More Trinitarian Logical Failures

Thus, in referring to the Trinity, one may find it helpful to utilize faulty grammar, such as "He are three," and "They is one." (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology)

 It may also be necessary, in order to convey the unusual meaning involved in the doctrine [of the Trinity], to utilize what analytical philosophers would term 'logically odd language'. This means using language in such a way as intentionally to commit grammatical errors. [The Trinitarian God] can perhaps only be adequately expressed by using language that calls attention to the almost paradoxical character of the concepts. (Millard Erickson, God in Three Person, p. 270, comments in square brackets added for clarification)

Recently, a self-professed Mormon Studies Scholar  wrote an article entitled:

Trinitarian Godhead v. Mormon Godhead Logic Exercise

I do wish to deal with his reference to the following from James R. White’s 1998 The Forgotten Trinity which I will use as a “spring board”  for some additional comments:

Application:

CHRISTIAN TRINITY = POSSIBLE

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

(White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition)

That is One Being, three Persons = One God. Monotheism.

While the argument from White above, as well as the article from Anson are, well, stupid, it does afford me the opportunity to plug the following article from someone actually trained in logic:

Richard Cartwright, On the Logical Problem of the Trinity (in case Anson wishes to pull the whole “it is wrong for a Mormon to quote a non-Mormon,” one should see Chris Davis’ sound refutation of his nonsense on the LDS appeal to Joseph Fitzmyer)

It is a pretty "airtight" refutation of the (Latin/Creedal) Trinity (see also Blake Ostler's short paper, The Logical Incoherence of Traditional Christianity; moreover, while Bauckham's nonsensical "divine identity" argument was not referenced, it is very popular in many Trinitarian circles these days; see this article for a sound refutation thereof))

It should be noted that White really fudges things in his book from 1998 (e.g., calling the "one God" a "what"):

Note immediately we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory. When speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. We dare not mix up the what's and the who's regarding the Trinity. (p. 27, emphasis added; cf. p. 132 where White identifies the Father as being YHWH, the Son being YHWH, and the Spirit being YHWH individually/personally)

With respect to the “Trinity shield” which was reproduced in the article, here is an actual application of logic:

A. There are at least three divine persons.

B. Every divine person is God

C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's

D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.

I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea as enunciated in the article (rather poorly)--however, Trinitarianism also states:

Jesus = God

Father = God

Spirit = God

Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son

Numerically, there is only one God

God = Father, Son, and Spirit

To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):

Jesus = x

Father = x

Spirit = x

Numerically, there is only one x

God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x) 

Fortunately, more intellectually honest Trinitarians will admit that there are logical problems with the Latin/Creedal formulations of the Trinity:

John H. Fish III, a Trinitarian, in an article entitled, “God the Son," wrote the following as an admission of the illogical nature of the Trinity:

Theologically it is correct to say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But these statements cannot be reversed. We cannot say God is the Father, because that would omit the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor can we say God is the Son, or God is the Holy Spirit. (John H. Fish III, "God the Son", Emmaus Journal Volume 12, 2003 (1) (34), Dubuque, IA: Emmaus Bible College).

To transpose this admission from theological to mathematical language, it is the equivalent of saying while 3=1+1+1, 1+1+1 does not equal 3, which is utterly absurd. Also, Fish's claim means one cannot say that any singular person of the Tri-une being is God (e.g., "God is the Father"), notwithstanding passages such as 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Cor 8:4-6 that predicate "God" upon the person of the Father.

This is echoed by John V. Dahms in his article, "How Reliable is Logic?" (Journal of Evangelical Theology 21/4 [December 1978] 369-80); on p.373, Dahms (another Trinitarian) makes this startling confession (comment in square brackets mine for clarification):

The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation [read: Hypostatic Union] also provides a problem for those who insist that logic is universally applicable. how can there be two natures but only one person, especially if it be remembered that the debate over monothelitism led to the conclusion that the two-natures doctrine implies that Jesus Christ had two wills? That one person can have two wills would seem to be contrary to the law of contradiction. Of course there are "conservatives" who declare that in Christ "there are not two wills, one Divine and one human." One suspects that the law of contradiction has inspired such a judgment, though one wonders whether they are not violating the same law when they continue to affirm that "each nature is complete in itself." Be that as it may, by what logic is it possible for a nature that cannot be tempted to be united with a nature that can be tempted, or for a nature that can grow in favor with God? The Monophysites and the Nestorians had more respect for logic than the orthodox, as did the Docetists and the Ebionites before them, as do those liberals who deny the incarnation today. It is not without some justification that Paul Tillich speaks of the "inescapable contradictions and absurdities into which all attempts to solve the Christological problem in terms of the two-nature theory were driven."

