# Trinity analogy - good or bad?



## Scott

Are there any problems with analogizing the trinity to a three-headed creature? I had the idea from a movie with a 3 headed giant. The heads even had different names and personalities. So, as with the Trinity there is one God/divine nature in three persons, there is one giant with three personalities. 

Of course all analogies fail at some point, but are there any major problems with this?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Scott -- I know you weren't expecting a Spanish Inquisition.






But you weren't watching _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_, were you?


----------



## jsup

Monty Python Trinity 

The best analogy I've ever heard about the trinity is water: Ice, liquid (H2O), and steam are all water.


----------



## KMK

How about the 'egg' analogy! Shell, white, and yoke.

Unfortunately, any analogy that man comes up with is going to be inferior to scripture. Gen 1, John 1, these are the way to go.


----------



## crhoades

Stick with Chalcedon, Athanasian and Nicene...


----------



## reformedman

I'd say it's best to avoid all analogies for explaining the Trinity and just give what the bible says about it.
The Watchtower booklet, "_Should You Believe the Trinity_", uses the analogy of the three headed monster by the way. They say that Trinitarians believe in a three headed monster, and it took long enough for me to explain to this elder of the Jehovah's Witnesses that we don't believe that the Trinity is freakish to contemplate. His reference to monster was in order to show, that (to him) it is unfathomable, fantastic, freakish, a story of fable. 
I have real bad vibes from the idea of telling people that our God is like a three headed monster.


----------



## crhoades

jsup said:


> The best analogy I've ever heard about the trinity is water: Ice, liquid (H2O), and steam are all water.


That would be the heresy of modalism.


----------



## Scott

crhoades said:


> That would be the heresy of modalism.


That is what it seems to illustrate to me too. Teh same for the sunshine analogy.


----------



## Scott

The criticisms of the giant analogy seem concerned mostly with the connotation (a giant is a monster), not with anything substantive. Are there any substantive problems? It would seem pretty easy to construct an analogy with a good giant or creature. 

Also, what about comparing the Trinity to the living creatures in Ezekiel 1? One creature with 4 faces. 

My young kids have a hard time with the Trinity and I need something to help them. "Its a mystery" is not very helpful. There are abstract analogies that are helpful, such as the one and the many philosphical issue (and Van Til and others used the Trinity as a basis to explain the one and the many). But kids need something concrete. 

What about one family with three persons in the family?


----------



## Greg

I'm not too keen on using analogies either, but an interesting one that I recently heard was how a single object can cast multiple (3) shadows. This too is a weak analogy, but it was the first time I've heard that one. I agree with Frank, it's best to avoid analogies regarding the Trinity.


----------



## Scott

How would you guys explain the Trinity to a child (say 6 and 8 years old)? God is one nature in three persons is beyond their understanding.


----------



## Scott

Here someone makes a case that conjoined twins are analogous to the Trinity: Conjoined Twins and the Trinity - Can One Person be with Another, and yet be the Same Being? I tend to agree that on certain keys points there is an analogy. 

I understand that there may be negative connotations, as conjuntion is considered a disease to be remedied, yet I think that there are key substatantive similarities.


----------



## Davidius

crhoades said:


> That would be the heresy of modalism.



Not in all cases. What if the qualification of the triple point were added? At a temperature of 213.16 kelvins and pressure of 611.73 pascals pure water, pure ice and pure water vapor can coexist in a stable equilibrium. One in essence, three in form of matter.


----------



## Civbert

Scott said:


> How would you guys explain the Trinity to a child (say 6 and 8 years old)? God is one nature in three persons is beyond their understanding.


 It's going to stretch them a bit.

I think maybe you could use different analogies. One analogy might only illustrate one truth about the Trinity, but would be false if applied further. You can use that fact to help show what is not true about the analogy. For instance, the water, ice, and steam analogy shows specifically that it is all one substance (H2O) but three persons (ice, stream, and water). But you need to point out that God is three at the same time, while water can not exist in all three states at once. Also point out that God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a body so substance in the Trinity is not physical. 

The egg illustrates that God is one, but has three persons (shell, yolk, egg white?). But the egg has three substances, unlike God. All three parts are often referred to as simply "egg" but each is unique in nature (the persons). 

A singe business could be defined by as a President, Secretary, and Treasurer - each in a sense represents the business - but all three are required to define the one business. 

So I think analogies are good tools since they can illustrate particular truths of the Trinity, but one should always point the limits of the analogy. Each potential false application should also be pointed out. Maybe using a couple analogies will help illustrate how the analogies are limited to pointing to specific truths.


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> It's going to stretch them a bit.
> 
> I think maybe you could use different analogies. One analogy might only illustrate one truth about the Trinity, but would be false if applied further. You can use that fact to help show what is not true about the analogy. For instance, the water, ice, and steam analogy shows specifically that it is all one substance (H2O) but three persons (ice, stream, and water). But you need to point out that God is three at the same time, while water can not exist in all three states at once. Also point out that God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a body so substance in the Trinity is not physical.



Water can exist in all three states at once with the correct environmental conditions.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Not in all cases. What if the qualification of the triple point were added? At a temperature of 213.16 kelvins and pressure of 611.73 pascals pure water, pure ice and pure water vapor can coexist in a stable equilibrium. One in essence, three in form of matter.


 I thought of that too, but I'm not sure how to describe that in a way a kid could understanding. And are the water molecules actually existing in three states, or constantly shifting between the three states? Or maybe they are in a state that is between those states. What are the properties of pure water under those circumstances? I used to know this but it's been a while.


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> I thought of that too, but I'm not sure how to describe that in a way a kid could understanding. And are the water molecules actually existing in three states, or constantly shifting between the three states? Or maybe they are in a state that is between those states. What are the properties of pure water under those circumstances? I used to know this but it's been a while.



The molecules actually _coexist_ in all three states, and variation in temperature or pressure of the slightest degree will cause them all to freeze, melt, or evaporate.


----------



## crhoades

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Not in all cases. What if the qualification of the triple point were added? At a temperature of 213.16 kelvins and pressure of 611.73 pascals pure water, pure ice and pure water vapor can coexist in a stable equilibrium. One in essence, three in form of matter.


 
The triple point breaks down because when you say _water_ existing in all three states, a water _molecule _isn't in question. You would have to have _many_ molecules: 1 is in the state of vapor. 1 is in the state of liquid. 1 is in the state of solid. You can't have 1 water molecule in all three states at once which is what you'd need for the Trinity analogy to work.

Again, we are given types to help us understand but we will never find a creaturely example of the creator in trinity. They will always break down. My personal opinion is that it is better to show that there is a clear Creator-Creature distinction rather than bringing the Trinity down to the creaturely level. There is ONE God. Not many Gods. The ONE God is Three in Person. Of course a child can't fully grasp that. Theologians can't fully grasp that more than stating it.

The creeds do a good job of setting up boundaries regarding the Trinity and what we are to believe about it while safeguarding us.

All of this being said...I don't have kids and haven't tried explaining this to kids. That might make me a little stauncher in my views...God does lisp to us and uses metaphors etc. to show us His attributes in Scripture. So I'm not hardline in saying not to use analogies for the Trinity but we should work very hard to see where the analogy breaks down and then be able to show that while retaining the teaching moment. 

