Trinitarianism is a Contradiction, Not a Paradox

A paradox is an apparent contradiction that, upon closer examination, reveals a deeper truth or coherence. It does not violate the laws of logic, but instead challenges us to expand our understanding. A contradiction, however, is a situation where two or more propositions are in direct conflict, making it impossible for all to be true simultaneously in the same sense.

Contradiction vs. Paradox

• Paradox: An apparent contradiction that, upon closer examination, reveals a deeper, consistent truth. For example, Jesus saying, "He who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 10:39) is paradoxical because it challenges our understanding but ultimately reveals a deeper spiritual truth.
• Contradiction: A direct conflict between two or more propositions that cannot all be true in the same sense and at the same time. For example, the claim that something can be both fully infinite and fully finite would be contradictory because infinity and finiteness are mutually exclusive properties.
  
  

The Trinitarian dogma of the Hypostatic Union is a contradiction 

The hypostatic union is a central doctrine in traditional Christian theology, particularly in Trinitarianism. It states:

1. Jesus Christ is fully God.
2. Jesus Christ is fully human.
3. These two natures (divine and human) are united in one person without mixing, changing, or dividing.

This theory, which asserts that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human in one person, a contradiction rather than a paradox for several reasons:

1. Mutually Exclusive Properties:

   • Being fully God implies possessing attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
   • Being fully human implies limitations such as being finite, having limited knowledge, and existing in one place at a time.
   • Asserting that Jesus is both fully God and fully human suggests that he possesses both sets of mutually exclusive properties simultaneously, which is logically inconsistent.

2. Scriptural Depictions:

   • Jesus as Human: Verses such as John 8:40 ("...a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God") and Acts 2:22 ("Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God...") emphasize Jesus' humanity.
   • Jesus’ Limitations: Scriptures highlight Jesus' human limitations, such as not knowing the day or hour of his return (Mark 13:32) and experiencing hunger, thirst, fatigue, and death.
   • Distinct Roles: Verses like John 20:17 ("I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God") indicate a distinction between Jesus and God, reinforcing his role as subordinate to the Father.

3. Divine Attributes vs. Human Experience:

   • Omniscience vs. Limited Knowledge: If Jesus is fully God, he would be omniscient. However, passages like Mark 13:32, where Jesus does not know the hour of the end, suggest a limitation incompatible with omniscience.
   • Omnipresence vs. Spatial Limitation: If Jesus is fully God, he would be omnipresent. Yet, as a human, Jesus was confined to one location at a time.

Theological Implications

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is problematic because it attempts to combine two natures that are fundamentally incompatible:

• God's Nature: Immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• Human Nature: Mutable, limited in knowledge, power, and presence.

Conclusion

A paradox would involve a situation where, despite initial appearances, deeper insight reveals coherence. However, the Trinity does not fit this category because it does not resolve into a coherent understanding within the framework of strict monotheism.

The hypostatic union represents a logical contradiction rather than a paradox. The assertion that Jesus is both fully God and fully human is inherently inconsistent with the nature of both divinity and humanity as described in the Bible.

Claiming that the hypostatic union is a paradox rather than a contradiction does not resolve the logical issues inherent in the doctrine. The attributes of divinity and humanity are mutually exclusive, making the assertion that Jesus is fully God and fully human a logical contradiction.

The fallacy of equivocation.

The fallacy of equivocation involves using a term in different senses in an argument, misleadingly treating different concepts as if they were the same. Arguing that the hypostatic union (which claims Jesus is fully God and fully human) is merely a paradox to justify it while ignoring that it involves mutually exclusive attributes is an equivocation. Rather, the dogma of the hypostatic union is a true contradiction. 

Contradiction of Three Persons, One Essence

The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that God is one being in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). This is inconsistent with the rules of logic-based classical metaphysics, in which separate persons do not share the same mind. In classical metaphysics, a person is considered a substance, meaning a fundamental entity that exists in itself and not in another. A person is a particular kind of substance characterized by individuality and self-existence.

 Classical Metaphysics and Personhood

Classical metaphysics defines a person as an individual substance of a rational nature. This definition includes several key elements:

1. Substance: A fundamental entity that exists independently.
2. Rational Nature: The capacity for reason, self-awareness, and intentional action.
3. Individuality: Each person is a distinct and unique entity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity

The Trinity doctrine asserts:

1. One Divine Essence: God is one being or essence.
2. Three Persons: This one divine essence exists eternally as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Tension Between Trinitarianism and Classical Metaphysics

1. Individuality and Uniqueness:

   • According to classical metaphysics, each person, as an individual substance, is unique and self-subsistent. This implies that if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, they should be distinct substances with their own rational natures.

2. Shared Essence:

   • Trinitarianism posits that these three persons share the same divine essence, leading to the concept of one substance with three centers of consciousness. This appears to conflict with the classical metaphysical principle that a rational substance is inherently individual and unique.

