A Refutation Of Trinitarianism (Part 2)

Time to delve deeper into the flawed nature of Trinitarianism!  It's been a while since I started this series [1], but Trinitarianism is an important issue to understand.  To read about why it is important for Christians to contemplate the concept and understand its flaws, see the previous post.  Otherwise, I will continue where I left off.  I will show the illogical nature of the Trinity and point out some Biblical errors.

As with many of my other posts, my comments here will be highly controversial and I want readers to carefully distinguish what I am saying from what I am not saying.  For instance, I am not arguing here in any way that Christ does not have a divine nature, but that he is simply not the Father (and the Holy Spirit is not either), meaning that the idea that there are "three persons in one" is nonsense if it means to say that three different beings are truly one being.  The Trinity, despite the claims of its adherents, is inescapably polytheistic, and I am simply demonstrating why a somewhat polytheistic understanding of Christ and Yahweh in particular is the only logical one.

I want to show up front that Matthew 28:19 is not the Biblical confirmation of the Trinity that some represent it as.


Matthew 28:19--"'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"


At most this verse rightly states that Christianity features three important divine beings; it does not say that they are identical persons yet not identical or contradict anything I am about to say.  The traditional doctrine of the Trinity is not made clear in this, as if the three beings mentioned here are all divine and distinct then it is saying that three divine beings, not one, exist.

What does the Bible say that actually falsifies the idea of the Trinity as popularly conveyed?  Several obvious differences between Yahweh and Christ exist.  Jesus has a body while Yahweh does not.  Jesus could not have died unless he had a body, much less have eaten after his resurrection (Luke 24) or been physically touched by others:


John 1:1, 14--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

John 4:21, 24--"Jesus declared . . . 'God is spirit . . .'"


Jesus did not know the hour or day of his return, but Yahweh did:


Matthew 24:30, 36--"'At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations will mourn.  They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory . . . No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'"


Jesus and Yahweh have different wills:


Luke 22:39-42--"Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him.  On reaching the place, he said to them, 'Pray that you will not fall into temptation.'  He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but your will be done.'"


At least three objective Biblical differences between Jesus and Yahweh exist, therefore: 1) Jesus has a body and Yahweh does not, 2) Jesus did not know the hour of his return but Yahweh did, and 3) Jesus and Yahweh have their own autonomous wills.  They are not the same and thus the Bible teaches that there are at least two divine beings.

Only someone truly irrational would, after being presented these points, insist that Christ and Yahweh are somehow truly the same.  Whether Christ was coeternal alongside Yahweh (meaning there is not just one uncaused cause) or Yahweh created Jesus prior to creating the material world as Arianism holds, Jesus still holds a divine status that ontologically separates him from humans, angels, and other objects of creation.  He certainly existed before the material world (John 8:58, Colossians 1:16).  It does not follow even from this aspect of Arianism that Christ is not divine.  After all, it is logically possible for God to create a being that shares his attributes of power but that, of course, is not without a beginning and has its own will.  Note that I am speaking in hypotheticals to show what does and does not follow from the proposition that Yahweh created Christ--I am not saying that he did, although there are some passages that I can see people deriving this from (Colossians 1:15 [2], John 3:16, etc.), and I can also see how the very words "Father" and "Son" can imply that the Son had a beginning of sorts.

I will now state examples of the three laws of logic (law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle).  A is A.  Something is not both A and not A in the same way at the same time.  Something is either A or not A.  Now, let's apply these inviolable laws of logic [3] to the person of Christ.  Jesus is Jesus.  Something is not both Jesus and not Jesus in the same way at the same time.  Something is either Jesus or not Jesus.  Thus, if Jesus is not Yahweh, Jesus and Yahweh are not identical beings.  If there is any need to distinguish between Jesus and Yahweh as the Bible obviously does so often throughout the gospels, then the two are objectively different ontological entities.  That is not to say that Jesus has no divine nature--he is also credited with cocreating the world with Yahweh.

This concept of the Trinity clearly violates the law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle.  Since logic cannot be false and Trinitarianism contradicts all three laws of logic and thus it necessarily follows inescapably that it cannot be true!  If Yahweh is not Christ, then the two are not identical and thus are not the same being; if Yahweh and Christ are the same, then there would be no such thing as distinguishing between them.  Unsurprisingly, otherwise rational people have admitted to me after conversations about the Trinity, in which I challenged Trinitarianism, that the Trinity defies logic and thus is not a rational belief.  But some of them have said they would opt to believe in it anyway.  When it gets down to it, it is rather easy to demonstrate that the Trinity is logically and mathematically impossible.  Different things are not the same; three is not one.

I want to mention how someone could still use the term "Trinity" and not be an illogical or unbiblical theologian.  As long as a person does not mean by the word Trinity that Christ, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit are identical yet separate--"three in one"--then use of the word does not contradict any of the logical facts addressed in this article.

I also want to explain the ultimate triviality of belief in Trinitarianism in terms of everyday life.  Yes, believing in the Trinity is illogical and unbiblical, but Trinitarianism also scarcely impacts the actual lives of people I know who believe it.  People who believe in false ideas like legalism, complementarianism, eternal conscious torment, or atheism may act very differently than they would if they did not believe in those things.  But I cannot think of a single way that Trinitarianism objectively, universally changes one's worldview or lifestyle simply by nature of the belief itself.  It at most externally amounts to, in the lives of Trinitarians I know, a complicated belief invoked in vague ways that Trinitarians don't really know how to explain or handle.  In my own life, the way I pray, evangelize, think, and generally live has not changed in any noticeable way because I have abandoned Trinitarianism and become what I call a "Christian polytheist".

I hope that this information makes sense to readers, and I also hope that this information can liberate Christians who realize the illogicality of the Trinity as defined and explained by popular theology and yet affirm the truth of Christianity itself.  Cognitive dissonance is a powerful burden that can foster intellectual shallowness, unnecessary guilt, and a generally inconsistent worldview.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-1.html

[2].  The phrase "firstborn over all creation" could clearly be a title of cosmic authority and not one that indicates that Christ was created first and then cocreated other created things with Yahweh (the "Father").  I am only saying that I see how this verse, isolated, could seem to teach an Arian belief.

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-infallibility-of-logic.html