above reasoning.
4. ” God just is the Trinity” is also a premise. It is not directly or clearly asserted anywhere in the Bible, but it is the defining thesis of any trinitarian theology. If you’re a trinitarian, the one God just in the Trinity, the triune god: you are committed to 4.
5. “It is not the case that the Trinity just is the Father” is a premise to which any trinitarian is committed. It is self-evident that nothing can, at one time or in eternity, be and not be the same way (i.e. differ from itself). Abstractly put: numerical identity implies indiscernibility at a time. If there is a triune God, this can’t just be (i.e. can’t be numerically one with) the Father, because those would eternally (either timelessly or at all times) differ from one another. The Trinity is supposed to have the Father as one of its three “Persons,” but the Father is not supposed to have the Father as one of its three “Persons.” Again, the Trinity is supposed to be tripersonal, but the Father is not, according to any catholic/orthodox Trinity theory. Again, the Father is supposed to eternally generate the Son, but the Trinity per se is not.
6. “The Trinity just is the Father” is a conclusion from 3 & 4. It is self-evident that things that are identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other. So if a = c, and b = c, it follows that a = b. Here, g = t and g = f, so t = f. (Logic heads: this follows from the symmetry and transitivity of =. So the reasoning is: g = t, so therefore by symmetry t = g, and adding g = f, by transitivity we get t = f .)

In sum, we start with uncontroversial contents of scriptural teaching. (1-3) We add in two unavoidable commitments of any trinitarian theology, any Trinity theory (4-5). But these things imply a formal contradiction (5 & 6). So we know that at least one of 1-5 is false.

The truly committed trinitarian will try to protect 4 at all costs. Perhaps the first thought for many will be to deny 5, the one non-scriptural or “philosophical” premise. Let’s make clear the reasoning in favor of 5; call it a subsidiary argument.

1. According to any trinitarian theology, the Father and the Trinity will simultaneously (at the same time, or in eternity – take your pick) differ.
2. Things that simultaneously differ are numerically distinct.
3. Therefore, according to any trinitarian theology, the Father and the Trinity are numerically distinct.

Nothing to find fault with here. My trinitarian friend, you do agree with 1, yes? And can see that the reasoning is valid – that 3 follows from 1 & 2. And 2 (the distinctness of discernibles) is self-evident. Going back to the main argument, you’re committed to 5, just by being a trinitarian.

So for a trinitarian, 4 and 5 must be protected. And 1 is off the table too, right? No trinitarian should want to mess with 1; that is simple reading comprehension, when it comes to the OT.

It looks like the only way to save trinitarian hypotheses (which are committed to 1, 4, and 5) is to deny 2 and/or 3. But notice that 3 follows from 1 & 2. And you don’t want to deny 1. So really, you have to attack 2: you have to deny or at least cast doubt on the premise that the Yahweh of the OT just is the one called “Father” is the NT.

Now this claim (premise 2) that Yahweh just is the Father is not something that really comes to the surface in the NT. It is a shared assumption, something they thought didn’t need arguing for! Still, it comes pretty close to the surface at times.

Exhibit A: Luke in Acts

In chapter 2 Luke has Peter say,

This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear.

(Acts 2:32-33, NRSV)

Do you see what Luke has done here? He’s just used “God” twice. So just for variety, the third time around he substitutes “the Father.” He can do that, because for him, “God” and “the Father” are normally co-referring terms – because he assumes the identity of God with the Father (and vice-versa). And he knows his readers assume this too; so he knows that the switcheroo will not be confusing to his readers.

Next chapter, another sermon by Peter – Luke writes:

“You Israelites, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk? The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him.

Acts 3:12-13, NRSV. Compare: Acts 5:29-31, 7:32, 26:6.

Now, Peter can’t say “Yahweh”; that was forbidden at this time. But this one he calls “the God of our ancestors” etc. – this is supposed to be Yahweh, right? So there you go: Luke and Peter assume that Yahweh just is the Father,that those are numerically the same.

