So, you’re a Trinitarian. Cool, cool. You believe in One God—who is simultaneously Three Persons. You can’t explain it. Your clergy can’t explain it. Medieval monks spent entire careers not explaining it. And yet here you are, totally confident that this makes perfect sense and that everyone who finds it incoherent is just not smart enough or spiritually mature enough to grasp the mystery.
Yeah, we need to talk about that.
Look, I’m not here to be mean. Well, okay, I’m a little bit here to be mean. But mostly I just want to help you understand why the Logical Problems of the Trinity (henceforth LPT, because theologians love their acronyms and I’m not about to break that tradition) represent an actual, genuine conceptual crisis that your faith tradition has been genuinely, sincerely failing to solve for about 1,700 years. Not “mysterious in a profound way.” Not “beyond human reason in a way that actually makes your faith stronger.” No. Genuinely incoherent in ways that would make a first-year philosophy major go, “Oh, yeah, that doesn’t work.”
But here’s the thing—and I say this with a full heart—you’ve probably never actually encountered the LPT stated with any clarity. You’ve heard people say “one in essence, three in person” and you’ve nodded along. You’ve been told it’s a mystery and that’s actually beautiful and profound. You’ve been assured that the greatest minds of Christian history all affirmed it, so it must be true. And then you’ve moved on with your life, never once interrogating whether any of those statements actually hold up under the slightest scrutiny.
Don’t blame yourself. The system is designed to prevent you from asking hard questions. It’s very good at its job. But I’m going to ask those questions anyway, and I’m going to do it in a way that’s actually intelligible, because the responsible presentation of the LPT doesn’t require seminary training—it just requires basic logic and the willingness to follow where the argument leads, even when it’s uncomfortable.
So buckle up, buttercup. We’re going to work through this together.
THE BASIC PROBLEM, OR: “WAIT, YOUR GOD IS ONE OR THREE?”
Let’s start with the most fundamental problem, the one that’s been quietly destroying the coherence of Trinitarian theology since the moment the doctrine was formalized at Nicaea. I’m talking about what philosophers call the “One and the Three” problem.
Here’s the thing: you say God is one. You also say God is three. These statements are, on their face, contradictory. One is not three. Three is not one. This isn’t a difficult proposition. A child can understand it. And yet every single Trinitarian theologian who has ever lived has had to perform increasingly baroque philosophical gymnastics to make these two statements coexist in a single coherent worldview.
The standard response? “One in essence, three in person.” Great. Wonderful. What does that actually mean?
If you’re expecting me to be mean here, let me disappoint you: I’m just going to ask clarifying questions. Because here’s the real problem. The terms “essence” and “person” are doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, and when you look at them closely, they’re not actually bearing the weight. They’re more like decorative columns—they look like they’re holding something up, but if you put any actual pressure on them, you realize they were never loadbearing at all.
An “essence” is typically understood as what something is. The essential nature of a thing. God’s essence is presumably: all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, eternal, unchanging, etc. That’s one essence. One divine nature. One set of essential properties. Got it?
A “person,” in classical theology, is supposed to be the principle of individuation—the thing that makes one entity distinct from another. If I have essence-X and you have essence-X, but we’re different people, the difference lies in our personhood. Right?
So when you say God is “one essence, three persons,” what you’re actually saying is: “God has one divine nature, but that nature exists in three distinct individuals.”
But wait. If God has one divine nature, and that nature includes being “the all-powerful one,” then all three persons must be the one who is all-powerful. But if all three persons are the same one who is all-powerful, then there can’t be three distinct individuals. There’s just one individual who happens to also be three individuals, which is… yeah. Contradictory.
“But it’s a mystery!” you cry out, already reaching for your copy of Aquinas.
Sure. Let’s talk about what “mystery” means in this context.
A mystery, in the classical theological sense, is supposed to be something that transcends human reason but is not contradictory to reason. It’s beyond our ability to fully comprehend, but it doesn’t violate basic logical principles. This is actually a meaningful distinction. The Incarnation (one person with two natures) is harder to understand than ordinary experience, but it doesn’t violate logic—you can have one individual with distinct properties. Fine.
