The Apparent Contradiction of the Trinity Explained

Recently, a co-worker asserted the Christian Doctrine of theTrinity was a logical contradiction. It seems to me those that posit the Trinity is a logical contradiction confuse or misunderstand the assertion Christians make about the Trinity.

Specifically, opponents say Christians assert the Bible teaches that God is one person AND God is three persons at the same time. In other words, 1 = 3. If that were true, then, yes, I would agree the Trinity would indeed be a logical contradiction.

A logical contradiction occurs when the truth of one propositon necessarily means the falshood of another proposition. Symbolically, a contradiction has the form of P &~P. Examples include:

•  Socrates is a man. Socrates is not a man.
• Square circles
• 1 = 3
• Married bachelors
• All truth is relative

Logical contradictions violate one of the fundamental rules of thought: The Law of Non-Contradiction which asserts: "Nothing can be both P and not-P."

But, Christians are not asserting that 1=3 or that God is three persons in one person. Rather, they are resolving an apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are not equivalent to true logical contradictions - by any definition - because apparent contradictions can be resolved.

True logical contradictions can never be resolved.

The premise of the Trinitarian Doctrine is that God exists as three persons in one nature. Philosophically speaking, the word person, or personhood, refers to the totality of an entity’s non-physical attributes: intelligence, consciousness, creativity, will, self-identity, etc. Obviously, humans have personhood, but, personhood is not restricted to Humans. In fact, some scientists argue that Dolphins should be considered “non-human” persons.

God possesses all the qualities of personhood.

The word nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics that an entity possesses naturally. Human nature, for instance, consists of physical flesh and personhood. God’s nature is composed of spirit and personhood.

Thus, all entities have natures, but not all natures are physical.

Some entities, like God and Angels, possess non-physical natures.

Now here’s the real thrust of my argument. If an entity’s nature could only support one self-identity, or one person, then the Trinitarian concept would be a real contradiction – an absurdity and not embraced. But, there is no reason to believe an entity is restricted to one nature with one self-identity.

The burden of proof lies with opponents of the Trinitian Doctrine to prove an entity’s nature can only support one person.

It may be a mystery to us HOW an entity can possess one nature with three persons, but our ignorance does not a contradiction make.

Thus, the Christian Doctrine of theTrinity is not a real, logical contradiction but an apparent contradiction that is easily resolved. 

Beware of the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy

"Tu Quoque" pronounced ("two coke" or even "two qwo qway" ) is a Latin phrase that means, "You, too." In conversations, it is often used as an attempt to dismiss or dismiss an opposing viewpoint because the person with the opposing viewpoint has acted inconsistently with that viewpoint.

"Tu Quoque" is a non-sequitur logical fallacy (meaning, "it does not follow") and, thus, is a thinking error. Semantically, the fallacy means, "If you don't follow your own rule perfectly, how can you expect others to follow it?"

Why is it a thinking error?

Just because a person makes an inconsistent assertion does not make that assertion false. It might indicate the person is hypocritical, but not that his assertion is false.

Unwarranted assumptions and ""Tu Quoque" errors are two of the most common (and, IMHO, the most egregious) thinking errors people make.

According to the Wikipedia, the form for the argument that commits this error is the following:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

Teenagers sometimes use this argument in the following manner:

Mom: "Premarital sex is morally wrong. Don't do it."
Daughter: "Did you have premarital sex?"
Mom: "Yes."
Daughter: "Then who are you to tell me not to?"

The guilt, or innocence, of mom's past behavior is completely irrelevant to the issue of morality. If premarital sex is morally wrong, then it was morally wrong when mom did it and it will still be wrong if daughter does it.

Other examples to point out the absurdity of the error:

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

"How can you tell me not to experiment with drugs when you did the same thing as a teenager?"

Beware of the "Tu Quoque" fallacy and refrain from committing it! Parents, PLEASE teaching your children critical thinking skills.  It's these skills that will help make them responsible adults,  and help lead them to Truth.