Responding to Logical Fallacies Against the Trinity Doctrine

My book, Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity: A Page-by-Page Response to the Watchtower Society’s Brochure “Should You Believe in the Trinity?”, responds to Jehovah’s Witness claims against the Trinity doctrine and carefully answers each claim directly from Scripture.  But do you know how to identify and respond to common logical fallacies against the Trinity?

Below is a clear, structured summary of the key logical fallacies Robert M. Bowman Jr. identifies in his article, Anti-Trinitarian Argumentation: A Critical Examination, posted in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry Volume: JBTM 21:1 (Spring 2024).  Our summary provides concise explanations and concrete examples showing how each fallacy leads to an incorrect rejection or distortion of the Trinity belief (and Incarnation). I’ve framed each example explicitly around how the fallacy produces a wrong doctrinal conclusion, which should make this useful for teaching, apologetics, or writing.

Logical Fallacies Used to Reject or Redefine the Trinity

1. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

What the fallacy is:
Assuming the very conclusion one is supposed to prove—declaring something “impossible” without demonstrating why.

How it appears in anti-Trinitarian arguments:
Critics simply assert that God cannot become man or cannot exist as three Persons, and then conclude that the Incarnation or Trinity must be false.

Example of the fallacy:

“It is impossible for Jesus to be both fully God and fully man.”

No evidence is offered—the impossibility is assumed.

Wrong conclusion produced:

• “Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.”

• “Therefore, the Trinity is false.”

Why the reasoning fails:
Christian theology does not claim Christ is finite and infinite in the same respect. The conclusion is smuggled into the premise.

Correct Trinitarian clarification:

• The Incarnation affirms one Person with two distinct natures, not a logical contradiction.

• Declaring something “impossible” without proof is not an argument.

---

2. Argument from Silence

What the fallacy is:
Concluding something is false because Scripture does not explicitly say it in a particular way.

How it appears in anti-Trinitarian arguments:
Appeals to missing terminology (“Trinity,” “Jesus said ‘I am God’”) or missing contexts (no greeting mentions the Spirit).

Examples of the fallacy:

• “The word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible.”

• “Jesus never said, ‘I am God.’”

• “The Holy Spirit has no personal name.”

Wrong conclusions produced:

• “Therefore, the Trinity is unbiblical.”

• “Therefore, Jesus is not God.”

• “Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a person.”

Why the reasoning fails:

• Many core doctrines use biblical concepts without biblical vocabulary (e.g., omniscience, monotheism).

• Scripture frequently teaches truths implicitly, cumulatively, and relationally.

• Silence does not equal denial.

Correct Trinitarian clarification:

• Doctrine is built on what Scripture affirms, not what it omits.

• Scripture explicitly attributes divine names, works, worship, and authority to Father, Son, and Spirit.

---

3. Straw Man Fallacy

What the fallacy is:
Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute.

How it appears in anti-Trinitarian arguments:
Critics redefine the Trinity as teaching that Jesus is the Father, then refute that false version.

Examples of the fallacy:

• “If Jesus is God, why does he pray to God?”

• “Jesus cannot be the Father because he was on earth.”

Wrong conclusion produced:

• “Therefore, the Trinity is incoherent.”

• “Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.”

Why the reasoning fails:
The Trinity never teaches that Jesus is the Father. That view is Oneness Pentecostalism, not Trinitarianism.

Correct Trinitarian clarification:

• The Trinity teaches one God in three distinct Persons.

• Prayer between Father and Son supports personal distinction, not denial of deity.

---

4. False Dilemma (Either–Or Fallacy)

What the fallacy is:
Presenting only two options when more exist.

How it appears in anti-Trinitarian arguments:
“If Jesus is God, then he must be the Father; since he isn’t, he can’t be God.”

Example of the fallacy (Dale Tuggy’s framing):

• Option 1: Jesus is God → Jesus is the Father (rejected)

• Option 2: Jesus is not God → acceptable

Wrong conclusion produced:

• “Therefore, Jesus is not God.”

Why the reasoning fails:
Trinitarian theology affirms a third option:

• Jesus is God by nature

• Jesus is not the Father by person

Correct Trinitarian clarification:

• Distinction of person does not negate unity of essence.

• The dilemma collapses once biblical categories are used.

---

5. Category Error / Applying Finite Categories to the Infinite

What the fallacy is:
Using concepts appropriate for finite objects to judge the nature of the infinite God.

How it appears in anti-Trinitarian arguments:
Analogies like billiard balls, human individuals, or spatial separation are used to argue that three Persons must be three Gods.

Example of the fallacy:

“Three divine persons would be like three separate beings, so Trinitarianism teaches polytheism.”

Wrong conclusion produced:

• “Therefore, the Trinity teaches three Gods.”

• “Therefore, it is logically impossible.”

Why the reasoning fails:

• God is not spatial, corporeal, or finite.

• Divine persons share one infinite essence, not separate boundaries.

Correct Trinitarian clarification:

• The unity of God is ontological, not spatial.

• Logical limits in describing God are expected, not disqualifying.

---

6. Selective Evidence (Confirmation Bias)

What the fallacy is:
Accepting evidence that supports one’s position while explaining away or minimizing contrary evidence.

How it appears in anti-Trinitarian arguments:

• Unitarians emphasize texts distinguishing Father and Son.

• Oneness advocates emphasize texts affirming Jesus’ deity.

• Each ignores the full biblical witness.

Example of the fallacy:

• Same premise (Mal. 2:10: “God is the Father”)

  • Oneness conclusion: Jesus is the Father

  • Unitarian conclusion: Jesus is not God

Wrong conclusions produced:

• Mutually exclusive doctrines drawn from the same text.

Why the reasoning fails:
Both systems prioritize certain texts while relegating others to “problem passages.”

Correct Trinitarian clarification:

• Trinitarianism alone integrates:

  • One God

  • Father–Son distinction

  • Full deity of Christ

  • Real humanity of Christ

  • Personal Holy Spirit

---