The objection
Jc Beall defends a doctrine of the Trinity in which contradictions about God can be true. Is this the consistent solution if classical logic does not permit the doctrine?
1. The proposal must not be described as mere refusal to think
Beall develops a particular logical approach. He considers some contradictory statements about God true and denies that arbitrary statements must follow from them.[1] This is more sophisticated than claiming that no argument is permitted about God at all.
Paraconsistent logic prevents every inconsistency from making an entire system trivial. It does not yet follow, however, that reality itself contains true contradictions. A logic for handling contradictory information and the claim of a contradictory God are different theses.
2. The alleged necessity depends on formalization
If “the Father is God” and “the Son is God” are understood as complete identities with the same individual, an actual conflict arises with the additional sentence “the Father is not the Son.” But precisely the first translation requires justification.
The classical distinction between being and person does not assert identity and nonidentity of the same persons in the same respect.[2] Anyone considering this distinction inadequate must show why it fails. One must not first stipulate a disputed translation and then present its contradiction as an attribute of God.
3. God's truthfulness is no arbitrarily interchangeable criterion
Scripture contrasts God's faithfulness with his self-denial and calls him the God who does not lie. These statements are no exhaustive treatise on formal logic. But they establish why we receive his revelation as truthful and reliable speech.
If a model claims that certain statements about God are simultaneously true and false, it must explain why precisely these statements should be treated this way. The mere difficulty of a human explanation supplies no such reason. Inscrutability is no positive evidence of contradictoriness.
4. Our answer preserves the respective aspect
The Son is God according to being and personally distinct from the Father. In incarnation he is eternal according to deity and temporally born according to humanity. Such distinctions seek to hide no demonstrated contradiction; they specify what is even being asserted.
We therefore do not adopt Beall's additional thesis of true contradictions. The burden of proof lies in demonstrating that the revealed doctrine would be untenable without this thesis. A failed explanatory model or misleading equality statement is insufficient. God's revelation calls for precise thinking, not abandonment of its definite statements.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- Jc Beall, Divine Contradiction: some snippetsReligious Studies 60/4 (2024), pp. 680–683; his own summary of the approach of true divine contradictions.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiaeI, q. 28, a. 3: personal distinction and the precise respect in which relationships are distinguished.