Hopefully this wasn't too muddleheaded.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The molecules actually _coexist_ in all three states, and variation in temperature or pressure of the slightest degree will cause them all to freeze, melt, or evaporate.


 Then the definitions of solid, liquid and gas are not mutually exclusive. The properties of the water must be interesting at the triple point since it fits all three definitions - behaving like a liquid and a solid and a gas all at once.


----------



## crhoades

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The molecules actually _coexist_ in all three states, and variation in temperature or pressure of the slightest degree will cause them all to freeze, melt, or evaporate.


 


Civbert said:


> Then the definitions of solid, liquid and gas are not mutually exclusive. The properties of the water must be interesting at the triple point since it fits all three definitions - behaving like a liquid and a solid and a gas all at once.


 
Again we are talking about a _mixture_ of molecules. Together all of the molecules are behaving in all three modes but we are talking a portion of the molecules behaving as a gas etc. 1 molecule isn't in three states simulataneously. This would be more polytheistic? God cannot be divided into smaller parts. Whereas We can take water and break it down into water molecules and even Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.


----------



## Davidius

crhoades said:


> Again we are talking about a _mixture_ of molecules. Together all of the molecules are behaving in all three modes but we are talking a portion of the molecules behaving as a gas etc. 1 molecule isn't in three states simulataneously. This would be more polytheistic? God cannot be divided into smaller parts. Whereas We can take water and break it down into water molecules and even Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.




I'll be honest, the historical orthodox explanation of the Trinity makes little sense to me.  Considering that while not being able to find an acceptable analogy is to me both frustrating and frightening.


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> The triple point breaks down because when you say _water_ existing in all three states, a water _molecule _isn't in question. You would have to have _many_ molecules: 1 is in the state of vapor. 1 is in the state of liquid. 1 is in the state of solid. You can't have 1 water molecule in all three states at once which is what you'd need for the Trinity analogy to work.



Why? God is one in substance. Water is all made up of the same molecule - H2O (the same substance). The states describe the relationship between the molecules, not the state of individual molecules. You can not assign a phase to a single molecule of water. 

I think there is some an idea that God is a singularity - a unit. I think this is philosophical speculation. God the Father does not have physical substance as far as we know. He does not have a body. But this does not mean God does not have parts an all senses of parts. He has different thoughts at least. We do not have to say God is one in a physical sense or a metaphysical sense. "God is one" is a metaphor, just as "God is love" is a metaphor. I think we are pushing the metaphor beyond what is reasonable or necessary.


----------



## crhoades

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I see what you're saying.
> 
> And I'll be honest, the historical orthodox explanation of the Trinity makes little sense to me.  Considering that while not being able to find an acceptable analogy is to me both frustrating and frightening.


Do you have Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility neatly wrapped up in your thinking? That God predestines everything and that man is still responsible but God is not the author of sin (refer to the WCF for the longer version). I confess I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of it but I know it is Scriptural. Many things need to be accepted on our knees and I hope I'm not going to be labeled a Van Tillian irrationalist for saying that. We should strive to understand all revealed doctrines to the best of our human capacity. Regarding the trinity or the hypostatic union, tough doctrines that require a lot of effort. They are also where the majority of all heresies have sprung up due to man's rationalism.


----------



## Scott

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'll be honest, the historical orthodox explanation of the Trinity makes little sense to me.  Considering that while not being able to find an acceptable analogy is to me both frustrating and frightening.


What about the orthodox forumlation makes little sense?


----------



## Davidius

Scott said:


> What about the orthodox forumlation makes little sense?



To begin with, I don't understand what is meant by "person." I'm not saying that I think the historical formulation is wrong, by the way. It's not like I have a better explanation and, furthermore, I am willing to accept the creedal statements but sometimes wonder how far that can go before it becomes "implicit faith."


----------



## crhoades

Civbert said:


> Why? God is one in substance. Water is all made up of the same molecule - H2O (the same substance). The states describe the relationship between the molecules, not the state of individual molecules. You can not assign a phase to a single molecule of water.
> 
> I think there is some an idea that God is a singularity - a unit. I think this is philosophical speculation. God the Father does not have physical substance *as far as we know*. He does not have a body. *But this does not mean God does not have parts an all senses of parts.* He has different thoughts at least. We do not have to say God is one in a physical sense or a metaphysical sense. "God is one" is a metaphor, just as "God is love" is a metaphor. I think we are pushing the metaphor beyond what is reasonable or necessary.


 
I'll let you flesh out what you mean on parts. The Confession is below that says no parts. I'm not questioning your orthodoxy whatsoever but when we start going against the confession, redefining words, or even precising definitions (which is what I think you're doing and is necessary at times), and especially on doctrines such as this we all need to take great care. Not sure I agree with saying that "God is one" is a metaphor...

*Chapter II*

*Of God, and of the Holy Trinity*

I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] *a most pure spirit*,[4] invisible,[5] *without body, parts,**[6]** or passions*;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> ... God cannot be divided into smaller parts. Whereas We can take water and break it down into water molecules and even Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.


 God is three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This does not imply three gods, but that all three define the one God. You can not divide God into three in substances, but the Godhead is still made up of three persons. These are not three gods because none is God without the others. Jesus apart from the Father and Holy Spirit does not define God. God the Father is not by himself God, because God is the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the denotative definition of God. God is not "one person" but three.


----------



## reformedman

I think this post has unfortunately come from asking how we approach explaining the Trinity to weak minds, to how does the trinity work. To give an explanation to people, you indeed have to know how the Trinity works but what we know has already been established if you are a qualified member of the PB.

One person raised the question of how should a person go about explaning the Trinity to a child; my opinion is, if it's too difficult, then don't. The Trinity can be as difficult as understanding the 'Two Natures of Christ', or 'Double Imputation', which to us adults, are doctrines that are easy enough, but to young minds are a bit of a strain. I'd say if they are not ready, then don't tie a millstone around their neck and teach them what ie:the ten commandments mean instead. 

Why must we teach doctrine and logical knowledge so much instead of teaching sin and a broken relationship with the sovereign? This isn't a rant, I'm not opposed to this thread at all, I'd like to see how it continues, but I'm just saying, that I hope that things are placed in a good priority above all.

In the end, the Trinity may not be comprehended but can atleast be apprehended.


----------



## Davidius

reformedman said:


> Why must we teach doctrine and logical knowledge so much instead of teaching sin and a broken relationship with the sovereign? This isn't a rant, I'm not opposed to this thread at all, I'd like to see how it continues, but I'm just saying, that I hope that things are placed in a good priority above all.



To teach sin and the broken relationship it has caused between us and our Creator _is_ to teach doctrine. 

To relate this to our present topic of discussion, and respond to your question of why some attempt to formulate logical explanations of the more difficult-to-understand teachings of the Bible, I must say that I find it important to know about the God whom I love and worship. We can't just throw around religious phrases (like, in your case, "sovereign," or in mine, "triune") while acting pious and nodding our heads in agreement. That's how I sometimes feel when I hear someone rattle off a few sentences from the Nicene Creed or WCF. Words are supposed to convey meaning, whether we're talking about God metaphysically or soteriologically. 

I'm not ranting at you so please forgive me if any of my frustration is rising to the surface. My frustration has more to do with the exhortation many give to believe something without understanding it. 



> In the end, the Trinity may not be comprehended but can atleast be apprehended.



What do you mean by this?


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> ..]without body, parts,...