But the Trinity doesn’t transcend reason. It violates reason. It says, “Here are two statements that are contradictory when taken literally, so don’t take them literally.” But then it doesn’t actually explain what they mean instead. It just keeps repeating the formula and hoping that repetition will eventually create the illusion of comprehension.
This is, to put it mildly, a problem.
RESPONSE ONE: “THEY’RE DIFFERENT KINDS OF UNITY!”
Okay, so here’s where the Trinitarian theologians actually try to do some work. They say, “Look, when we say God is one, we don’t mean numerical unity. We mean something more profound.” They’ll point you to medieval distinctions between different kinds of oneness—substantial unity, generic unity, specific unity, accidental unity—and act like choosing the right one from the menu will magically make the contradiction disappear.
It won’t.
Here’s why: Whatever kind of unity you’re proposing, it has to actually be a property that makes God one in the relevant sense. And it has to be distinguished from the multiplicity of three persons. But three persons is an ontological multiplicity—it means three distinct individuals. Real, genuine, not-merely-apparent numerical distinctness.
So now you’ve got: one in some important sense of “one,” but also three in the sense of “three genuinely distinct individuals.” And you still haven’t explained how these coexist.
The medieval theologians tried to get fancy and say things like, “The unity is in the substance, the trinity is in the relations.” Oh, I see. So they’re related to each other in a way that makes them three, but the stuff they’re made of is one?
Congratulations. You’ve now created a new problem. You’ve essentially defined “person” as “a distinct relational mode within a single substance.” But that means the three “persons” aren’t actually persons in any meaningful sense—they’re properties of one person. They’re modes or aspects. The Sabellians figured this out in the third century, which is why the church said, “No, they have to be actual persons, not modes.” But if they’re actual distinct persons, then you’re back to the one and three problem.
You can’t have your trinitarian cake and eat it too.
And here’s where it gets fun: The Trinitarian theologians often accuse their critics of being “modalists”—of treating the Trinity as if the persons are just modes or aspects of God rather than real distinctions. But that accusation rings hollow when their own explanations consistently collapse into some version of modalism the moment you start pressing them.
“They’re three persons but one substance?”
“What’s the difference between a ‘person’ and a ‘distinct individual’?”
“…well, it’s a mystery.”
That’s modalism with extra steps. At least the Sabellians were honest about it.
RESPONSE TWO: “DIFFERENT LOGICAL LAWS!”
Some of the more philosophically adventurous Trinitarians have actually tried a different tactic. They suggest that God exists in a realm where different logical laws might apply. That in the divine nature, the law of non-contradiction might not hold in the same way it holds for us.
To which I say: Okay, so you’ve just admitted that your doctrine is incoherent, and your solution is to posit a different reality where incoherence is fine?
That’s not theology. That’s giving up on theology. That’s saying, “I don’t have an answer, and rather than find one, I’m going to assert that logic itself might not apply.”
But here’s the really fun part: This move is entirely self-defeating. Because if different logical laws apply to God, then we can’t make any meaningful statements about God at all. We can’t say God is all-powerful, because maybe “all-powerful” means something different in divine reality. We can’t say God is good, because maybe goodness operates under different logic. We’ve essentially made God completely unknowable.
Except… you don’t actually believe that. You make all kinds of confident statements about what God is, what God wants, what God has done. You pray to God. You assume God hears you. You assume that when you pray for something, God understands what you’re asking. All of this assumes that God operates within the same basic logical framework as you do.
So you can’t actually get away with this move. You can’t say “logic doesn’t apply to God” and then turn around and use logic to defend your faith. That’s having your cake and eating it too, and even that’s a contradictory metaphor about it.
