The objection
Father and Son are supposed to be the same God but different persons. Is this not a special logic that suspends the law of identity only for the Trinity?
1. The classical identity rule is unambiguous
If A is identical with B and B with C in every respect, A is identical with C. Treating Father, Son and God as three interchangeable names of the same person would not allow personal distinction to be maintained simultaneously.
Trinitarian doctrine therefore does not assert that Father and Son are the same person. It expressly distinguishes the question of the one divine being from that of the persons. This distinction alone, however, is not yet a complete formal theory of their relationship.
2. Relative identity is a particular explanatory proposal
The approach formulates, for example: Father and Son are the same God but not the same person. What is disputed is whether identity may always be thought relative to a kind designation or whether such language ultimately presupposes absolute identity. Not all variants go equally far.
Correspondingly, Branson distinguishes formal language, interpretation and the rules by which counting occurs.[1] A Trinitarian must therefore disclose which of these assumptions their particular model uses. Merely repeating “the same but different” is insufficient justification.
3. A distinction is not automatically a breach of rules
One and the same person can possess several relationships. This does not yet yield a Trinity; it merely shows that different relational concepts must not be counted indiscriminately as different beings. Conversely, three separate beings would not already be one merely because they are named differently.
Classical language of real divine relationships attempts to avoid both errors: The distinction of persons is real; deity is not multiplied thereby.[2] Whether a modern identity theory formalizes this aptly must be tested against its precise meaning, not an ambiguous slogan.
4. The model does not carry revelation's authority
We need not claim that every relative identity theory is correct. Nor may criticism of such a model be presented as refutation of all Trinitarian statements. It initially concerns the particular formalization examined.
The biblical starting point remains definite: The Son is with the Father, is no creature and possesses full deity. A helpful theory explains how these statements belong together. An inadequate theory is corrected. This is conceptual accountability, no license to make contradictions true through religious exceptions.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- Beau Branson, No New Solutions to the Logical Problem of the TrinityJournal of Applied Logics 6/6 (2019), pp. 1051–1092; especially the distinction between identity and counting rules.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiaeI, q. 28, a. 3: real distinction of opposed relationships within undivided divine reality.