Is God a trinity?: Debate Error Corrected

This should be fairly short post, but I believe this needs to be addressed and corrected.

During the debate my opponent Josh Lovell stated during his cross-examination of me that the word “glory” in John 17:5 was not the same word used for “glory” in John 17:22.  I personally believe that this was a mis-statement by Josh based on a prior discussion outside the debate we had regarding God giving his glory to others from Isaiah 42:8.  I could be wrong, but either way this statement by Josh is completely incorrect and the text shows it clearly.

For the record, Josh and I stated at 1:34:10 onwards in this audio here:

Josh’s question:

“So, can I say right now, Father glorify me with the glory I had before the world was, or before I was created because when I die God’s going to glorify me?”

My response:

“It’s possible because of John 17:22 “And the glory which you have given me I have given them that they may be one just as we are one” And he’s praying about people in the future who will believe in him”

Josh’s response:

“Right but that glory, those two glory’s are different words. They are different glory’s.  If you look up those two glory’s they are different, they’re referring to two separate types of glories. Those words are different. You can double check me and go into the Greek if you want to.. but the glory that he says here in verse 15 is a different word than “glory” there.

My response:

So it’s not “doxa”? Well I can’t ask questions

Josh’s response:

No, it’s not. I have all my notes here…


Now at this point looking backwards I’m not quite sure why Josh said verse 15 either.    Because I never mentioned verse 15.  I said John 17 verse 22.  Verse 15 doesn’t have the word “glory” in it… but verse 22 does have the word “glory.”  Josh stated that these were not the same word in Greek but that is incorrect.  Here are the two verses in Greek.

John 17:5  καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦτὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

John 17:22  κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς ἵνα ὦσιν ἓνκαθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν

You can see the word “doxa” is clearly in both of these verses.  I’m not sure if my opponent mis-read this or was thinking of the wrong verse because of a prior discussion.  I only say it’s possible he was thinking of something else but referenced the wrong verse because he had such a quick answer prepared.  The issue is, these are the same word just in a different case.  That doesn’t make them a different word… it just makes them a different inflection because of the case in Greek for whom the word “glory” is referring to in the text.

With this in mind I decided to email Josh about a week after our debate to ask him to clarify his position because I did not address this within our debate.  Time is just tight in a debate, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and looked it up later.  So here is a copy of my email.

debate questioning 1

 

After a month I had still not yet received a response.  I heard that Josh had made a move and gave him the benefit of time to get a full response back.  So I sent Josh another email to remind him of my important question regarding his claim during the debate about a month later

debate questioning 2

 

It’s now been over 4 months since our debate and I do not yet have a response from Joshua to correct or clarify this error from his claim about the word “doxa.”

 

I believe this shows clearly that God does share his glory not only with his Messiah in a pre-existent sense, but also with future believers who will believe on the Messiah and become one with them.  Until I get a clarification response I must consider this an unanswered error on the part of my opponent.

 

And just in case someone was thinking it’s possible Isaiah 42:8 was what my opponent had in mind as a different “glory[doxa]” and God not sharing that “glory”… here’s Isaiah 42:8 in the Septuagint.

Isaiah 42:8  ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω οὐδὲ τὰς ἀρετάς μου τοῖς γλυπτοῖς

“doxa” is right there in red highlight.

Hopefully my opponent will respond eventually and correct this error on his part.

 

Advertisements

Is God a trinity? Debate Response #1

It’s been a few months now since my debate with Joshua Lovell on the trinity.  I’ve now re-listened to the debate in full about 3 times and pieces of it many more times since its upload on both of our youtube channels.  You can view, listen, or download that debate on the trinity from my other post which is here.

I figured it’s time to start giving some more full responses to issues that I perceive from the trinitarian perspective in this debate.   After much time and listening you get to analyze the arguments of each of us much more clearly given that there’s no timer on your responses.

I’m not talking about addressing word mishaps either.  I want to address actual given arguments that were fairly clear.  I’m not perfect in speech–I know I made word mistakes in my debate with Josh.  There’s even times you could piece together a couple of my responses from various areas and make it look like I contradicted myself.   If I can catch that in myself, I’m sure others can. We were both nervous and trying to do our best to articulate our positions I believe.  But those aren’t strong arguments against either position.  This is sort of the issue with debate because it usually becomes more about winning rather than the truth.  I don’t believe our debate fell into that trap, but even when analyzing one another’s words during and after debate I don’t want to fall into that trap now by nitpicking what were likely just words jumbling rather than clearer arguments from my opponent.