RESPONSE THREE: “APOLOGETICS.PDF”
Then there are the Trinitarians who try the technical approach. They’ll point you toward William Lane Craig or James White or some other apologist who has written a very thick book about why the Trinity is perfectly coherent when you understand it through the lens of [insert obscure medieval philosophical framework here].
And sometimes these books are actually intellectually sophisticated! That’s almost worse, honestly, because it gives you the confidence that you’re engaging with serious arguments, when really you’re just watching smart people do rhetorical backflips to avoid concluding what their own arguments seem to be pointing toward.
Take the “material constitution” defense. Some apologists will argue that God is like a lump of clay that is both “one lump” and “one clump” and could theoretically be shaped into “three statues” without ceasing to be one lump. Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be three persons but one God.
Except… that doesn’t work. A lump of clay that is shaped into three statues is no longer one lump. It’s three lumps. Or it’s one substance in three forms, which brings us back to modalism. And also, the persons of the Trinity are supposed to be eternally distinct, not contingently distinct based on how the substance is shaped. So this analogy breaks down immediately.
Other apologists will try “relative identity” frameworks, where A and B can be the same “in one sense” and different “in another sense.” But the Trinity isn’t just any difference of senses—it’s the difference between being one being and being three beings. That’s not the kind of thing that can be resolved by semantic manipulation.
The problem is always the same, no matter how technically sophisticated the defense: You’re trying to explain away a logical contradiction by using increasingly technical language. But fancy language doesn’t fix logic. It just obscures the fact that the underlying problem remains unsolved.
It’s like if I tried to explain how 2+2=5 by developing a complex metaphysical framework about “contexts of addition” and “relational arithmetic.” Sure, I could write a whole book about it. That doesn’t make it true.
THE IDENTITY PROBLEM, OR: “ARE THEY LITERALLY THE SAME OR NOT?”
Okay, let’s zoom in on a specific aspect of this mess. Because the Trinity creates a bunch of smaller logical problems that flow out of the big one, and one of the most pernicious is the “identity problem.”
Here’s the deal: The church teaches that the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
By the logic of identity, if A is God and B is God, then A is B. If the Father is God and the Son is God, then the Father is the Son.
But the church also insists that the Father is not the Son. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
So we’ve got:
- The Father = God
- The Son = God
- Therefore, the Father = the Son
- But also: The Father ≠ the Son
This is a flat contradiction. There’s no metaphysical framework where this works.
The standard response is to say that they’re the same in substance but different in person. But that’s just pushing the contradiction back a step. If “substance” is what makes them the same, then they’re the same. If “person” is what makes them different, then they’re different. And you still have to explain how one thing can be both the same and different in these two respects.
Some theologians try to argue that identity statements are context-dependent. “The Father is the Son” is false if we’re asking about personal identity, but true if we’re asking about divine identity.
But this doesn’t help. Identity is identity. Either the Father literally is the Son (they’re the same individual, the same person, the same entity) or the Father is not the Son. You don’t get to say both depending on which question you’re asking. That’s just contradiction with extra steps.
Here’s where it gets truly wild: The Trinitarian theologian will often accuse the Unitarian or the Modalist of confusing “personal identity” with “substance identity” as if this is some kind of devastating logical move. But they’re the ones trying to hold both of these at the same time while insisting it’s coherent. At least the Unitarian or the Modalist has chosen a consistent framework. The Trinitarian is trying to have it both ways.
And the deeper problem is this: “Substance” and “person” are supposed to be distinct metaphysical categories that can be separated. But when we look at what actually makes something a person—consciousness, will, agency, the ability to be the subject of a sentence—these are things that seem like they should go with substance. The Father is conscious, the Son is conscious, the Spirit is conscious. Three consciousnesses = three beings.
Unless you want to argue that they share a consciousness? Let’s talk about that for a second.
THE CONSCIOUSNESS PROBLEM
If the three persons share one consciousness, then they’re not really three persons. A person, in any meaningful sense, is a distinct center of consciousness and agency. If the consciousness is shared, then what you’ve got is one person who has three distinct roles or manifestations. That’s modalism.