Exhibit B: Paul in Ephesians 1

Paul repeatedly calls someone the God of Jesus. Surely, this is the god of the Jews, Yahweh, right? And, this god is none other than the Father. So in Ephesians 1,

² Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. … ¹⁵ I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love^[e toward all the saints, and for this reason ¹⁶ I do not cease to give thanks for you as I remember you in my prayers. ¹⁷ I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him…

Ephesians 1:2-4, 15-17 (NRSV)

It’s just basic reading comprehension that he’s using “God” and “Father” of the same one here. And in its first century, Jewish context, it is clear than this is none other than Yahweh, the one true God of the Jewish scriptures.

So, given your commitment to 1, in order to deny 3 you must also deny 2. But in denying 2, you are in the teeth of clear NT theology. God (aka the Father) in the NT is supposed to be Yahweh, the unique God in the OT. That is foundational to understanding the NT.

My trinitarian friend, it looks like you must commit to all of 1-5. But then, you have a clear contradiction on your hands.

Don’t cry “mystery” here and expect us to think that is a reasonable escape. How is this a mystery? The meaning of all the claims here (1-6) is clear; there is no mysterious claim here, a claim that is barely intelligible! Your point, if you’re going to play the mystery card, must be that there is an apparent contradiction here (5-6). Indeed, there is! Now if you reply with the obvious truism that not every apparent contradiction is a real one, we will nod in agreement, but point out that this sure looks like a real one!

If you’re really going to die on the mystery hill, do it like a man, and say out loud what the mystery is. Own it. Say, “In my view, it is and isn’t the case that the Trinity just is the Father.” Or if you like: “The Trinity and the Father are and are not the same – and yes, I mean ‘same’ in the same sense both times.”

Don’t want to do that? Good. I don’t want you to either, because it is ridiculous.

Here’s another way to look at it, a way that seems more reasonable than mystery-mongering. If you can’t hold on to all of a group of statements, it looks like the one you should let go of should be the one with the least evidence. So let’s consider the various steps in our argument in light of differing degrees of evidence. I’ll call them level 1 and level 2. To have level 1 evidence is to be somewhat plausible in light of all relevant considerations. Level 2, a higher level, is something you’re more sure of because it is plainly biblical teaching and you know the Bible to be inspired. So, plausible but speculative theories are level 1, while biblical truths I’m calling level 2. Here again is the argument:

1. God just is Yahweh.
2. Yahweh just is the Father.
3. God just is the Father.
4. God just is the Trinity.
5. It is not the case that the Trinity just is the Father.
6. The Trinity just is the Father

We can’t reasonably keep both 5 & 6, since they can’t be true. But if you’re a trinitarian, as we’ve seen, you’re committed to 5. So you need to deny 6. But as we’ve seen, 6 logically follows what came before. But where is the weak link in 1-4?

Clearly, the weak link is 4. That God is the Trinity – this is neither an explicit nor a clear teaching of the Bible. It has at most level 1 justification. But 1-3 have level 2 justification. Theory must bow to fact. Deny 4, and there is no longer any basis on which to conclude 6. Problem solved.

The price? You can no longer in good conscience remain in what I call the Trinity club. But what you’ve bought is a biblical theology, a theology that makes sense, and which avoids the many agonies of trinitarian theorizing.

I offer this argument in the hope that it will help you to make the right choice. Do you agree that 4 is the weak link? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

• How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament
• The standard opening move
• 10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 1
• 10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 2
• podcast 232 – Trinity Club Orientation
• Tuggy-Brown debate on the Trinity
• Debate Organizer: Kingdom of God Ministry and Missions
• Debate host: FIRE Church
• Debate opponent: Dr. Michael L. Brown
• This week’s thinking music is “The Parting Glass (Instrumental)” by Aussens@iter.