The Daily DeseretIs the Trinity Biblical and Coherent? Blake Ostler and Joshua Sijuwade Go Deep
A leading Latter-day Saint philosopher and a Trinitarian philosopher debate scripture, creeds and metaphysics.
Video: “DEBATE: Is The Trinity Biblical & Coherent? Sijuwade vs. Ostler” — Inspiring Philosophy Academy, published September 18, 2026 (about 2h 36m), hosted by Tim and Than as a two-part discussion.
This livestream was a scholarly conversation more than a shouting match. Latter-day Saint philosopher Blake Ostler and Trinitarian philosopher Dr. Joshua Sijuwade addressed two questions in turn: is the Trinity biblical, and is it coherent? Each part opened with a statement from each side, followed by open dialogue.
Is it biblical?
Ostler described himself as a monarchical monotheist: the Father is expressly called the one true God in the New Testament, and the three divine persons are united closely enough to be called one God. He argued that the creedal Trinity, with its same-substance (homoousios) language, eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Spirit, is a later philosophical construct, and that the Bible should not be assembled like Lego blocks into a system its authors never envisioned. He cited the divine council in the Hebrew Bible, read John 17 as describing a oneness the disciples can share, argued that Hebrews 1:3 points to a representation, not an identical substance, and said creation out of nothing is not taught in Genesis 1.
Sijuwade replied that showing the Trinity is not spelled out in scripture is not enough: a critic must also offer a plausible alternative that explains the biblical data more simply, and he did not think Ostler had done so. He presented what he calls consiliar Trinitarianism: there is one God, the Father, and two relationally distinct persons, the Son and the Spirit, who share the same divinity as the Father. He laid this out as five core claims and defended it as the simplest explanation of the texts.
Is it coherent?
The second half became technical. Ostler argued that if each divine person has an intrinsic first-person perspective, the indiscernibility of identicals creates problems for Trinitarian accounts, and that Sijuwade’s model rests on contested frameworks such as trope theory and grounding. He also questioned whether Sijuwade’s “regions” or aspects can be explained without spatial assumptions. Sijuwade replied that a framework being controversial in philosophy does not show that it is incoherent, disputed whether self-referential knowledge counts as an intrinsic property in the relevant sense, and said that Ostler had not shown any of the Trinity’s core claims to be incoherent.
Why it matters
This is one of the more rigorous public exchanges on the Godhead available. Both participants agreed on more than viewers might expect, including some readings of the divine council and criticisms of certain classical models. That makes their real points of disagreement easier to see.
How we wrote this: this recap paraphrases the video’s description and its YouTube auto-generated transcript. We avoid direct quotes because auto-captions can be inaccurate. Please watch the full debate before relying on any summary of a speaker’s position. The views summarized here belong to the participants.