But if they each have their own consciousness, then you’ve got three beings. The Father knows things the Son doesn’t know in the moment (like, in the Incarnation, Jesus doesn’t know the day or the hour of the end times, but God the Father does). The Son prays to the Father, which suggests a distinct consciousness asking a separate consciousness for something. The Spirit “intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words,” suggesting a distinct center of agency.
If they’re truly three persons with distinct consciousnesses, then they’re three beings, and monotheism is false.
If they share one consciousness, then they’re one person, and the Trinity is false.
There’s no in-between. There’s no coherent position that says, “They have distinct consciousnesses but are also one conscious being.” That’s a contradiction.
And again, the Trinitarian response is, “It’s a mystery.”
But it’s not mysterious. It’s incoherent. Mysterious is when something exceeds human comprehension but doesn’t violate logic. Incoherent is when something violates logic. These are different things.
RESPONSE TO THE IDENTITY PROBLEM: “CONSTITUTION VS. IDENTITY”
Okay, here’s where some of the more sophisticated apologists try to deploy “constitution” language. They’ll say that the three persons are “constitutive” of the one God without being “identical” to it.
Like, how a statue might be constituted by bronze without the statue being identical to the bronze. The statue is a certain form given to the bronze. The bronze and the statue are different (different properties), but the bronze constitutes the statue.
Applied to the Trinity: The three persons constitute the one God without being identical to the one God.
But wait. If the three persons constitute the one God, and the one God has all the divine properties, then the three persons must collectively possess all the divine properties. So each person either (a) possesses all the divine properties individually, in which case each is omniscient, omnipotent, etc., which makes them each a complete god, or (b) possesses some subset of the properties, in which case none of them is omniscient or omnipotent, so none of them is actually God.
You can’t have three individuals that collectively constitute an omniscient being without each of them being omniscient. Omniscience is a knowledge state—you either know all things or you don’t. You can’t have three beings that don’t individually know all things but collectively know all things. That’s nonsensical.
So once again, the attempted solution collapses under scrutiny.
THE INCARNATION PROBLEM
Oh, and let’s not forget the Incarnation. Because the Trinity doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it has to somehow accommodate the Incarnation. Jesus is supposed to be fully God and fully man. And if God is the Trinity, then Jesus is somehow the Trinity while being a human being.
But wait, which person of the Trinity is Jesus? The church says: The Son. So the Son became incarnate, but the Father and the Holy Spirit didn’t?
So when Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, was he praying to himself? Was the Father hearing the prayers of a part of himself?
And here’s the real kicker: If the Son is completely divine (all-knowing, all-powerful, unchangeable), how could he become incarnate? How could he be subject to hunger, temptation, growth, suffering? These properties are contradictory. An all-knowing being can’t learn things. An unchanging being can’t grow.
The standard response is that Jesus had two natures—one divine, one human. The divine nature didn’t suffer, but the human nature did. So the person of the Son had these two distinct natures.
But now you’ve created a new problem: The person of the Son has two natures, the Father has one nature, and the Spirit has… one nature? So do the persons of the Trinity have a different number of natures? And if personhood is supposed to be what distinguishes them, but they have different numbers of natures, doesn’t that create a new asymmetry that the doctrine hasn’t accounted for?
And more fundamentally: Can one person actually have two complete natures? It seems like what you’re describing is either:
- One person with two aspects (modalism), or
- Two persons (one divine, one human) who are somehow the same person (contradiction)
The church tried to handle this with the Definition of Chalcedon, which says the two natures are “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” Which is a beautiful way of saying “we’re using four negatives to avoid explaining how this actually works.”
RESPONSE TO THE INCARNATION PROBLEM: “THE LOGOS DOCTRINE”
Okay, so the Trinitarian apologists might point you to what’s called “Logos Christology” or “Word Christology”—the idea that Jesus is the Logos, the eternal Word of God, who became incarnate. And they might say that’s a coherent framework for understanding the Incarnation.