A more honest reworking of the Trinity shield would be:

As Newman once wrote:

The truth is, every illustration [of the Trinity], as being incomplete on one or other side of it [i.e. the human or divine natures or “sides” of Jesus], taken by itself, tends to heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the title Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a creature. All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not so much in what they say, as in what they deny. (Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” trans. John Henry Newman, in Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, vol. 4, p. 322 n. 2; square brackets my own, added for clarification)

This admission by Cardinal Newman reminds me of a video I have posted elsewhere on this blog, but is worth reposting, as (1) it is hilarious and (2) hits the nail on the head:

Finally, with respect to there being more than one God, I will focus on Gen 20:13. Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term   אֱלֹהִים is irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the second person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).

In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):

וַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃

Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...

And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...

Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."

Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse. As one such example, note the following from the NET Bible:

The Hebrew verb is plural. This may be a case of grammatical agreement with the name for God, which is plural in form. However, when this plural name refers to the one true God, accompanying predicates are usually singular in form. Perhaps Abraham is accommodating his speech to Abimelech's polytheistic perspective. (See GKC 463 §145.i.) If so, one should translate, "when the gods made me wander."

Such words echoe that of Gordon Wenham in vol. 2 p. 73 of the Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis. Evangelicals and others who hold to similar views on the "number" of God are in a precarious position--either claim Abraham endorsed something that would be idolatrous and blasphemous in their theological perspective, wherein Abraham accommodated his language and theology to fit that of a pagan non-believer's theology (and this was *after* Gen 15:6, where, according to most Protestant commentators, Abraham was justified by God[!]; also note that is never condemned by God in the Genesis text, too) or that Abraham and the author of Genesis believed in a "plurality of Gods."

A much weaker "response" can be seen in this article by J.P. Holding. In discussing this verse, Holding writes:

This is hardly proof of polytheism in a real sense. Of course, we may say "Allah is the God of the Muslims" without affirming the objective reality of Allah. There is no indication that Abraham at this point considered these gods to have an objective existence.

Actually, Abraham did affirm the ontological/objective existence of these gods. It is not similar to one saying "Vishnu is one of the gods of Hinduism." How so? Because this is part of Abraham's own speech to Abimelech! Here is Gen 20:10-13 from the NRSV:

And Abimelech said to Abraham, "What were you thinking of, what you did this thing?" Abraham said, "I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife. And when God caused me to wander (Heb: the gods [they] caused me to wander) from my father's house, I said to her, 'This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother.'"

Contra Holding, Abraham did affirm the ontological existence of the plurality of gods. This verse blows holes into various Trinitarian and Unitarian theologies today, though such is consistent with Latter-day Saint theology.

Finally, on the topic of Divine Simplicity, an essential "building block" of Latin/Creedal formulations of the Trinity, Thomas McCall, a Trinitarian, in an essay on the Trinity and Divine Simplicity, reveales how this doctrine logically refutes, not supports, Trinitarian theologies:

The doctrine of the Trinity gives us:

(10) The Father is not identical to the Son.

Meanwhile, some versions of the D[octrine of] D[ivine] S[implicity] gives us both

(11) The Father is identical to the divine essence; and

(12) The son is identical to the divine essence.

Given the fact that identity is symmetrical and transitive,

(13) the Father is identical to the Son

Is strictly entailed by the conjunction of (11) and (12). But (13) is the direct and explicit denial of (1), and as such it is in direct contradiction to orthodox Trinitarianism. This entailment is heretical, of course, but it follows inexorably from the identity of both the Father and the Son with the divine essence. If the divine persons are all identical with the divine essence, then (on the argument from (10) to (13)) the divine persons will be identical with one another. Such a doctrine seems hopeless for Trinitarian theology. (Thomas H. McCall, “Trinity Doctrine, Plain and Simple,” in Advancing Trinitarian Theology: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 42-59, here pp. 57-58, emphasis and square brackets my own).

Another epic fail from the Beggars All Credibility blog.

Further Reading

Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought 3 volumes (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books)

Update: Evangelical apologist Douglas Burnham tried to refute some of the comments in this article. To read my response, see Evangelical Apologist Embarrasses Himself on the Trinity and Genesis 20:13