 Look at the Scripture proofs. It's speaking of physical parts - not made up of physical substances - no body - not created. But you gave a long list of the characteristics and properties of God. Clearly God is complex and has many characteristics. He has parts that are spiritual - not physical.

[bible]Deu 4:15-16[/bible]
[bible]Luke 24:39[/bible]
[bible]John 4:24[/bible]


----------



## crhoades

Civbert said:


> But you gave a long list of the characteristics and properties of God. Clearly God is complex and has many characteristics. He has parts that are spiritual - not physical.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you say that God has parts that are spiritual - not physical? Are you saying that God is part love, part justice, part...and together they make a whole God? If not (I doubt that you are arguing for this) then can you give a definition and examples of what you mean by spiritual parts?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dieter Schneider

jsup said:


> Monty Python Trinity
> 
> The best analogy I've ever heard about the trinity is water: Ice, liquid (H2O), and steam are all water.



This view is heretical - altogether! One also ought to speak reverently of God!


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> Do you have Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility neatly wrapped up in your thinking? That God predestines everything and that man is still responsible but God is not the author of sin (refer to the WCF for the longer version).


That ones actually easy. We are responsible because God holds us responsible - that's what being responsible means - to be held accountable. 



crhoades said:


> I confess I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of it but I know it is Scriptural. Many things need to be accepted on our knees and I hope I'm not going to be labeled a Van Tillian irrationalist for saying that. We should strive to understand all revealed doctrines to the best of our human capacity. Regarding the trinity or the hypostatic union, tough doctrines that require a lot of effort. They are also where the majority of all heresies have sprung up due to man's rationalism.


 The heresies have sprung up because men have rational_ised_ in contradiction to God's Word. Rationalism is a theory that one can achieve knowledge by pure reason, apart from revelation. If one looks to Scripture for knowledge, then by definition, one is not a rationalist. I doubt that any heretic was a rationalist since they at least supposed there was some epistemic indication of truth in Scripture. But their thinking was irrational because they held to contrary beliefs and attributed them to a God who Scripture tells us who can not speak falsehoods.


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you say that God has parts that are spiritual - not physical? Are you saying that God is part love, part justice, part...and together they make a whole God? If not (I doubt that you are arguing for this) then can you give a definition and examples of what you mean by spiritual parts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean God has different thoughts and characteristics, just as the WCF has said. These are not physical, so they can not divided God into parts. God is gracious and loving and jealous at the same time because these are not physical parts of God, but spiritual. And God is thee persons as Scripture clearly tells us, and so these are clearly parts of God. "God does not have parts" does not mean in all possible senses of the word "parts". It's clearly speaking of the fact that God is spirit and not physical in nature.
Click to expand...


----------



## crhoades

Civbert said:


> crhoades said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean God has different thoughts and characteristics, just as the WCF has said. These are not physical, so they can not divided God into parts. God is gracious and loving and jealous at the same time because these are not physical parts of God, but spiritual. *And God is thee persons as Scripture clearly tells us, and so these are clearly parts of God.* "God does not have parts" does not mean in all possible senses of the word "parts". It's clearly speaking of the fact that God is spirit and not physical in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> So is Jesus a part of God, the Father a part of God, the Holy Spirit a part of God and together we have one God? In what _sense_ are you using "part" in the above? Want to make sure i'm not equivocating and reading into the way you are using it but also want to point out if not careful or charitable how it could be read.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChristianTrader

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16574


----------



## RamistThomist

crhoades said:


> I hope I'm not going to be labeled a Van Tillian irrationalist for saying that.



Van Tillian irrationalist!


----------



## bookslover

Scott said:


> Are there any problems with analogizing the trinity to a three-headed creature? I had the idea from a movie with a 3 headed giant. The heads even had different names and personalities. So, as with the Trinity there is one God/divine nature in three persons, there is one giant with three personalities.
> 
> Of course all analogies fail at some point, but are there any major problems with this?



The main problem with your analogy is that the 3-headed giant is a physical creature, while the trinitarian God of the Bible is spirit. As you say, all analogies break down at some point, so none is perfect.

Rather than try to explain the trinity (the most we can say is: one being, three Persons), what Christians should do is just _bow before the mystery._ The Bible reveals that God is a trinity of Persons, but the Bible doesn't explain either the _how_ or the _why_ of it.

Of course, there is no _how_ to God being trinitarian. He just _is_. He just _is_three persons. That's who God is and, as I said, God has not condescended to explain to us how that "works". Our responsibility (and privilege) is to believe it, and bow before it.

There are just some things we are not meant to know (Deuteronomy 29:29), at least not on this side of the grave.


----------



## crhoades

Draught Horse said:


> Van Tillian irrationalist!


 
I knew I could count on you! As I PM'd Civbert, I'm sure we'll slip into the Incomprehensibility of God debate of Clark and Van Til in a few posts or so. Maybe not. We should probably do a thread split at some point breaking out the analogy usage portion and the sideline between Anthony and myself.


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is Jesus a part of God, the Father a part of God, the Holy Spirit a part of God and together we have one God? In what _sense_ are you using "part" in the above? Want to make sure i'm not equivocating and reading into the way you are using it but also want to point out if not careful or charitable how it could be read.
> 
> 
> 
> Just in the sense that there are three clear distinct persons in the Godhead. Think of a yard measure. It's made up of three individual feet. No two are the same, but none alone is a yard. If each foot were alone a yard, then there would be three yards, not one. The Godhead is one in the sense of substance, power, and eternity, but three in person.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

God is not complex. Simplicity is essential to God. His attributes are Himself, not parts of Himself. Heppe: "All dogmaticians pronounce accordingly, e.g., Hottinger, p. 44: 'The attributes are distinguished neither from the essence nor from each other but only by our conceiving.'" (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 59.)

Civbert's insistence that God's knowledge is bound by the laws of logic (as per the archetype/ectype thread) shuts him up to the conclusion that God has parts as if He were finite. This is what happens when you make a god no bigger than what your own mind can conceive. I am sorry to be harsh, but this is the brutal consequence of deviating from the reformed tradition.


----------



## crhoades

Civbert said:


> crhoades said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in the sense that there are three clear distinct persons in the Godhead. Think of a yard measure. It's made up of three individual feet. No two are the same, but none alone is a yard. If each foot were alone a yard, then there would be three yards, not one. The Godhead is one in the sense of substance, power, and eternity, but three in person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't Jesus fully God? Would that analogy break down by saying that 1 foot is fully a yard? Jesus is in all attributes God. The foot isn't in all attributes a yard (the attribute of length being different.)
Click to expand...


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> crhoades said:
> 
> 
> 
> And God is three persons as Scripture clearly tells us, and so these are clearly parts of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is not correct. God is three Persons, and all three Persons are completely and fully God. Each of the Persons is not a "part" of God. Each one *is* God. God is one being, and three Persons.
> 
> Each Person is distinct from the others, and yet all three Persons have the same essence as the one God. The doctrine known by the fancy name of *perichoresis* teaches this: that all three Persons have the same essence as God.
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Civbert's insistence that God's knowledge is bound by the laws of logic (as per the archetype/ectype thread) shuts him up to the conclusion that God has parts as if He were finite. This is what happens when you make a god no bigger than what your own mind can conceive. I am sorry to be harsh, but this is the brutal consequence of deviating from the reformed tradition.