 

So, part one.  What did I wish to address that I think was a clear problem with my opponent’s position?  My first thought was irrelevancy.  This is usually the basic nature of most fallacies, answering irrelevantly to an argument.  I believe this occurred right off the bat in my opponent’s first rebuttal.  After our openings Josh stated in his first rebuttal:

“I affirm as a trinitarian and one hundred percent agree that the Father is God, no problem with that. [I] have no problem saying that Jesus has a God. No problem with that either…  Of course Jesus, being a perfect man would have a God.  Would you expect Jesus to be [an] atheist?. Of course not.”

The problem with this response is it is irrelevant to the points from my opening and only restates my argument.  It does not answer the argument.  Josh and I of course both agree that the Father is God.  That was never my argument in my opening nor the entirety of the debate.  My argument was that the Father is God exclusively.  That last word is key and I gave many texts where the context clearly defines that one God as the Father exclusively in my opening.

Our debate subject was regarding “Is God a trinity?”  So the debate should focus on whether or not that word “God” is defined as a trinity from the Bible from my understanding.  I gave many texts in my opening that showed how the word “god” is defined from beginning to end with reference to angels, rulers/kings and even at times God’s own people in other authority positions.   My position was clearly defined in my opening and my opponent did not deal with the exclusivity texts of the capital “G”  word “God” clearly referring to the Father alone as the Almighty and Supreme God who alone created everything and everything lives and moves by His will.  That can be read in Acts 17 in Paul’s preaching in the Areopagus.  My opponents response was only to affirm that the Father is God, which was irrelevant to my arguments from the Scripture.

Next my opponent stated “Would you expect Jesus to be [an] atheist? Of course not”  I’ve heard this from James White too in his debates.  This is not an argument, it’s just a restatement of my argument itself and again an irrelevant response.  If we break it down it can clearly be seen.   Well, what is an atheist?  An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God, and clearly by that position does not submit himself/herself to a God.  In other words, the atheist does not have a God.   So to say Jesus isn’t an atheist is to say Jesus has a God.  That’s just a restatement of my argument but it avoids answering the argument.  The argument was not that Jesus was not perfect, the argument was that Jesus’ God was one person[using trinitarian terminology].  The argument was that the God of Jesus is the Father alone.  The God of Jesus is not a tri-une God.  My opponent only restated my argument and avoided answering it directly.  Implicitly my opponent also admitted that within his own trinitarian doctrine he has at least two different gods.  Jesus has a God within his doctrine who is not triune, and at the same time there is also a triune God who is *not* the God of Jesus.  Let me make that clear again, there are two different gods within the trinitarian doctrine by my opponent’s admission: 1) the Father alone who is the God of Jesus and 2) the triune God which is Father, Son and Spirit.   That’s two different gods, they are not each other.  This should be more obvious since #1 is my biblical unitarian position and #2 is Josh’s trinitarian position.  We wouldn’t have even been debating if this weren’t an admitted difference between our positions on how to define “God” biblically.

 

I plan to make this continual responses series from now on to try to address my own responses and my opponent’s responses in our debate.  I hope others will continue to study and search out these issues as I try to elaborate the issues in the trinitarian position and also clarify my position for readers and listeners of the debate.


Assuming Unitarianism

“You’re assuming unitarianism!”

This is a common claim by trinitarians, but most commonly made by apologist James White.  I kind of wish I had all the clips where he’s said this because it could be a small montage by now.  Maybe I just might do it…

…nah.

So is it true?  Lets break down the claim.  Well, what is “unitarianism” in this context since we’re talking about biblical unitarianism?  “Unitarianism” breaks down to “single person” in this context in reference to God.  A “single person” God.  It’s only used to have a contradistinction between itself and trinitarianism(three person), the triune God.   Simply put it’s the belief that God is the Father alone, a single identity when it comes to the Bible.

So we’re assuming it?  Well, I suppose that’s an admitted assumption in this context.  I hope it is anyways.  I mean, when I say “I, me, my, myself”[singular personal pronouns] no one assumes I am more than one person, do they?  Is the assumption while reading this article that I am more than one person?  Am I possibly bi-personal or tri-personal?

This is just basic grammar on an everyday level.  In fact, any other belief would likely be the illogical assumption wouldn’t it?  If I wanted to refer to more than one person it would be simple to say “We, us” over and over in my article but I don’t speak that way.  So if the Bible really supports God being “tri-personal” wouldn’t it be full of “We, us” statements from Genesis to Revelation?  I would accept that if it did, but it’s not.  I have no problem admitting there’s the 3-4 debatable texts where a “we, us” occurs but there’s way better answers to those texts consistent with the larger picture of “I, me, myself” texts littered throughout the entire Bible.

