# Trinity 101



## blhowes (Jan 4, 2005)

Yesterday, during our Bible reading time, a question one son asked about one of the words in the text led us down a little rabbit trail. My oldest son, in trying to get his mind around the deity and humanity of Christ, made the comment, "So, since Jesus is God, when he was on the cross and he cried out "My God, My God, ..." he was talking to himself". I told him no, then spoke a little about the trinity before getting back to the Bible reading.

Since I have a hard time understanding the trinity, I have an even harder time explaining it. I was wondering:

1. How do you explain the trinity to your children?
2. How do you explain the trinity to yourself?
3. Do you know of any good resources to use to explain (and understand) this truth?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 4, 2005)

I like the way the BibleAnswerman explains it:
In the Trinity there is one "WHAT" and three "Who's".

So there is one ESSENCE or NATURE (the Divine) and three PERSONS.

God is ONE. One essence. But He is also three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

None of these persons had a beginning. They are eternally distinct from one another and have always been in relationship to one another.

That should get the ball rolling. I'll wait for other replies.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 4, 2005)

WSC 
Q-6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?

A-6. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;(1) and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.(2)


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 4, 2005)

I know this illustration breaks down on many levels but for simplicity sake I have used the egg example.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I like the way the BibleAnswerman explains it:
> In the Trinity there is one "WHAT" and three "Who's".



But that raises the question that has been mentioned in the recent Van Til thread: Is "God" as a whole personal or impersonal? In other words, is He a "what" or a "who"?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> ...



I can't say that I've ever been posed that question. I'd say that God is "as a whole" personal. I think we're only called to a realization of God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. I'd hate to go too far in speculation in all sorts of philosophical directions. (And even if I'd like to, I'm simply not smart enough) :bigsmile:

I don't think the kids will ask it. And I don't think we need to know too much more in order to worship Him fully. (But that's easy to say about something I don't understand too well.)


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I think we're only called to a realization of God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. I'd hate to go too far in speculation in all sorts of philosophical directions.



Agreed. I think that is one of the mysteries we have to be content with for the time.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 4, 2005)

Thanks for your helpful responses.

BTW, what do you guys think about using illustrations like what Sean mentioned. I've also heard the trinity illustrated using the ice/water/vapor analogy. I hesitate to use such illustrations, but perhaps they're ok if I preface it by saying we can't fathom the trinity, but the analogies can help us begin to understand.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Thanks for your helpful responses.
> 
> BTW, what do you guys think about using illustrations like what Sean mentioned. I've also heard the trinity illustrated using the ice/water/vapor analogy. I hesitate to use such illustrations, but perhaps they're ok if I preface it by saying we can't fathom the trinity, but the analogies can help us begin to understand.



Some analogies are simply wrong, others are heretical. One heretical analogy is like this: I'm one person, but I'm a father, a son and a husband. Thus the "persons" are simply roles. Can anyone tell me the formal name of this heresy?

I've never liked the egg analogy because the shell, yolk and white are NOT of the same substance. A shell is not properly referred to as "an egg" and neither are any of the other components. Yet in the godhead all three persons are properly called, by themselves, God. 

Here's what we did: and again, as everyone knows, no analogy is perfect.... We went to Wal-mart and bought one of those big fat candles that has 3 wicks sticking out of it. At supper we'll light all 3 wicks and I'll use it to teach my 4 year old son about the Trinity: one candle, 3 flames. All three flames share the same substance, yet each is visibly distinct. Not perfect, but not heretical. At least I hope not.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 4, 2005)

How about the Athanatius Creed??


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 4, 2005)

Here it is.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/athanasn.htm

The Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. 
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 
And the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, 
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance [Essence]. 
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. 
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. 
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. 
The Father uncreate [uncreated], the Son uncreate [uncreated], and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated]. 
The Father incomprehensible [unlimited], the Son incomprehensible [unlimited], and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited]. 
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. 
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. 
As also there are not three incomprehensibles [infinites], nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible [infinite]. 
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. 
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. 
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. 
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. 
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. 
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord, 
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords. 
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. 
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. 
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another [there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less]; 
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. 
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 
He therefore that will be saved must [let him] thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; 
God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world; 
Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; 
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. 
Who although he be [is] God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; 
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking assumption of the Manhood into God; 
One altogether, not by confusion of Substance [Essence], but by unity of Person. 
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; 
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell [Hades, spirit-world], rose again the third day from the dead. 
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God [God the Father] Almighty, 
From whence [thence] he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies 
And shall give account for their own works. 
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly], he cannot be saved.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Here's what we did: and again, as everyone knows, no analogy is perfect.... We went to Wal-mart and bought one of those big fat candles that has 3 wicks sticking out of it. At supper we'll light all 3 wicks and I'll use it to teach my 4 year old son about the Trinity: one candle, 3 flames. All three flames share the same substance, yet each is visibly distinct. Not perfect, but not heretical. At least I hope not.


Ben,
That sounds like a great idea. Thanks.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> How about the Athanatius Creed??


Patrick,
Wow, that was good. 

This is really great living in the time we do, with so many such resources at our disposal. Can you imagine if we lived at the time of the controversy (I assume there was one) that prompted the writing of the creed and it was our job to write it? Praise the Lord for those who went before us.

Thanks,
Bob


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 5, 2005)

Yeah, that creed was awesome! Very helpful!

About analogies:
There was a time when I used them. Then when I learned better, I stopped using them. Now, as I've improved upon the first two, I use them and then immediately critique them as to how they misconceive the true doctrine of the Trinity.

So bottom line: I think its ok to use as long as you give the pro's and con's immediately thereafter. They can be helpful.

For example, maybe as practice, we should critique "the candle analogy" above...

Who wants to start? In what way does this accurately describe and inaccurately describe the Trinity?


----------



## Presbyrino (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Some analogies are simply wrong, others are heretical. One heretical analogy is like this: I'm one person, but I'm a father, a son and a husband. Thus the "persons" are simply roles. Can anyone tell me the formal name of this heresy?



I use to belong to a church that taught this heresy (Oneness Pentecostals)

I don't remember where I obtained this definition to give proper reference.

*Sabellianism:* Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Link for articles on the Trinity:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/trinity.html


----------