The infinity of God does not imply singularity. Rather the opposite is true. Something finite can be one things, and one is a finite number. 

I don't' find you harsh Rev Winzer, just _incomprehensible_.


----------



## crhoades

bookslover said:


> No, this is not correct. God is three Persons, and all three Persons are completely and fully God. Each of the Persons is not a "part" of God. Each one *is* God. God is one being, and three Persons.
> 
> Each Person is distinct from the others, and yet all three Persons have the same essence as the one God. The doctrine known by the fancy name of *perichoresis* teaches this: that all three Persons have the same essence as God.


 
Just for the record...the quoting mechanism looks like it isn't working fully. the quote that your wrapped was from Civbert.


----------



## bookslover

crhoades said:


> Think of a yard measure. It's made up of three individual feet. No two are the same, but none alone is a yard.



The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity *is* fully and completely God.


----------



## Davidius

How is it that the Trinity can be lumped into one completely homogeneous blob when its 2nd Person has a physical body and the 1st and 3rd do not?


----------



## bookslover

crhoades said:


> Just for the record...the quoting mechanism looks like it isn't working fully. the quote that your wrapped was from Civbert.



No, the quoting mechanism is working OK. I think I messed up when I used it! My apologies.


----------



## crhoades

Civbert said:


> The infinity of God does not imply singularity. Rather the opposite is true. Something finite can be one things, and one is a finite number.
> 
> I don't' find you harsh Rev Winzer, just _incomprehensible_.


 
From the Athanasian Creed 

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity *is* fully and completely God.



Richard, I am in full agreement with you here. There is I, Thou, and He, and all three persons speak as full possessors of theiotes, the divine nature or Godhead.


----------



## crhoades

bookslover said:


> The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity *is* fully and completely God.


 
 That's why I used that. Jesus is fully God and not a part of God. I'm trying to flesh this out slowly. That's the position I'm arguing from. Also for the record - the quote that you wrapped was from Civbert.


----------



## bookslover

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> How is it that the Trinity can be lumped into one completely homogeneous blob when its 2nd Person has a physical body and the 1st and 3rd do not?



Because the trinity is still three Persons, even though one of them (the second Person) is now permanently incarnate. Even in His incarnate state (and now with His glorified body, of course), Jesus is still completely God, having the same exact essence as God as the other two Persons. Becoming man did not take away one whit from his essence as God. He is always the God-man, never the Man-God.


----------



## Civbert

bookslover said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is not correct. God is three Persons, and all three Persons are completely and fully God. Each of the Persons is not a "part" of God. Each one *is* God. God is one being, and three Persons.
> 
> Each Person is distinct from the others, and yet all three Persons have the same essence as the one God. The doctrine known by the fancy name of *perichoresis* teaches this: that all three Persons have the same essence as God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the terminology. One essence. But the essence is spiritual - therefore the essence is not divisible into parts. But the persons are unique. And each is required. You can not have Jesus is as just God alone, he is God the Son and he is begotten of the Father. You can not call Jesus God apart from the relationship he has to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as you can not call a single molecule of H2O a solid or a gas or a liquid, because those are not simple states of existence, but relationships to other molecules. If you subtract out the Father, or the Holy Spirit, and leave Jesus you have removed any sense to the meaning of to Jesus is God. But Jesus is not the Father, and not the Spirit. He is one in substance with the Father and Spirit.
> 
> The term "being" is also vague and alone has little meaning. A being is nothing without something that tells us what it is. God is one being in the sense of one spiritual substance that is unique to the Godhead, and not shared by man. The Godhead is not one being in the sense of one person. God _the Father _is one person, Jesus is another person, and the Spirit another.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChristianTrader

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> How is it that the Trinity can be lumped into one completely homogeneous blob when its 2nd Person has a physical body and the 1st and 3rd do not?



Perhaps if you think of it as Jesus added unto himself a non essential characteristic, that might help. For example, you are not changed if you place on a hat on your head.

CT


----------



## Davidius

bookslover said:


> Because the trinity is still three Persons, even though one of them (the second Person) is now permanently incarnate. Even in His incarnate state (and now with His glorified body, of course), Jesus is still completely God, having the same exact essence as God as the other two Persons. Becoming man did not take away one whit from his essence as God. He is always the God-man, never the Man-God.





ChristianTrader said:


> Perhaps if you think of it as Jesus added unto himself a non essential characteristic, that might help. For example, you are not changed if you place on a hat on your head.
> 
> CT



thanks


----------



## Civbert

bookslover said:


> The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity *is* fully and completely God.


 Of course, but in what sense? What does being fully God mean? It doesn't mean the same person. A foot alone is not a yard. And a yard is not a yard if you subtract a foot. Being fully God does not make God one in the identical sense as God is three. God is three in the sense of persons, and one in the sense of substance, power and eternity. So Jesus is not fully God in the sense as being identical with God the Father. He is fully God in the sense of being of the same substance. Beyond that, we can not say.


----------



## Civbert

ChristianTrader said:


> Perhaps if you think of it as Jesus added unto himself a non essential characteristic, that might help. For example, you are not changed if you place on a hat on your head.
> 
> CT



Good point. Jesus was still Jesus before he was incarnate. So Jesus is not defined by having a body. Jesus is not God by any temporal characteristics he now has, like becoming incarnate. He is God, at least in part, because He is eternal. 

("In part" meaning there are other characteristics that define Jesus as "fully God".)


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> Of course, but in what sense? What does being fully God mean? It doesn't mean the same person. A foot alone is not a yard. And a yard is not a yard if you subtract a foot. Being fully God does not make God one in the identical sense as God is three. God is three in the sense of persons, and one in the sense of substance, power and eternity. So Jesus is not fully God in the sense as being identical with God the Father. He is fully God in the sense of being of the same substance. Beyond that, we can not say.



I think it would be better to say that Jesus is fully God and the Father is fully God. Being incarnate doesn't lessen Jesus' "Godness", if you want to put it that way. The second Person and the First Person are not _identical_, as _Persons_, but they are identical as being the same God, as all three Persons possess the essence, or the being, of God. One being, three Persons.


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> I know the terminology. One essence. But the essence is spiritual - therefore the essence is not divisible into parts. But the persons are unique. And each is required. You can not have Jesus is as just God alone, he is God the Son and he is begotten of the Father. You can not call Jesus God apart from the relationship he has to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as you can not call a single molecule of H2O a solid or a gas or a liquid, because those are not simple states of existence, but relationships to other molecules. If you subtract out the Father, or the Holy Spirit, and leave Jesus you have removed any sense to the meaning of to Jesus is God. But Jesus is not the Father, and not the Spirit. He is one in substance with the Father and Spirit.



You: "One essence. But the essence is spiritual - therefore, the essence is not divisible into parts."

Right. Though I think it would be better to use "spirit" instead of "spiritual".

You: "The persons are unique. And each is required."

Right.

You: "You cannot have Jesus as God alone, He is God the Son..."

Well, this statement could be read as meaning that Jesus' essence as deity is dependent on His relationship with another Person of the Trinity. That would not be correct. His essence as God is not dependent on His inter-trinitarian relationships.

You: "...and He is begotten of the Father."

Thinks: _not gonna go there, not gonna go there_ [*bites tongue*]

You: "You cannot call Jesus God apart from the relationship He has to the Father and the Holy Spirit."