Sure, if you’re fine with the Logos being a separate entity from God the Father. Because in John’s Gospel, the Logos is “with God” and “was God.” With suggests distinction. So the Logos is distinct from God but is also God?
Sound familiar?
You’ve just recreated the Trinity’s core problem at a smaller scale.
And more importantly, even if Logos Christology worked, it wouldn’t resolve the fundamental issue: An omniscient being can’t learn. An immutable being can’t change. A being outside of time can’t experience temporal suffering. These aren’t matters of “different natures”—these are logical contradictions.
If the divine nature is immutable but the incarnate Christ changed, then the divine nature and the human nature must be in contradiction. And you can’t be in contradiction with yourself.
THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES PROBLEM
Let’s zoom out a bit. The Trinity doesn’t just create logical problems within itself—it creates problems for every divine attribute.
Take omniscience. If God is omniscient, God knows all things that are knowable. But take the Incarnation: Does Jesus know whether he will die on the cross? If his divine nature is omniscient, it must know. If his human nature has genuine free will, it must be free not to know, or at least free not to have that knowledge determine its choices.
But a being can’t both know something and genuinely choose not to act on that knowledge if that choice is supposed to be free. Foreknowledge undermines freedom. This is the problem of divine foreknowledge and free will, and it’s been kicking around for centuries. But the Trinity makes it worse by suggesting that you can have both a divine nature that knows everything and a human nature that’s supposedly free.
Or take omnipotence. If God is omnipotent, God can do all things that are logically possible. But can God die? Can God suffer? Can God be tempted? Classical theology says no—these are not properly divine acts. But the Incarnation says yes—God the Son did all of these things.
So now you’ve got: God is omnipotent, but God can’t do X. God did do X. Therefore… we’re back to incoherence.
The Trinitarian might try to say that it was the human nature that suffered, not the divine nature. But we’ve already seen where that goes—it either creates modalism or it suggests two persons.
RESPONSE TO THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES PROBLEM: “DIVINE SIMPLICITY!”
And this is where the Trinitarian might deploy the doctrine of Divine Simplicity—the idea that God’s essence and attributes are identical to his being. God doesn’t have omniscience; God is omniscience. God doesn’t have power; God is power.
On the surface, this seems like it might help with some of the Trinity problems, because it seems to suggest that all divine properties are one in God, so there’s really no multiplicity.
But it actually makes things worse.
If God is an absolutely simple being—if there’s no composition between essence and attributes, no composition between substance and accidents, no composition between essence and existence—then God can’t have internal relations. The persons of the Trinity would have to be external relations. But how can three externally related beings be one simple being?
They can’t. External relations imply real distinction, which imply real multiplicity, which imply composition, which violates simplicity.
So if you accept Divine Simplicity, you can’t accept the Trinity. And if you accept the Trinity, you can’t accept Divine Simplicity. These doctrines are incompatible.
Which is why a lot of modern Trinitarian theologians have actually started backing away from Divine Simplicity. They realize it doesn’t work with the Trinity. But they won’t come out and say it directly, because Divine Simplicity has been part of classical Christian theology for so long.
So instead, they’ll develop increasingly complex frameworks for understanding a God that is “simple” in some senses and “composite” in others, “simple” with respect to substance but “multiple” with respect to persons, etc.
In other words, they’re trying to square a circle. And they’re doing it with more and more vocabulary each decade, like that will somehow make the circle actually square.
It won’t.
THE PROBLEM OF EXPLANATION
Here’s something that doesn’t get talked about enough: Even if we grant that the Trinity is logically possible (which it isn’t, but let’s pretend), the doctrine still completely fails as an explanation for anything.
The Trinity is supposed to explain something about God’s nature. But what? That God is three persons in one substance. Okay, but why? Why couldn’t God just be one person? What theological work does the Trinity do that couldn’t be done more simply?
