reader question on the Trinity and numerical sameness

A podcast listener recently emailed me to ask (emphases added):

I won’t hide that I’m a happy Trinitarian and yet that I’m thoroughly enjoying your podcast since it provokes my theology and forces me to actually think about why I believe what I believe. This is a healthy check I think.

I am puzzled though about why the numerical issue is so important. If Jesus isn’t God, it won’t be because 3 cannot be 1 but rather because he never claims to be so when we study the Scriptures (which I’m happy to explore). Is there something I missed about this “numerical issue” that is critical to understanding the Trinity (or lack thereof)? I can remember the example of that philosopher a few months back that argued that God was necessarily three. While it’s easy to agree to such reasoning as a trinitarian, I wouldn’t take it to the bank since it is not a scriptural approach (I still think the philosophical aspect of that approach to Trinity is interesting though).

So could you clarify why this numerical issue is so important to you?

Thanks for your question, R., and thanks for listening. Let me first say that I don’t think it is very important to point out that “3 cannot be 1″ – that is, that God (or anything) can’t be three in one way and also only one in that same way. I’ve discussed this before as “the standard opening move” in defending the catholic Trinity formulas. I think it is correct, so far as it goes, which is not very far.

Of course, some trinitarians never get this far. They hold, e.g. that the Trinity implies these three claims. (I use “x is y” to mean that x is numerically identical to y, that x and y are one and the same entity – 1 and 2 here do not merely mean that each has the quality or essence of being divine.)

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Father isn’t the Son.

If you think “the Trinity doctrine” implies these three, then you think it is demonstrably false. It is impossible that all of 1-3 be true. Briefly, it is self-evident that things numerically identical to the same thing must be identical to one another (so 1 and 2 imply Father = Son, the contradictory of 3). If you don’t see this, let’s discuss this more in the comments below. (I call this understanding of the Trinity “Popular LT” in this old paper, pp. 11-13.)

All analytic theologians, with the possible exception of a few positive mysterians, are avoiding this interpretation of the catholic Trinity formulas. I don’t go around like some unitarians claiming that “the Trinity” is obviously incoherent – because some interpretations of the catholic Trinity language are arguably coherent (self-consistent), or are at least not obviously incoherent. (The above “Popular LT” is an exception.) My reasons for being unitarian are fundamentally biblical. Although, it did make me stop and think and re-examine the NT when I realized how deep the disagreements run in the trinitarian camp. I saw that the supposed consensus was vague and largely verbal, and that it only dated back to the late 300s.

Anyway, you are surely correct that the main issue between trinitarians and unitarians is not whether or not the Trinity is self-contradictory, but rather whether the scriptures in some sense teach it. Yet, these two issues are related. If some claim is obviously contradictory, then it seems uncharitable to attribute it to any biblical author, much less to God. e.g. We would consider this to be an implausible interpretation of God’s character, say, as presented in Genesis: God is perfectly good, and also, God is somewhat bad. Or about Mary: she was a life-long virgin, yet she made babies (Jesus’s brothers and sisters) in the usual way with Joseph. Yeah, authors can be confused, but we are obligated to try hard to read them as unconfused; this is how we expect others to read or listen to us.

Now I don’t know about other parts of the world, but American evangelicals typically confuse the Trinity together with the idea that “Jesus is God” or “the deity of Christ.” But these two theories – the Trinity and the two natures of Jesus – are not the same. The first came more than two centuries after the second! But American evangelicals – with an exception of some with strong seminar training – understand “the deity of Christ” to mean or imply that Jesus = God – that Jesus just is God and vice-versa, that they are numerically one. But this, on evangelical assumptions, or on any Christian’s assumptions (unitarian or trinitarian, Catholic or Protestant, etc.), can’t be true, and must be false. I explain why here (paper). I also explain the points pretty fully in this paper (podcast version). As you can see, I’ve been harping on this point for several years now. But it’s not a theoretical point, in the sense that I’m pushing a pet theory. Rather, it is a patent confusion, which is widely recognized as such by analytic theologians, but which is nonetheless common in the tradition. It’s like thinking that a triangle can have four sides. Once someone explains to you why it is a mistake, one should move on, not take comfort in the fact that others are so confused.

Ridiculously, some evangelical apologists interpret the NT as teaching both that Jesus is numerically identical to God, and that Jesus is numerically distinct from God. But that’s foolish and uncharitable as a reading of the NT. It’s merely projecting one’s confusion onto texts that can (and so, should) be read self-consistently. They think this is humble, but it is no more humble than saying that the Bible teaches that Elijah just is, and (in the same sense) is not John the Baptist. A person who is very sophisticated in epistemology can resist this, but in my view, they shouldn’t.

Did I answer your questions?