As I said above, Jesus' essence as deity is not dependent on His inter-trinitarian relationships. All three Persons are fully and completely God - with no qualifications necessary. This is the basic, rock-bottom fact about God's trinitarian nature: God _is_ three eternal Persons. The Persons are distinguishable as Persons, but they are all the _same_ God.


----------



## bookslover

What makes this thread so fascinating - and so difficult at times - is the fact that we are straining at language in order to discuss the Trinity of Persons, and it's relationship to the essence of deity, clearly. This is why the Trinity is so difficult to talk about - human language is really just not built for discussions of this kind.

For me, the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those triggers that forces us to remember that the Bible _is not merely a human book._ No mere human being, in cooking up a "bible" all on his own, would ever have come up with this doctrine. It's too esoteric, too difficult for our minds to rap around. We humans like things in neat, tidy packages, but the doctrine of the Trinity will not allow itself to be forced into one of those neat, tidy packages!

Since the Trinity is exclusively _a revealed doctrine_, that reminds us that the Bible is _a revealed book_, containing things that we could not have come up with on our own, with our little pea-brains.

That's why I'm grateful to God for revealing as much of Himself as He has. It's a reminder of the Creator/creature distinction - and a reminder that we can't understand everything, because we're not _meant_ to understand everything - not even everything that has been revealed. If we could, faith would not be necessary; yet God has decreed that faith is the key to Christianity.


----------



## Davidius

bookslover said:


> What makes this thread so fascinating - and so difficult at times - is the fact that we are straining at language in order to discuss the Trinity of Persons, and it's relationship to the essence of deity, clearly. This is why the Trinity is so difficult to talk about - human language is really just not built for discussions of this kind.
> 
> For me, the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those triggers that forces us to remember that the Bible _is not merely a human book._ No mere human being, in cooking up a "bible" all on his own, would ever have come up with this doctrine. It's too esoteric, too difficult for our minds to rap around. We humans like things in neat, tidy packages, but the doctrine of the Trinity will not allow itself to be forced into one of those neat, tidy packages!
> 
> Since the Trinity is exclusively _a revealed doctrine_, that reminds us that the Bible is _a revealed book_, containing things that we could not have come up with on our own, with our little pea-brains.
> 
> That's why I'm grateful to God for revealing as much of Himself as He has. It's a reminder of the Creator/creature distinction - and a reminder that we can't understand everything, because we're not _meant_ to understand everything - not even everything that has been revealed. If we could, faith would not be necessary; yet God has decreed that faith is the key to Christianity.



This is the kind of stuff that sometimes makes me want to give up. It reminds me of my charismatic days when we downplayed the understanding in order to sound pious and spiritual. When I came to the Reformed church it was partially because I finally had hope that God as well as my own existence were sane. My first reading of Reformed literature showed me the greatness of what can happen when the bible is really treated as a source of truth. 

So why should I have to be accused of wanting to put things in nice, tidy packages because I want to know God and understand His revelation? I'm not trying to be rationalistic and erase the creator/creature distinction, but the idea that revelation is supposed to be incomprehensible seems to contradict itself. Without revelation, man is confused and lost in a sea of irrationality. Now we're asserting that the same is true for those who have true epistemological foundations. We can't even really understand who God is. How can I be asked to worship and love something I don't understand, something that, without explanation, seems absurd? Is this really the bible's definition of faith?


----------



## beej6

To derail this thread, here's the best "analogy" I've found, which is not really an analogy but an attempt to find the trinity in the concept of time:

***
TIME

"The future is the source. The future is unseen, unknown except as it continually embodies itself and makes itself visible in the present.
The present is what we see, hear, and know. It is ceaselessly embodying the future - day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. It is perpetually revealing the future, hitherto invisible. The future is logically first, but not chronologically first. For the present exists as long as time exists and was in the absolute beginning of time. 
The present has existed as long as time has existed. Time acts through and in the present. It makes itself visible only in the present. It is through the present that the future enters into union with human life. Time and humanity meet and unite in the present. It is in the present that time, the future, becomes a part of human life, and so is born and lives and dies in human life.
[The past, in turn, comes from the present. We cannot say that it embodies the present; on the contrary, time, in issuing from the present into the past becomes invisible again. The past does not embody the present; rather it proceeds, silently, endlessly, and invisibly from it.]
The present, therefore, comes out from the invisible future. The present perpetually and ever newly embodies the future in visible, audible, livable form, and returns again into the invisible time in the past. The past acts invisibly. it continually influences us with regard to the present. It casts light upon the present. That is its great function. It helps us live in the present, which we know, and with reference to the future, which we expect to see."

Now substitute: God = time
Father = future
Son = present
and (The Holy) Spirit = past.

"THE TRINITY

The Father is the source. The Father is unseen, unknown except as He continually embodies Himself and makes Himself visible in the Son. 
The Son is what we see, hear, and know. He is ceaselessly embodying the Father - day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. He is perpetually revealing the Father, hitherto invisible. The Father is logically first, but not chronologically first. For the Son exists as long as God exists and was in the absolute beginning of God.
The Son has existed as long as God has existed. God acts through and in the Son. He makes Himself visible only in the Son. It is through the Son that the Father enters into union with human life. God and humanity meet and unite in the Son. It is in the Son that God, the Father, becomes a part of human life, and so is born and lives and dies in human life.
[The Holy Spirit, in turn, comes from the Son. We cannot say that He embodies the Son; on the contrary, God, in issuing from the Son into the Holy Spirit becomes invisible again. The Holy Spirit does not embody the Son; rather He proceeds silently, endlessly and invisibly from Him.]
The Son, therefore, comes out from the invisible Father. The Son perpetually and ever newly embodies the Father in visible, audible, livable form, and returns again into the invisible God in the Spirit. The Spirit acts invisibly. He continually influences us with regard to the Son. He casts light upon the Son. That is His great function. He helps us to live in the Son, which we know, and with reference to the Father, which we expect to see....."


Nathan Wood and Campbell Morgan, The Trinity In The Universe, Kregel Publications, 1994. [As quoted by D. James Kennedy, The Coral Ridge Hour, "The Trinity All Around Us," aired 5/16/2004.]

***
Now again, it fails because it's almost as esoteric as the concept of trinity, but I like it because it appeals to the (very limited) philosopher in me.


----------



## bookslover

Here's a quotation from my favorite book on the Trinity: _The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons_ by Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 155 - 

_In our understanding of the New Testament witness to God's revelation of Himself, "the Father," "the Son," and "the Holy Spirit" are unique and proper names denoting three distinct Persons, or real Hypostases, who are neither exchangeable nor interchangeable while, nevertheless, of one and the same divine Being. There is one Person of the Father who is always the Father, distinct from the Son and the Spirit; and there is another Person of the Son who is always the Son, who is distinct from the Father and the Spirit; and another Person of the Holy Spirit, who is always the Holy Spirit, distinct from the Father and the Son. In this three-fold tri-personal self-revelation of God, one Person is not more or less God, for all three Persons are coeternal and coequal. They are all perfectly one in the identity of their Nature and perfectly homoousial or consubstantial in their Being. Each of the three Persons is, Himself, Lord and God, and yet there are not three Lords or Gods, but only one Lord God, and there is only one and same eternal Being of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity of three divine Persons is, thus, perfectly homogeneous and unitary, both in the threeness and the oneness of God's personal activity, and in the threeness and oneness of His eternal unchangeable personal Being. One Being, three Persons. _

Torrance published this book when he was 83, by the way. He'll be 94 at the end of this August. This is really a good book. I recommend it.