James White and other trinitarians would rather I overthrow the basic everyday grammar used by us all in conversation and reading than assume single personal pronouns refer to single persons.  Some will go so far as to say this basic grammar cannot be applied to God, but I have no biblical nor logical reason to believe it cannot be done.  In fact, I find that his and other’s belief that “assuming unitarianism” is incorrect as quite audacious.  But nothing should surprise me when you assume trinitarianism.

 


Penal Substitionary Atonement: The Double Jeopardy problem

In my last post I ended by posting a portion of Matthew 18 wherein Jesus taught about how God will deal with us(or his disciples in that context) if they do not forgive their brothers/sisters for their sins.  I made it a point to say that in Jesus’ story the man who owed a great deal of money had his debt reinstated after being initially forgiven… and this is how God will treat us.

The portion of text again is Matthew 18:21-35(NKJV)

21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

So what’s my point?  Well, double jeopardy is my point. Lets define it so you know the problem.  Double jeopardy is defined(from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy )as:

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense. The evil sought to be avoided by prohibiting double jeopardy is double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment.

PSA promotes that once the person’s fine/debt/sin has been paid by the Messiah’s death/blood they are eternally “forgiven”–or at least their debt has been paid in full. I know some of the texts used to promote this, but we’ll deal with those later.

My problem is the above text of Scripture clearly denotes a man who was forgiven(or had their debt paid per PSA) once before may have that debt re-instated to have to pay the full debt off again.  This is exactly what this block of text teaches and I don’t think it’s possible to show any other possible interpretation.  Yes, there are certainly a number of other things we can draw out to teach from the text–but what I’m focused on is that reinstatement of debt.  God can re-instate someone’s formerly forgiven debt for not forgiving their brethren.

How can PSA answer this type of clear text without double jeopardy coming into play?  Will God charge a man again for a punishment which the fine has been paid already by His Son?  Can you have a debt paid off and then somehow reject the payment?  How does that work?  If you were at a bank and you paid off your mortgage… your bank couldn’t turn around a couple months later and reject the legitimate payments and say you still owe the mortgage debt, could they?  Would you accept that?  And I don’t think it changes the example even if someone else pays off your mortgage.  The point is your bank cannot hold you accountable for a debt you already paid off.  That would be swindling!

So please answer this full text and teaching in Matthew 18 by the Messiah for me.   Those who promote PSA… how can God reinstate a debt he already had paid off in your view?  And then, how can God do that without having double jeopardy?

Next we’ll hope to deal with the cup the Messiah was to drink… was it wrath or something else?

 

 


Penal Substitutionary Atonement: Payment is not equal to forgiveness

I haven’t given my atonement views much thought in years.  I admit to needing to challenge them a bit more in the future from my change of mind a few years ago on what the true punishment of sinners is according to the Scriptures.  But for now I wish to speak a bit on this subject as it was brought up the other day how “clear” this atonement view seems to be and how could someone possibly deny it?

 

Well, I do deny PSA right now.  That’s the Penal Substitionary Atonement view theory put on by mainly the reformed camp.  You can see a bit more about it at this link here.  I hope to make this a possible short series so I don’t overwhelm the reader.  We’ll try to take it on a little bit by little bit and compare it with some Scriptures and also look more closely at the commonly used verses to support PSA.

First of all one needs to take a step back and recognize their “theory” is not God-made. It is not laid out perfectly in the Scriptures as many claim.  It’s pieced together from Scriptures and consistency from a man-made model usually reveals itself in error when compared with all Scripture.  That means whether or not you admit to PSA you have to recognize it’s not as clear as you might think.  There are other theories regarding this the atonement such as “Christus Victor” and “Governmental.”  If you haven’t looked into those–I suggest you do also.  I tend to have a view that takes a bit from all 3 of the main views but it’s been a while since I’ve laid out my personal views.  Yes, I admit there’s a type of substitution going on in the atonement–but I don’t see the same view as PSA still.  Also, for me to equate my theories with the gospel itself would going be a bit too far.  I can only hope others recognize the same, but I remember in the past that wasn’t so common.

PSA is normally presented in gospel form by this type of presentation.  You broke the law, you deserve punishment(or owe a fine). God sent his son to take this punishment for you(pay your fine) and thus set you free from the punishment(fine).  You can hear this type of presentation often from open air preachers like Ray Comfort last I knew.  But my problem is this entire presentation is devoid of forgiveness.

