# Godology by Christian George



## Reformed Roman (Aug 5, 2014)

In response to:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/godology-awful-book-52608/ 





I am posting this to challenge some things I read on that post.

Let me start by saying I did read the full review, and I have not read the book. 

But I do think some things said in the review and by other posters were probably a little bit insensitive and honestly insulting when I think about it.

A friend recommended Godology to my wife and after reading the book review and hearing her talk about some of the book here are my thoughts:

1: My wife is newly converted. She was homeschooled her whole life, but because she has dyslexia it has made things very hard educationally. she wasn't always raised in the best way schooling wise. When I first started talking to her about the trinity she couldn't understand it. The first thing she started doing was try to use metaphors. At the end of our talk we came to the conclusion, no one metaphor can explain the trinity. However many metaphors can help you understand the trinity, if you understand that all metaphors have limitations.

2: Medically and legitimately my wife learns a lot differently than most. You cannot just give my wife a copy of Jonathan Edwards, or even R.C Sproul and expect her to understand. 99 percent of theology books today would be completely over her head. Not only would they be over her head educationally, but the few books that would be on her level would probably be addressing teens or others of the sort. Anyway, my wife learns completely differently than most. Even in common things, explaining things with metaphors and explaining things through pictures can often be a good way of communicating. I can't just give her a stack of books and definitions and expect her to figure it out. 

I think a big thing in reformed circles is that they expect everyone either to be able to read exactly like them or learn exactly like them. Some people either learn completely differently, or literally have medical disorders that have them learn differently.

Regardless, I think education is extremely important. I think my wife learning theological terms is very important, and I do go over them and explain them to her, and yes, I explain definitions. 

What I'm trying to say is that many of these explanations are very helpful.

So to quote the book review from the puritan board:

Describing the Trinity, he says,

"Like a three-way mirror, each person in the Godhead satellites the other--an eternal reflection."

Kevin Carroll said:

But beyond that, what does George mean? A reflection is not the thing being reflected, so is he a modalist? I really want to believe that he is not, but the awful comparisons continue.

I say: Using any metaphor to decribe the trinity will be imperfect. That does not mean that metaphors are not helpful, and that doesn't mean they can't help us better understand the trinity. If you even read the quote from the author above, *and take it how it is* (and not try to be overly academically correct) you will see that in some way, it makes sense. Clearly he is not a modalist or other things. But in an imperfect way it can help you understand *one aspect of the trinity*

"Like the Irish three-leafed clover...Like a mind, God is intellect, memory, and will--one system, but three functions. Like water, God is fluid, steam, and icicle--one substance, but three textures." (p. 19)

Kevin Carroll said: 

Sorry, but that is not remotely orthodox. The leaves of a clover are not the clover nor are the states of water, water.

I've heard MANY people use this metaphor that are completely orthodox. The thing is again, no metaphor can perfectly explain the trinity, that's why so many metaphors are used to explain it. Each metaphor may help you understand *a part of the trinity and how it can work if you just understand that the metaphor is flawed in itself.*


George describes the outpouring of the Spirit as, "a tag team of epic proportion...He is our teleprompter...our energy drink." (p. 21)

Again. I see nothing wrong with this. My wife really uses metaphors to learn and when she would read that she wouldn't think "haha, God is my energy drink". 

An energy drink will literally take over your body physically, it will drag you through your day. Again, it is an imperfect metaphor because it wears off and you crash. Even my wife would understand that.

But just reading that would give her a picture of God and the Spirit working within her, lifting her up, etc.

I am not defending every metaphor used in the book. I definitely wouldn't know. 

But using simple language does not dumb down God or make Him look any more magnificient and glorious. This is coming from someone who is about to read "The Holiness of God" by R.C Sproul. This is coming from someone who reads Jonathan Edwards, and John Owen. And honestly, I think sometimes Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll are overly practical. I like to listen to R.C Sproul, John Piper, and other more theologically rich and deep authors.

I just wanted to make a point. Before I met my wife I would have probably read that review and agreed with every word. Too many kids get dumbed down these days and they aren't taught truth. But knowing my wife, how she thinks, learns, etc. She paints, she take pictures, and you know what, if you gave her a paragraph she would probably misspell half of the words, or mix them up with her dyslexia.

Yes, we are learning so many meanings of words. We are going so much deeper, because much of her problem is lack of education, and lack of theological education.

But despite that she learns so much differently than anyone I know. It made me realize that no kid learns the same. No adult learns the same. That's why I now see so many benefits of homeschooling, because I feel we put a box on education. Everybody needs basics and truths but some people learn in different ways.