----------



## RamistThomist

or this one:

space-time continuum

or maybe not


----------



## bookslover

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> So why should I have to be accused of wanting to put things in nice, tidy packages because I want to know God and understand His revelation? I'm not trying to be rationalistic and erase the creator/creature distinction, but the idea that revelation is supposed to be incomprehensible seems to contradict itself. Without revelation, man is confused and lost in a sea of irrationality. Now we're asserting that the same is true for those who have true epistemological foundations. We can't even really understand who God is. How can I be asked to worship and love something I don't understand, something that, without explanation, seems absurd? Is this really the bible's definition of faith?



I haven't accused you, specifically, of anything. I just wrote a general statement.

You sound as if you're saying that you're expecting to be able to understand _everything_ that's revealed in Scripture. But that will never happen - not for you, and not for any of us. If we could understand everything, we'd be God. God has told us what He wants us to know, but has not guaranteed that we will understand everything He has told us - the doctrine of the Trinity being a magnificent example of this! We are still finite creatures, no matter how great our understanding is.

We cannot, and will not, understand fully God's revelation in Scripture simply because we are not God. That's what makes Deuteronomy 29:29 such a good hermeneutical rule in understanding the Scriptures.


----------



## Davidius

bookslover said:


> I haven't accused you, specifically, of anything. I just wrote a general statement.
> 
> You sound as if you're saying that you're expecting to be able to understand _everything_ that's revealed in Scripture. But that will never happen - not for you, and not for any of us. If we could understand everything, we'd be God. God has told us what He wants us to know, but has not guaranteed that we will understand everything He has told us - the doctrine of the Trinity being a magnificent example of this! We are still finite creatures, no matter how great our understanding is.
> 
> We cannot, and will not, understand fully God's revelation in Scripture simply because we are not God. That's what makes Deuteronomy 29:29 such a good hermeneutical rule in understanding the Scriptures.



Yes, I know that you were not accusing me, specifically, of anything. I just remember using the phrase about "putting God in a box" when I was a Charismatic, referring to all those spiritually cold people in confessional churches who did any sort of profound theological speculation at all. Seeing it used to talk about Reformed Christians who are just, as it seems to me, trying to understand what God has revealed, which doesn't seem to be a terrible thing, brought back bad memories. 

Deuteronomy 29:29 contrasts the secret things with the revealed things. The Trinity (in the sense that it is gathered from multiple passages of Scripture) is revealed and, I would assume, according to passages such as Acts 8:30, therefore meant to be understood. 

Anyway, I understand that this is not a light issue. I do submit to Scripture as the final authority and realize it teaches that the Father, Son and Spirit are all God yet separate persons. It'd just be nice to attempt to understand what the Nicene Creed means without feeling like I might fall into damnable heresy. And then I want to become a Fideist or start to believe in Implicit Faith but I know that these are also not very good options. But again, I understand the issue is not light and not being careful with difficult issues leads to serious consequences.


----------



## Scott

reformedman said:


> I think this post has unfortunately come from asking how we approach explaining the Trinity to weak minds, to how does the trinity work. To give an explanation to people, you indeed have to know how the Trinity works but what we know has already been established if you are a qualified member of the PB.
> 
> One person raised the question of how should a person go about explaning the Trinity to a child; my opinion is, if it's too difficult, then don't. The Trinity can be as difficult as understanding the 'Two Natures of Christ', or 'Double Imputation', which to us adults, are doctrines that are easy enough, but to young minds are a bit of a strain. I'd say if they are not ready, then don't tie a millstone around their neck and teach them what ie:the ten commandments mean instead.
> 
> Why must we teach doctrine and logical knowledge so much instead of teaching sin and a broken relationship with the sovereign? This isn't a rant, I'm not opposed to this thread at all, I'd like to see how it continues, but I'm just saying, that I hope that things are placed in a good priority above all.
> 
> In the end, the Trinity may not be comprehended but can atleast be apprehended.



Teaching them is unavoidable. It is in the catechisms we teach them. It is necessary for the to pray to Jesus or to understand that He is divine. The question will come up, why does Jesus pray to God if He is God? I don't see how one can avoid it in a Christian household.


----------



## Scott

bookslover said:


> The main problem with your analogy is that the 3-headed giant is a physical creature, while the trinitarian God of the Bible is spirit. As you say, all analogies break down at some point, so none is perfect.
> 
> Rather than try to explain the trinity (the most we can say is: one being, three Persons), what Christians should do is just _bow before the mystery._ The Bible reveals that God is a trinity of Persons, but the Bible doesn't explain either the _how_ or the _why_ of it.
> 
> Of course, there is no _how_ to God being trinitarian. He just _is_. He just _is_three persons. That's who God is and, as I said, God has not condescended to explain to us how that "works". Our responsibility (and privilege) is to believe it, and bow before it.
> 
> There are just some things we are not meant to know (Deuteronomy 29:29), at least not on this side of the grave.


Well, it is important to understand what one is saying when he says that God is a Trinity. Kids work in analogies and so they would be helpful. It may be a mystery about how the Trinity subsists but if we are going to say three persons, we need to be able to explain that. If we are going to say one nature, we need to be able to explain that. We need to have understanding of the terms we are saying or else we are just using words and not really affirming any doctrine. And if we are going to understand what we are saying then teaching is helpful.


----------



## bookslover

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Deuteronomy 29:29 contrasts the secret things with the revealed things. The Trinity (in the sense that it is gathered from multiple passages of Scripture) is revealed and, I would assume, according to passages such as Acts 8:30, therefore meant to be understood.



Yes, but understood only up to a point.

You won't be accused of being a pietist or a mystic if you acknowledge that God knows what He's doing and that it's not necessary to understand everything. "Trust and Obey", as the song title goes...


----------



## jsup

Whew, a lot happened when I turned my head. You are right bookslover, our language is insufficient to describe our Lord. The Trinity is complex and beyond human knowledge. I don't think there is an accurate analogy available because we are all using our knowledge to describe God. It is really where "Trust and Obey" come into play. We have to accept what God has told us in His Word. But we'll still keep trying at it.


----------



## CDM

The problem with analogy's of the Trinity is that you are comparing the Creator with the creation. He is unlike anything in Creation. He transcends Creation.

I do not believe it treats God with the proper reverence when we compare him with the dust of this world.

God is relational. i.e., perichoresis - mutual indwelling, or mutual interpenetration of the three members of the Trinity with each other.


----------



## Scott

mangum said:


> The problem with analogy's of the Trinity is that you are comparing the Creator with the creation. He is unlike anything in Creation. He transcends Creation.
> 
> I do not believe it treats God with the proper reverence when we compare him with the dust of this world.
> 
> God is relational. i.e., perichoresis - mutual indwelling, or mutual interpenetration of the three members of the Trinity with each other.



God compares Himself to many things of the world, such as a rock, a warrior, etc, so I don't see a problem with using comparisons like that. He set the precedent.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

with Mangum in a sense.

God created the space-time continuum. Therefore he is above it and cannot be fully comrehended in terms of that same continuum (3-dimensional space + time).

