I stumbled upon a common anti-trinitarian argument on Twitter this week. Although the argument is a common enough one, it is rare to see it stated in logical form. Here it is, as propagated by L. Bryan Burke, who presents it as a proof that the Trinity is not logically possible. This is a much stronger claim than saying that the trinity is not supported by the Biblical evidence, for it claims that the trinity cannot even possibly be true. Here is his argument:
- There’s only 1 Most High God.
- The Father is the Most High God.
- Jesus is not the Father.
- Therefore, Jesus is not the Most High God.
Burke ends with a challenge: “Which premise can trinitarians deny?”
Let me get one quibble out of the way first. Even if this argument is successful, it certainly does not show that the trinity is logically impossible. All it would show is that Jesus is not God. That is nowhere near proving that the trinity is logically impossible.
Anyhow, let us look at each premise and see if there is an answer to his question, starting with premise 1. It’s probably safe to say that no trinitarian would or should deny this premise. Whatever model we use to throw light on the trinity, it is always the case that orthodox trinitarians are talking about one God. Monotheism is basic to orthodox Christianity, and no orthodox trinitarian will abandon monotheism. So, premise one appears sound and cannot be denied by the defender of the trinity.
Let us next look at the premise that some trinitarians might be tempted to deny, premise 3. The position called “modalism” is one route that some Christians have taken to avoid the conclusion of arguments such as the one above. This position denies that Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are different at all. Instead, they are taken as 3 forms of the same divine person. For instance, I once heard a modalist preacher say “After Jesus’s ascension, he returned as the Holy Spirit.” The image here is of a single actor with 3 different costumes or masks for different roles that he or she plays. This is not orthodox trinitarianism and is regarded by orthodox thought as a heresy. So, if our local friendly trinitarian wants to remain faithful to orthodoxy, as well as avoid absurdities like Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane talking to himself (since on Modalism Jesus just is the Father), then she must also affirm premise 3: “Jesus is not the Father.”
This leaves us with premise two: “The Father is the Most High God.” Again, this looks like something the trinitarian cannot deny, after all the trinitarian will affirm “The Father is God.” However, it seems to me that with premise two the unitarian is a bit sneaky and through this sneakiness he seeks to make his mischief. Once we see through it, we will find that the trinitarian can escape the unitarian’s argument.
The fundamental problem is that premise 2 trades on an imprecision, which makes it vague. What is actually meant by saying “The Father is the Most High God”? The unitarian and the trinitarian do not, in fact, have a univocal understanding of this premise. If the premise means something like “The Father alone is the only divine person,” then there is no reason at all for the trinitarian to grant the premise. However, if the premise means something like “The Father shares in the divine essence,” then the trinitarian will grant the premise, but now the conclusion simply does not follow. The unitarian needs the trinitarian to read premise 2 the way the unitarian does, but that is simply begging the question against trinitarianism. The trinitarian does indeed affirm the premise, but not with the understanding the unitarian gives the premise. For the trinitarian the technically correct premise would be “The trinity is the Most High God,” with 3 divine persons sharing in the divine essence. The argument is therefore a patent failure due to the equivocal readings of premise 2.
Whether a unitarian or trinitarian understanding of the nature of God is true, there is no way to avoid the hard work of laying out the scriptural witness and arguing which view best systematizes it. The question cannot be settled by a neat little deductive argument containing a vague premise, and which glosses over the actual issue at stake and masks the subtlety of trinitarian understandings of God. The doctrine of the trinity has a long pedigree within Christian thought and is often taken to be so central that it is a chief marker of orthodoxy. It was arrived at by way of a reflection on the scriptural witness which appears to suggest there is one God, but that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. If the unitarian wants to challenge this understanding of God, it will have to be done by challenging this interpretation of the scriptural witness. A deductive question begging argument simply is not good enough.
Stephen J. Graham
stephenjgraham 