For now, we’ll start with the subheading right now… “payment is not equal to forgiveness.”  Well, lets think about this… is payment really forgiveness?  Is payment of a debt the same thing as remittance of a debt?  Can a debt be paid and forgiven at the same time?

Maybe it’s best to put this in an analogy.  If you had a mortgage with a bank on your house and you were in trouble with paying your loan and about to lose your house… what would happen if someone came along and paid off your loan in full?  That would be great, wouldn’t it?  Yes it would be great. Someone saved you from your debt and loss of your house.  But if the bank called you and said your debt had been forgiven…  would you think that’s really a fair definition?  Wasn’t your debt paid off, even if by another?  It wasn’t really remitted, it wasn’t forgiven–it was paid.

Now lets put this in a person to person analogy.  If I loan a large sum of money to a friend and he realizes he cannot pay me back, what can the friend do?  He can ask for forgiveness of the loan debt, right?  If I realize he is sincere and not trying to deceive me out of my money, then I can forgive the loan debt.  What happens? Did I get my money still?  Did I get payment?  Did someone else pay that loan for him?  Nope.  I lost my money and received no payment.  The friend received forgiveness of his loan, not payment of the loan.

 

A friend I know recognized this issue when preaching this atonement view to sinners using the bank parable above.  When my friend told a young man that Jesus had “paid his debt” and all he had to do was believe… then the young man said there was nothing to be done on his part if the debt was paid.  My preaching friend tried to rebut saying “No, you have to repent and believe.”  But the young man was correct, if the debt’s been paid—you owe nothing.  The bank cannot hold you accountable to even believe the debt’s been paid if it’s already paid off!  The preacher recognized his views were flawed and admitted his error knowing he had to go study this issue in much more depth.

 

Lets lay it out straight.  If a loan is forgiven, it does not have to be paid(though I presume someone could still pay, but what’s the point of forgiving the loan, then?).  And if a loan is paid, it cannot be forgiven since it was paid.  Where’s this most clearly seen in the Scriptures?… Matthew 18.

 

Matthew 18(NKJV):

22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Next we’ll get into the problems with this picture of forgiveness given by the Messiah in contrast with PSA… because according to Jesus this short parable is also exactly how God will treat us.  And God can re-instate formerly forgiven debts according this story.


The Non-Sequiturs of Trinitarianism

A long time ago my former elder made a video on his views of the Granville Sharp rule and I made a post about it.  I made a short response but never really went back to do the full diligence of a refutation.  That’s not only because it already exists, but because I’ve been way off track into other studies.   This topic did also come up a bit in my recent debate but this is not a direct rebuttal to that subject—it just deals with the same issue. Hopefully this first post here can be a bit of a bit by bit refutation of the mis-use and abuse of trinitarian interpretation of the word “God.”

See when trinitarians argue, they act like finding even one text where the Messiah Jesus is called “God,” it disproves biblical unitarianism.  Some trinitarians go so far as to believe this proves trinitarianism.  But in reality, if one is well versed in Scriptural definitions for “God” and sees how it is used in a few other applications it reveals a problem.  The problem is that the trinitarian is arguing with a non-sequitur.  A non-sequitur definition from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur:

Definition of non sequitur

  1. 1:  an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1); specifically:  a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1)

  2. 2:  a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said <We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.>

To show this more informally, it’s the same as if:

  1. Person makes claim A.

2. Evidence is given to prove claim A.

3. Therefore claim C is true.

 

The demonstration of the normal trinitarian argument is:

  1. Trinitarian makes claim that Jesus is God.

2.Scriptural evidence is given to prove Jesus is called “God.”

3. Therefore biblical unitarianism is false.

 

This is in short exactly as the title of the video by my former elder in an older post.  Yet, this is a non-sequitur.  Most biblical unitarians do not deny the possibility of Jesus being called “god.”[my personal take is not necessarily in agreement with most biblical unitarians, but that’s for another post]  This is because the Scriptural evidence demonstrates other legitimate usages of the word “god” to denote human beings and angels.  We’re not talking about idols or demons, we’re talking about God given titles to humans or angels usually in a superior place of power.

A clear example is Psalm 82

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.

They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”

Arise, O God, judge the earth;

For You shall inherit all nations.

And this is one among many where men/angels are deemed as “gods.”  This is usually because these people/angels are to be representing God therefore they are given that title.  There are plenty of commentaries that are open enough to admit this fact if you just do some slight digging.  I only post one for now for brevity and to have you search it out more as the reader.