Have you ever read a book called _Flatland_? As I remember, it addresses the problems that beings in a two-dimensional world (actually 2 dimensional space + time) would have comprehending the intrusion of a 3-dimensional being into their 2-dimensional world. 

It's a mathmatical sci-fi story, but it kinda illustrates the problem comprehending God interjecting himself into creation.

Then again, I could be all wet.


----------



## CDM

Scott said:


> God compares Himself to many things of the world, such as a rock, a warrior, etc, so I don't see a problem with using comparisons like that. He set the precedent.



He in no way compares his _essence_ to a rock, a warrior, etc. He uses these temporal things to describe his attributes to us but not his being or essence. Two very different things.


----------



## panta dokimazete

God in substance 1, in Person 3

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

So:

In substance: 1x1x1 = 1

In personage: 1+1+1 = 3

Simple Analogy: Apples in substance 1, in type 3

The Red Delicious Apple
The Winesap Apple
The Granny Smith Apple

The question then becomes - how do you define substance verus personage?


----------



## crhoades

jdlongmire said:


> Simple Analogy: Apples in substance 1, in type 3
> 
> The Red Delicious Apple
> The Winesap Apple
> The Granny Smith Apple


The problem with this analogy is the crux of the debate between Plato and Aristotle. This is the very one and many problem. There are three physical distinct apples. Do they share the essence of appleness? What is it? Is it a Platonic form? If so how does the many apples participate in the one form? Contrariwise if the essence is implanted into each apple ala Aristotle then you are shoved in the direction of the many - how to bring everything back together as one? So one is shoved in one direction or the other. Van Til argued that the solution to the problem is the Trinity. The problem I see with going the whole analogy route is that we actually bring the problem into the Christian faith rather than resolving it. If we start with creation to explain the creator than we run into all sorts of problems. When we start with the Creator - issues go away.


----------



## Civbert

Consider this. I am fully a father and fully an engineer. I am one being, but I am also a father and engineer. This doesn't divide my "essence" or make me three in essence. 

The Godhead is one in substance, and there in persons. For something to have parts, the parts must something we can count. We can not count the essence or substance or power of the Godhead. The Godhead does not have three powers that are the same. But at the same, and without any violation of reason, God's persons are enumerated. There are three persons in the Godhead. 

I noticed a reluctance to use the term the WCF uses: "Godhead". I think there is a fear of being accused of being "unorthodox" if we use terms that seem impersonal. Godhead doesn't' sound as "personal" as God. But when we use the term God, this might be ambiguous. Do we mean God the Father, or the Godhead. Must we insist that the Godhead is a person? I see no reason. I don't not feel we must make the Godhead one person and three persons. So when we say God, might not we being speaking of God the Father at some times, and the Godhead at others. Christ was present at the creation and Scripture uses the term "we" at that time. Other times Jesus speaks of "the Father" and he is clearly not speaking of himself. 

Where do we get "God is one being". Is that not more than saying God is is? And consider we are speaking of the Godhead. Is the Godhead one "being"? Does "one being" really saying anything at all? 

Are we going to talk about what the "essence" of God is? Let's just say what is God's is-ness. And that depends on what "is" is. It's an undefined spoken and undefined predication of God. God is.... But even God did not stop at "is". God said "I am what I am". At least God defined himself in terms of himself. But he also defined himself in terms of his relationships. The God of Isaac and Jacob. The God of our fathers.


----------



## Civbert

bookslover said:


> ...
> You: "You cannot call Jesus God apart from the relationship He has to the Father and the Holy Spirit."
> 
> As I said above, Jesus' essence as deity is not dependent on His inter-trinitarian relationships. All three Persons are fully and completely God - with no qualifications necessary. This is the basic, rock-bottom fact about God's trinitarian nature: God _is_ three eternal Persons. The Persons are distinguishable as Persons, but they are all the _same_ God.



Who said anything about his "essence". What is "essence". The problem I think is we think we can talk about the "is-ness" of God in a meaningful way. I think we start talking nonsense and pat ourselves on the head because it sounds pious. Not you in particular. 

But when we are speaking of who the Godhead is, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are defining the persons of the Godhead, and the Godhead itself, in terms of relationships. We do not say Jesus defines the Godhead.

I isn't necessary to say the Trinity is beyond understanding and reason. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from Scripture. And we don't say God's revealed word is irrational. We say we can understand those things God has revealed to us in Scripture by his Spirit. 

And to those who think we can believe what we don't' understand, I ask you to tell me what exactly it is that you believe and don't understand. If you do not understand it, then you can not explain it. If you can not explain it, then you can not tell me what you believe. And if you can not tell me what you believe, how can you say you believe it? We believe only as much as we understand. What you don't understand, you don't believe.


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> From the Athanasian Creed
> 
> The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.


 Which does not mean beyond reason, or apparently contradictory, or irrational, or confusing, or not understandable. It simply means there is more knowledge about God than we can possible know. Not that what we know is confusing. 



crhoades said:


> The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
> And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.


 Eternals are not nouns. It's a adjective. However "eternal" is not an enumerable characteristics. Eternal is not a divisible property. There are not "kinds" of eternal. Either something is eternal or it is not eternal. You can not be eternal in a different way than something else. 



crhoades said:


> As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.


 Three uncreated or three incomprehensible _what_? Neither term is a noun and the terms themselves are not enumerable. But there are three uncreated persons and three incomprehensible persons. These are like incomplete thoughts - "there is one blue" - one blue _what_. But they have the property of being singular in kind. There is only one kind of uncreated (uncreated by God) and one kind of incomprehensible regarding the Godhead.


----------



## Civbert

jdlongmire said:


> God in substance 1, in Person 3
> 
> God the Father
> God the Son
> God the Holy Spirit
> 
> So:
> 
> In substance: 1x1x1 = 1
> 
> In personage: 1+1+1 = 3
> 
> Simple Analogy: Apples in substance 1, in type 3
> 
> The Red Delicious Apple
> The Winesap Apple
> The Granny Smith Apple
> 
> The question then becomes - how do you define substance verus personage?



I would add, imagine also there are only three apples in whole world, just as there are only three persons in the Godhead. This way, we can not say that anthing else has the same "substance" as the three apples. It's not perfect, but it has some merit.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

[video=youtube;n8RXb4kHXCQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8RXb4kHXCQ[/video]


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> We believe only as much as we understand. What you don't understand, you don't believe.



If this is your basic attitude, then you're going to have a frustrating Christian life, I think. Is it not possible to believe in the Trinity without completely understanding it? Why must you demand that you completely understand something before you believe it? I use electricity all the time and believe that it does what it does, but I can't say that I understand what electricity is.

It was one of the early church fathers, Ambrose, I think, who said, "I believe in order that I may understand". When it comes to spiritual things, this is the proper attitude for a Christian to have. I don't have to completely understand everything the Bible teaches in order to believe. Remember, we walk by faith, not by sight.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Jessica, I think that analogy is kind of like this one I have read (edit: on reflection maybe not): Take a 3 dimensional creature (e.g. a human) and say, it puts 3 fingers of its hand into a two dimensional realm. In the 2 dimensional realm, two dimensional creatures will see three distinct circles, but in reality they are a part of one. Of course the analogy breaks down. It is true that God is a spirit and transcends our physical dimensionals, but the bible makes it clear that even in the spiritual realm God consist of three distinct persons.