3. Logical Inconsistency:

   • The assertion that three distinct persons can share one essence challenges the classical understanding of a substance. In classical metaphysics, a substance cannot be divided among multiple individuals without losing its unique, self-subsistent nature.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. This emphasizes the uniqueness and singularity of each person. The implication here is that a substance of a rational nature can't be more than one individual. 

 The doctrine of the Trinity, when examined through the lens of classical metaphysics, is inconsistent because it challenges the foundational principles that define personhood and substance. Classical metaphysics emphasizes the individuality and uniqueness of each rational substance, making the concept of three persons sharing one essence logically problematic. 

The Doctrine of the Trinity conflicts with the testimony of Scripture

The doctrine of the Trinity is not only a true logical contraction; it conflicts with the clear testimony of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity violates both the principles of classical metaphysics and scriptural monotheism. 

Scriptural Monotheism:

Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god."

John 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

These verses emphasize that there is one God, and He is singular. This foundational monotheism appears incompatible with the concept of three co-equal, co-eternal persons

Subordination of Jesus

John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I."

1 Corinthians 11:3: "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God."

John 20:17: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."



*This article is assisted with True Unitarian GPT. https://chatgpt.com/g/g-n9KD6kGee-true-unitarian-gpt

Can God be an agent of God?

Why God cannot be an agent of God

The idea that God cannot be an agent of God stems from the classical monotheistic conception of God as an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly unified being:

Unity and Indivisibility: In monotheistic traditions, God is often described as a singular, indivisible being. This unity means that God cannot be divided into separate entities that act on behalf of one another. An agent typically acts on behalf of another entity, implying a distinction between the principal and the agent. In the case of God, such a distinction does not exist.

God is a single unified divine essence

God is a singular, indivisible being, embodying perfect unity and oneness. This unity signifies that within the Godhead, there is no division into separate entities that can act independently or on behalf of one another in a manner that implies distinction. In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same will and mind, making them one in essence and purpose.

In traditional theological terms, an agent acts on behalf of another, suggesting a principal-agent relationship where the agent's actions are representative but distinct from the principal. However, in the context of the Trinity, this concept does not apply. The Son cannot be considered an agent of the Father because both the Father and the Son, along with the Holy Spirit, are essentially and fundamentally one. Their actions are not carried out on behalf of one another but are the actions of a single, unified divine essence.

This intrinsic unity means that any action of the Son is simultaneously the action of the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is no separate volition or intention among the persons of the Trinity. Thus, speaking of the Son as an agent of the Father would misrepresent the nature of the Triune God, as it would imply a separation and hierarchy that contradicts their essential unity. The divine actions are expressions of the one will and one nature of God. Although manifesting through the distinct persons, Jesus cannot be truly an agent of the Father if there is no division or distinction in their essence.

These arguments collectively illustrate why agency inherently involves a subservient relationship, with the agent acting under the authority, control, and interests of the principal.

Agency only applies to someone who is subservient to the principle

Here are several arguments that support the notion that agency typically applies to someone who is subservient to the principal:

1. Definition of Agency: Agency is fundamentally defined as a relationship in which one party, the agent, acts on behalf of another party, the principal. This inherently establishes a hierarchy where the agent is subservient to the principal, carrying out the principal’s instructions or will.

2. Delegated Authority: An agent operates under the authority granted by the principal. This delegated authority implies that the agent's power and actions are derivative, not inherent. The principal possesses the original authority and delegates it to the agent, establishing the agent’s subservient role.

3. Responsibility and Accountability: In an agency relationship, the agent is accountable to the principal for their actions. The agent must act in the best interests of the principal and is typically required to report back to the principal. This accountability reinforces the subservient position of the agent.

4. Fiduciary Duty: Agents have a fiduciary duty to act loyally and in the best interests of the principal. This duty includes obligations such as avoiding conflicts of interest and acting with care and diligence. The presence of fiduciary duties underscores the agent's subservience, as these duties prioritize the principal’s interests over the agent’s own.

5. Subordination in Legal and Business Contexts: In legal and business contexts, the concept of agency is consistently characterized by the subordination of the agent to the principal. Agents are employed to execute tasks, represent the principal, and make decisions within the scope of authority given by the principal, further cementing the hierarchical nature of the relationship.

6. Control and Oversight: The principal has the right to control and direct the actions of the agent. This control can range from giving specific instructions to setting general guidelines. The ability of the principal to oversee and direct the agent’s actions is a clear indicator of the agent’s subservient status.

7. Dependency on Principal’s Authority: An agent's authority is entirely dependent on the principal's grant of power. Without the principal's authorization, the agent has no inherent authority to act. This dependency signifies the agent's subordinate role, as the principal can revoke or alter the agent’s authority at any time.

8. Purpose of Agency: The purpose of establishing an agency relationship is for the principal to achieve certain goals through the agent’s actions. The agent’s role is to serve these goals, functioning as an extension of the principal’s will. This service-oriented function naturally positions the agent as subordinate to the principal.