Continued from Logical Fallacies Employed In Trinitarian Theology 1

Equivocation
This fallacy is employed when terms crucial to an argument are not used in the same sense throughout the argument. It could also be called "changing the rules in the middle of the game."

Equivocation can be clearly seen in the following argument:
Major premise: Every square is four-sided.
Minor premise: Your jaw is square.
Conclusion: Your jaw is four-sided. [2]

The reason the conclusion is invalid is that in the argument, the word "square" is used in two different ways. In geometry, a square is a four-sided polygon with equal sides and four 90° angles. In popular usage, a "square" jaw means something closer to "angular." In the reasoning process, it is crucial that words be used precisely in the same sense when reasoning from one premise to another to a conclusion.

One person cannot be "God" and "the Son of God" without equivocating the term "God." Trinitarians use the term "God" in the sense of "the Father" as distinct from "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit." But, in calling Christ "God," they use the term "God" in the sense of "the second person of the Trinity." Thus, although the word "God" is the same, it is given two different meanings.

Often, Trinitarians equivocate the term "God" to mean a "triune God" composed of three persons. The editors of the NIV Study Bible equivocate the term "God" in this fashion when they handle 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. The passage clearly separates "God" from "Christ," and asserts that Christ will submit to God for eternity "so that God may be all in all." But, because of their doctrinal position that the Father and the Son are equal, neither can be "over" the other. Therefore, they minimize the Son's submission to a matter of "administrative function," and say that "The triune God will be shown to be supreme and sovereign in all things."
To see the equivocation in the Chalcedonian formula of one person and two natures, look at the following argument:
Major premise: Jesus Christ is God (divine, deity, etc.).
Minor premise: God cannot be tempted (James 1:13).
Conclusion: Jesus Christ was tempted in all points (Hebrews 4:15).
It should be clear that there is something wrong with the argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The logical conclusion that should be drawn from the premises is that Jesus Christ cannot be tempted. Let us restate the argument in proper syllogistic form.

Major premise: Jesus Christ is God.
Minor premise: God cannot be tempted (James 1:13).
Conclusion: Jesus Christ cannot be tempted.

But now the logical conclusion of these premises creates a dilemma, because it contradicts Hebrews 4:15, which says that Jesus Christ was tempted in all points. One possible solution is that the term "tempted" is being used in an equivocal sense. We must therefore look at the definition of the word "tempted" and see if it is being distributed throughout the argument in the same sense. We find that the word "tempt" in the minor premise and the conclusion is the same concept, based on the Greek word, peirazo (to pierce or cut). The only other possibility is that the term "God" is being equivocated, as follows:
Major premise: Jesus Christ is God [the Son who became a human being while retaining his divine nature].
Minor premise: God (the Father) cannot be tempted (James 1:13).
Conclusion: Jesus Christ was not tempted in his divine nature, but he was tempted in his human nature because he became a man.

In the major premise, "God" is used in the sense of divine, deity, sharing the attributes of God, etc. In the minor premise, "God" refers to the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ. This is a clear example of equivocating the term "God." This standard orthodox argument also equivocates the term "man." Jesus Christ is not an authentic man in this argument, because a "man" by definition does not have a "divine" nature.

To clarify orthodoxy's equivocation of "man," consider the following argument:
Major premise: Jesus Christ is a man (1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 2:22).
Minor premise: God is not a man (Num. 23:19).
Conclusion: Jesus Christ is God.

The word "man" does not have the same meaning in the above premises. In the first case, "man" is descriptive only of the part of his being that was human, because Trinitarians argue that Jesus was both a man and God at the same time: a God-man. So, anything that is asserted about him being a "man" is qualified by saying that he was also God. In equivocating the terms "man" and "God," Trinitarians create a separate category of being for Jesus Christ and remove him from the normal and customary meaning of both terms as understood biblically and experientially. What is asserted about Jesus Christ could not be asserted about Adam, who was truly the archetypal "man." Unless Jesus' nature is completely comparable to Adam's, he cannot properly and without equivocation be categorized as "man." "100 percent God and 100 percent man" is 200 percent logical equivocation.

Law of Non-Contradiction
This law is completely fundamental to logical and rational thinking, as every student of philosophy knows. It states that "A" and "not A" cannot both be true at the same time and in the same relation. For instance, biologically speaking, Mark can be a father to his son and a son to his father, but he cannot be both a son and a father to the same person at the same time. So, regarding his relationship to his son, he cannot be both his son's (biological) father and not his son's father at the same time. He must be one or the other.
This law of non-contradiction is often jettisoned in theological discussions involving the Trinity or the natures of God and Christ. For instance, Jesus cannot be both a man and not-man at the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we define "man" in a way that makes "man" distinguishable from "God," as a member of the species homo-sapiens with various physical and mental limitations, Jesus Christ cannot be a man and not-man at the same time. If he is "man" and "God" at the same time, and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms, Jesus is a logical contradiction. The only way out of this dilemma is to propose a third category of being called "God-man," which of necessity renders him incapable of being included in either the category of "man" or "God." Though some may find this theologically and mystically compelling, it is logically contradictory if the integrity of biblical language is upheld (as in, "God is not a man"?Num. 23:19).

Read the concluding part Logical Fallacies Employed In Trinitarian Theology 3

Footnotes
2. Robert J. Kreyche, Logic for Undergraduates (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, N.Y., 1961), p. 192.

All these discourses on Trinity and Jesus Only and all other stuff are diversionary. Believing any of these or as amended, does GOD no good! What matters is: "Have you made peace with your Maker? Have you received Jesus Christ as your Saviour? Are you obeying and living for Him as your Lord?

Christianity was founded on faith not logic. Is it logical that a virgin could be pregnant. It logical that a dead person is raised to life. Is it logical to say that 5000 men are fed to satisfaction with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish.

Theworldisvanity:
Christianity was founded on faith not logic. Is it logical that a virgin could be pregnant. It logical that a dead person is raised to life. Is it logical to say that 5000 men are fed to satisfaction with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish.

Many things have happened that was supernatural. We believe they came from God.

Moses splited the red sea by God's leave!

Adam had no parents! No one calls him son of God or God.

Eve came from Adam. No one calls her daughter of God or God.

Jesus had a mother but no father. Then he is God or God's son!

Ah this one just entered into school probably year 1 or 2 and has just started taking classes in Philosophy and Logic: Topic Fallacies.

Dtruthspeaker:
Ah this one just entered into school probably year 1 or 2 and has just started taking classes in Philosophy and Logic: Topic Fallacies.

Thanks! Flesh and blood couldn't have revealed this to you....

Antichrist! Your religion has much ugly things that are stupid. Why not facing your Islam!

Is there anything logical in Islam?

Abeg, Just watch debates between Christian Prince and the finest of your Imams on YouTube. You will learn more about your useless Islam. To be daring call him for debate.

Islam is a fraud, Mohammad is a scam, Antichristian is antichrist

MightySparrow:
Antichrist! Your religion has much ugly things that are stupid. Why not facing your Islam!

Is there anything logical in Islam?

Abeg, Just watch debates between Christian Prince and the finest of your Imams on YouTube. You will learn more about your useless Islam. To be daring call him for debate.

Islam is a fraud, Mohammad is a scam, Antichristian is antichrist

Alhamdulillah for the light of Islam