I think the relevant difference between most analogies of the Trinity, and the actual Trinity, is the *personal* aspect. When we start talking about personal aspects, we then get into discussions about minds, unity of consciousness, etc. I think this is the hardest part of the Trinity to get our minds wrapped around.


----------



## Scott

mangum said:


> He in no way compares his _essence_ to a rock, a warrior, etc. He uses these temporal things to describe his attributes to us but not his being or essence. Two very different things.


I was responding to your point about whether God can be compared to earthly things. I think the answer is yes and has biblical precedent.


----------



## Civbert

bookslover said:


> If this is your basic attitude, then you're going to have a frustrating Christian life, I think. Is it not possible to believe in the Trinity without completely understanding it?


 I believe in so far as I understand it. I understand the Godhead is three persons. In so far as this is clear to me, I believe it. I believe the Godhead is "one being". But what does "one being" mean. What does "one substance" mean. I understand this to mean the same in power and eternity - and that helps. I also categorically reject the idea the "one being" implies one person. So this helps me understand some more. 




bookslover said:


> Why must you demand that you completely understand something before you believe it?


 I don't. But I want to be clear what I do and do not understand, and not say I believe something I do not understand. If I had to "fully" understand everything, I'd believe very little. But I can believe to the degree I understand, and no more. This is not a matter of attitude, but necessity.



bookslover said:


> I use electricity all the time and believe that it does what it does, but I can't say that I understand what electricity is.


 Are you saying you believe "in" electricity? It seems you are only saying that your belief consists of your understanding of what electricity can do. You don't have any belief regarding what electricity actually is. I also believe things about what electricity does, and how I can use it. I believe certain propositions about electricity (such as the relationship between current and voltage). But I don't believe anything about electricity that is contradictory or I don't understand. I have some notion about what electricity is (the flow of electrons) and that's about all. 



bookslover said:


> It was one of the early church fathers, Ambrose, I think, who said, "I believe in order that I may understand". When it comes to spiritual things, this is the proper attitude for a Christian to have.


I don't think this is a statement about attitude. As believers in Christ, we in general should understand Scripture better because we have the Holy Spirit. But one does not have to be a "believer" to understand anything. There are unbelievers who "know" the bible better then some Christians - but they do not believe what it says. So "I believe in order to understand" only makes sense as far as better understanding follows from belief in Scripture in general. It doesn't mean that I don't understand proposition X until I believe proposition X. Nor does it mean we should believe against reason. Faith is necessary for reason and knowledge, but it is in no way antithetical to reason and knowledge.



bookslover said:


> I don't have to completely understand everything the Bible teaches in order to believe. Remember, we walk by faith, not by sight.


 We walk by faith because we believe in Scripture, and this belief should determine our actions and decisions. We do not walk by sight because that is a rejection of God's Word. To walk by sight would be to say we can determine truth apart from God's Word - this is a rejection of rationalism and empiricism and all other worldviews that believe they can find truth apart from God and his Word. But this in no way implies a implicit or blind faith. We are to reason through the Scriptures to understand the truths therein.
[bible] Isa 1:18[bible]
[bible]act 17:2[/bible]
[bible]2co 1:12-13[/bible]
[bible]heb 11:3[/bible]

We are to understand Scripture because a failure to understand makes us vulnerable to heresies:
[bible]2pe 3:16[/bible]


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> We are to reason through the Scriptures to understand the truths therein.



I agree, with the caveat that reason, while it helps (after all, it's God-given) will only get you so far. One cannot depend on human reason alone for an understanding of the Scriptures. That's why we're given the Holy Spirit.


----------



## etexas

I never replied to the original question on the thread so here goes, I do not like it because as a man of German-Irish Heritage, a giant has negative (pre-Christian) connotations.


----------



## MW

1x1x1=1 because the numerical unity is being multiplied by itself not by another. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are I, Thou, and He -- there is numerical diversity so far as personal relation is concerned.

Concerning the species/genus illustration of apples -- this leaves you with three numerical essences categorised under one denomination. The divine unity is more than one of "agreement." It is a unity in "essence."

I strongly suggest we be content to leave Trinitarian discussion where the Christian tradition has wisely left it. The person who approaches this subject should realise he is drawing near sacred ground, and accordingly remove the sandals from off his feet. As John Owen exhorts, "Let him bring with him a due reverence of the majesty, and infinite, *incomprehensible nature of God*, as that which is not to be prostituted to the captious and sophistical scanning of men of corrupt minds, but to be humbly adored, according to the revelation that he hath made of himself." (Works, 2:368.)


----------



## etexas

armourbearer said:


> 1x1x1=1 because the numerical unity is being multiplied by itself not by another. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are I, Thou, and He -- there is numerical diversity so far as personal relation is concerned.
> 
> Concerning the species/genus illustration of apples -- this leaves you with three numerical essences categorised under one denomination. The divine unity is more than one of "agreement." It is a unity in "essence."
> 
> I strongly suggest we be content to leave Trinitarian discussion where the Christian tradition has wisely left it. The person who approaches this subject should realise he is drawing near sacred ground, and accordingly remove the sandals from off his feet. As John Owen exhorts, "Let him bring with him a due reverence of the majesty, and infinite, *incomprehensible nature of God*, as that which is not to be prostituted to the captious and sophistical scanning of men of corrupt minds, but to be humbly adored, according to the revelation that he hath made of himself." (Works, 2:368.)


----------



## BlackCalvinist

the space analogy doesn't work, either.

I dealt with that 9 years ago in an IM convo.

http://theologicallycorrect.com/studycenter/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9


----------



## ChristianTrader

BlackCalvinist said:


> the space analogy doesn't work, either.
> 
> I dealt with that 9 years ago in an IM convo.
> 
> http://theologicallycorrect.com/studycenter/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9



I personally like the time analogy the best, however I do not believe that you have properly dealt with the space analogy in its strongest form. Imagine any of the three axises of space (x, y, or z). Fill in any one axis of space. After you have done so, what does one have. All of space is filled in.

Therefore you could reasonable say that the analogy implies that each dimension represents all of space.

CT


----------



## Scott

armourbearer said:


> 1x1x1=1 because the numerical unity is being multiplied by itself not by another. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are I, Thou, and He -- there is numerical diversity so far as personal relation is concerned.
> 
> Concerning the species/genus illustration of apples -- this leaves you with three numerical essences categorised under one denomination. The divine unity is more than one of "agreement." It is a unity in "essence."
> 
> I strongly suggest we be content to leave Trinitarian discussion where the Christian tradition has wisely left it. The person who approaches this subject should realise he is drawing near sacred ground, and accordingly remove the sandals from off his feet. As John Owen exhorts, "Let him bring with him a due reverence of the majesty, and infinite, *incomprehensible nature of God*, as that which is not to be prostituted to the captious and sophistical scanning of men of corrupt minds, but to be humbly adored, according to the revelation that he hath made of himself." (Works, 2:368.)



We still need teaching about what the Christian tradition teaches. If we say that God is one in essence and three is person, we need to know what those words mean in order for them to not be empty. Analogies are good ways to help understand.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I use the fire analogy. I can with one lighted candle, produce 2 other distinct flames that are of the same essence.

Of course it breaks down if one examines it too closely, but it does serve in general the 1 and 3. 1 fire, 3 flames.


----------