The standard answer is that the Trinity is grounded in Scripture, in the revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Okay, fine. But nothing in Scripture actually says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same being. In fact, Scripture consistently speaks of them as distinct agents performing distinct actions.
The Father sends the Son. The Son prays to the Father. The Spirit intercedes for us. These are descriptions of distinct beings doing things in relation to each other. You could read all of Scripture and never come to the conclusion that these are the same being if you weren’t starting with the assumption that they must be.
So the doctrine isn’t actually explaining Scripture. It’s imposing a metaphysical framework onto Scripture. And when Scripture doesn’t fit the framework, the Trinitarians just say, “Well, that’s accommodative language” or “God is revealing himself progressively” or some other dodge.
But here’s the thing: If your doctrine requires you to constantly explain away the explicit statements of Scripture, maybe your doctrine isn’t right.
The Biblical Unitarian position—that God is the Father alone, that Jesus is the Messiah and God’s appointed Son but not God himself, that the Spirit is God’s power or presence rather than a separate person—explains the scriptural data without requiring you to posit logically incoherent entities. It’s simpler. It’s more coherent. It fits the text better.
And the Trinitarian response is, “But tradition! The church fathers! Nicaea!”
Yeah, and the church fathers also endorsed infant baptism, clerical celibacy, and the Pope’s infallibility. You don’t seem to have a problem selectively rejecting church tradition when it’s inconvenient. So maybe the fact that the tradition affirmed something doesn’t actually make it true.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Okay, I can already hear the Trinitarian objection: “This is all very clever, but does it really matter? Can’t I just believe in the Trinity without fully understanding it? Can’t I have faith?”
Sure, you can. Lots of people do. But here’s the thing: If your faith is built on a logically incoherent doctrine, then you’re building your faith on something that doesn’t actually exist. You’re placing your trust in a conceptual impossibility.
And more than that: You’re committing to believing something that you know you can’t explain. You’re taking intellectual dishonesty as a virtue. You’re actively training yourself not to think too hard about your own beliefs.
That’s not faith. That’s intellectual surrender.
Real faith should be able to withstand scrutiny. Real doctrine should be coherent. If your beliefs can’t survive a basic logical examination, then maybe—just maybe—you should consider whether they’re true.
The Trinitarian might respond: “But the Incarnation is also hard to understand! The Atonement is also mysterious! Why single out the Trinity?”
And the answer is: Because the Incarnation and the Atonement are hard to understand, but they’re not logically incoherent. You can develop coherent understandings of them. The Trinity is not just hard to understand—it’s logically impossible if you take the statements at face value. And it doesn’t get better the more you think about it. It gets worse.
WHY TRINITARIANS CAN’T ADMIT THIS
The real tragedy here is that the entire Western Christian theological tradition is locked into defending a doctrine that doesn’t work. Thousands of brilliant theologians have spent centuries trying to make the Trinity coherent. And not a single one of them has succeeded.
Why? Because it can’t be done. Not because they weren’t smart enough (they were very smart), but because it’s logically impossible.
And yet they can’t abandon it, because the doctrine has been defined as essential to Christian faith. To reject the Trinity is to be labeled a heretic. So instead of saying, “You know what, this doesn’t work, let’s try something else,” they keep iterating. They add more distinctions, more frameworks, more sophisticated language.
They’re like a person trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, except instead of admitting the peg doesn’t fit, they keep finding new ways to describe the shape of the hole.
It’s actually kind of sad, if it weren’t so intellectually dishonest.
And the laypeople in the pews don’t even realize what’s happening. They’re told the Trinity is a mystery, and they assume that’s a good thing—that it’s profoundly mysterious in the way that the vastness of the cosmos is profoundly mysterious. They don’t realize that “mystery” in this context means “incoherent nonsense we can’t explain but require you to believe anyway.”
OKAY, SO WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?
If the Trinity doesn’t work, what does?
Well, if you’re a Christian—and you want to maintain biblical faithfulness, logical coherence, and intellectual integrity—you have some options.