So do you see now why my former elder’s claim is false?   See how it’s a non-sequitur?  Does biblical unitarianism fall because he or any other trinitarian can assert Jesus may have the title “God/god” upon him?  Nope…not unless the trinitarian wants to deny all the other texts and usages of the word “god”  throughout the Scriptures and start to prove that.  They’ve got a lot more steps to go to disprove biblical unitarianism and many many many more to try to prove trinitarianism.

 


Equivocation and the word “God”

While I admit to having my mind a lot on the debate lately, the nature of this post is NOT to start an unending debate back and forth with my opponent.  The nature of this post is to explain further why I believe the trinitarian explanation of “God” cannot escape equivocation and/or a contradiction to the Scriptures.  I believe my opponent did equivocate many times in our debate, but I’m not going to detail that here.  I’m going to deal with the common explanation given by many apologists today on the trinity.

Many trinitarians claim they are not tri-theists and will openly deny any argument which puts them in this camp.  They will claim it’s a straw-man, yet in reality it is not if their definitions are unpacked and expanded upon.

Can I demonstrate for you in writing?  A common trinitarian explanation usually goes something like this when questioned(usually by an ill-informed Muslim or skeptic):

Non-trinitarian: So you believe Jesus is the son of God?

1) Trinitarian: Yes, Jesus is the son of God.

Non-trinitarian: Then Jesus is not God?

2) Trinitarian: No, Jesus is God.

Non-trinitarian: So Jesus is his own Father?

3) Trinitarian: No of course not, that’s not what we believe.   Jesus is deity and thus God, but he is not the Father.

Non-trinitarian: So you believe there are two Gods?

4) Trinitarian: No, we believe in one God in three persons–namely the Father, the Son and Spirit.

 

This is a very simplified version of a normal conversation that would occur in a questioning of a trinitarian position.  Many of us have seen, heard, or even explained something like this ourselves in the past.  It’s a patent denial of tri-theism(or in this case, bi-theism since we’re only talking about the Father and Son) and explanation of their view on what they deem monotheism.  The common trinitarian position of this day is that there is 3 WHOs(Father, Son, Spirit) in 1 WHAT(God).  You can see this explanation on James White’s own web page to see I’m not making this up: http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

To the ill-informed person this might sound plausible, yet to us who have been trained to really hear and read what trinitarians have said and written we see major faults in this explanation.  Do you notice first, the number of different definitions of “God” that appear in this short explanation by the trinitarian?

In the first response by the trinitarian the definition for “God” is clearly an identity(who), the Father.  Jesus is clearly the son of an identity, God the Father.  Yet in the second response by the trinitarian affirming “Jesus is God,” the definition of “God” has now switched to a meaning of “deity” or “having the divine nature.”  The word “God” in the second response has now switched to a “what.”  That’s the only possible defintion because of course the trinitarian is not going to affirm Jesus is God by identity, namely the Father.  The third response by the trinitarian somewhat affirms the definition of a “what” from the second response by now saying “Jesus is deity”(what he is), but the conclusion “…and thus God” has now switched definitions back to a meaning of “God by identity(who he is).”  The fourth response of the trinitarian with the full explanation of the trinity has now redefined the term “God” back to a “what” affirming the 3 persons(WHOs) within this one “God”(WHAT).

If you don’t think this explanation is committing the fallacy of equivocation, I urge you to read a definition of it:

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. –

http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Equivocation.html

Do you see how many different definitions for “God” came up ambiguously in this one explanation?  There’s 3 different definitions in this one explanation.  Each of these “God” definitions are NOT each other.  That is their doctrine.  If you are hearing this and not writing it down, it can almost sound plausible.    Now I don’t have a problem with differing definitions of the term “God.”  Even I have different definitions in my own explanations, but that is different than using the term “God” ambiguously in an explanation to pass off what sounds like a good argument if not forced to define the terms.  The problem is the constant back and forth switching and what the trinitarian is claiming follows from each definition and explanation.

Yet we have another huge problem to point out with the explanation.  In the third response by the trinitarian–the trinitarian is equating the meaning of the “what”(deity) to a “who”(God).  Not only does this not necessarily follow, it creates a second “God” identity since the first “God”(identity, the Father) is NOT the second “God”(identity, the Son).  Trinitarians will usually then cry out “No, you don’t understand… there’s only one God! We are not tri-theists, that’s a straw-man.

But the problem is, we do understand and refuse to allow the equivocation and/or contradiction of simple grammar going on in the explanation.  Some trinitarians(not all) will then resort to equating their arguments to God Himself by falling back into “mystery” when confronted with the issue.  Others, I hope will see the error and look to challenge their doctrine.  Which will you do?