Option one: Modalism. God is one person who reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times and in different ways. This is coherent, but it doesn’t match the New Testament, where the Father, Son, and Spirit seem to exist and act simultaneously and distinctly.
Option two: Arianism or Semi-Arianism. Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, exalted to divine status, but he’s not co-equal with the Father. He was created by God as the firstborn of all creation. This is actually fairly coherent and explains a lot of the New Testament data, but it got branded as heresy pretty early on.
Option three: Biblical Unitarianism. God the Father alone is God (truly, fully, completely). Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and will be given authority over all things, but he’s not God in the strict, classical sense. The Spirit is God’s own power or presence. This is coherent, it’s biblically grounded, and it’s actually historically attested in the early church.
The fact that the Trinity triumphed over all of these alternatives wasn’t because it was more coherent or more biblical. It was because Constantine called a council at Nicaea, and the emperor’s preferred theological position won. And then the emperor’s power was used to suppress the alternatives.
That’s not an argument for truth. That’s an argument for political power.
CONCLUSION: YOU BELIEVE IN AN INCOHERENT DOCTRINE
So here’s the bottom line: You, the Trinitarian, believe in a doctrine that is logically incoherent. Your brightest theologians have spent centuries trying to make it coherent, and they’ve all failed. Not because they weren’t smart, but because the task is impossible.
You’ve been taught that this incoherence is actually a sign of profundity—that it’s mysterious and transcendent and beyond human reason. But that’s not what incoherence is. Incoherence is just contradiction. It doesn’t become true if you call it a mystery. It doesn’t become profound if you surround it with enough theological jargon. It’s still just false.
And the really annoying part—the part that might actually get under your skin—is that there are coherent alternatives out there. You could be a Christian. You could love Jesus. You could read Scripture and take it seriously. You could do all of that without tying yourself in logical knots trying to defend a doctrine that doesn’t work.
But instead, you’ve committed yourself to a position that requires you to believe something that is logically impossible. And when anyone points this out, your response is to defend it harder, dig in deeper, and accuse your critics of not being sophisticated enough to understand it.
That’s not faith. That’s self-deception.
So maybe—just maybe—it’s worth asking yourself: Why am I doing this? Why am I defending a doctrine I can’t explain and that doesn’t actually make sense? What would happen if I admitted it doesn’t work and looked for something that does?
Because the doctrine won’t fall apart if you do. Christianity won’t fall apart. Your faith won’t fall apart. You might actually end up with a stronger, more coherent, more biblically faithful faith than you had before.
But the Trinity? Yeah, that’ll definitely fall apart.
And honestly, it probably deserves to.
OKAY FINE, LAST THOUGHTS
Look, I’m not actually here to be cruel about this. I get it. You were raised in a Trinitarian tradition. It’s comfortable. It’s familiar. Changing your theological commitments is hard and disorienting and it might alienate you from your community.
So I’m not expecting you to go read the early church fathers and suddenly become a Unitarian.
But I am asking you to be honest with yourself. When you encounter the logical problems of the Trinity—and you will, if you ever seriously think about your faith—don’t just dismiss them as “attacks on the faith” or “the work of the enemy” or whatever. Actually engage with them. Think about them. Try to work through them.
And if you can’t come up with a coherent response—and you probably can’t, because there isn’t one—then at least admit it. Say, “I believe this even though I can’t explain it.” That’s intellectually humble. That’s honest.
What you can’t do is pretend you have coherent explanations when you don’t. What you can’t do is accuse others of not being smart enough to understand something that doesn’t actually make sense. What you can’t do is call contradiction “mystery” and expect that to settle the matter.
Because it won’t. The problems with the Trinity aren’t going away. They’ve been there for 1,700 years, and no amount of sophisticated theology is ever going to solve them.
But you could.
You could look at these problems, acknowledge that they’re real, and consider that maybe—just maybe—the doctrine that creates all these problems isn’t actually true.
And then you could believe something that actually makes sense.
That would be something worth doing.
Leave a Reply