This book being dumbed down is not bad. To me it's just honestly putting it in terms my wife would legitimately understand. I'd rather give her a theology book like this than a book with 500 words she doesn't know how to say and 500 words she doesn't know the definition of. 

Some books she wants to read all the way through, enjoy, and relate to. From everything I read, even in that review. I think this book fits my wife. It may be a rare case due to how she thinks, her education level, her age, and sense of humor. But overall I think it fits her perfectly.

This book seems like it would be perfect for newer Christians, for Christians honestly having a hard time understanding some of the basic truths about God, for teens, or for people who just learn a lot differently than most. 

Honestly I think most people in the puritan board would read this and dislike the book. Because when you've read and understood "Knowing God" by J.I Packer, this book will be a HUGE disappointment.

But for those who are too daunted to even touch a John Piper book. Yes, my wife learns so differently, and educationally just wouldn't understand even a simpler John Piper book, I think for those people, this book can help them grasp basic truths.

Because this book is full of metaphors, but even IN THE BOOK THE AUTHOR ADMITS THE METAPHORS ARE IMPERFECT! (wouldn't let me bold that for some reason). My wife just read it and even throughout those metaphors on the trinity he explained how they can't even get close to explaining the deeper picture of the trinity.

But for someone lacking basic understanding, using metaphors if you KNOW they are imperfect can be extremely helpful!

I'm curious on some of your thoughts on this, if what I said maybe changed your minds, gave you a different perspective, etc. Or just for thoughts. Honestly it just makes me sad that using easier to understand language about God and theology makes us so mad. Yes I think it's important to reach further and get to that point but not all of us are there yet. That's why I think simpler terms explaining deep theology can help babes in the faith grasp truths that they might not have understood.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 5, 2014)

By the way, let me add. I do think it's a little sad that this book would dare be compared to "Knowing God" by J.I. Packer. The words used to express God and the absolutely fantastic theology cannot compare.

Nonetheless using simple metaphors and simple language to explain gospel truths can at least help my wife get a good basic understanding of theology while she continues to grow and learn educationally.


----------



## psycheives (Aug 5, 2014)

I appreciate this post. Your wife is not at all alone in being unable to comprehend most of today's Reformed books and Christian vocab. At times, it almost seems that one needs a PHD in theology to enter the Reformed world. The Reformed world tends to write to themselves and not to "the real world". Almost the entire evangelical world that I came from was unable to read and comprehend even John Piper, much much less RC Sproul and Michael Horton. This is why they have to settle for non-Reformed authors. If "Introduction to Covenant Theology" is beyond the grasp of Masters-level seminary students, what hope do the high school graduates and dropouts have? They must settle for the false teaching of Dispensationalism because it is all they can comprehend.

Many Christians feel they can only read the easy stuff, which happens to be written by inconsistent Calvinistic Evangelicals at the best, Arminians in the middle and false cult teachers at the easy end. The false teachers are targeting our new Christians. New Christians having trouble comprehending the most-biblically-accurate-authors are forced to settle for the false teachers who are writing at their level. This puts up a barrier for new Christians, children, and those with less comprehensive vocab and comprehension levels - which is half of America - into the Reformed world. I'm greatly saddened that our authors aren't writing to the level of a normal adult in America. NIV bible level.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment. But when reading the review, the first thing that stood out to me was the very unpleasant, unloving attitude of the reviewer. Instead of offering a loving but theologically considerate piece, the review was hostile and condescending from the start. Comments like this leave my mouth open: "Having exhausted my positive comments of this stinker of a book, let me turn to its actual content." The Christian faith suffers greatly for the pride and arrogance of its preachers.


----------



## psycheives (Aug 5, 2014)

I appreciate this post. Your wife is not at all alone in being unable to comprehend most of today's Reformed books and Christian vocab. At times, it almost seems that one needs a PHD in theology to enter the Reformed world. The Reformed world tends to write to themselves and not to "the real world". Almost the entire evangelical world that I came from was unable to read and comprehend even John Piper, much much less RC Sproul and Michael Horton. This is why they have to settle for non-Reformed authors. If "Introduction to Covenant Theology" is beyond the grasp of Masters-level seminary students, what hope do the high school graduates and dropouts have? They must settle for the false teaching of Dispensationalism because it is all they can comprehend.

Many Christians feel they can only read the easy stuff, which happens to be written by inconsistent Calvinistic Evangelicals at the best, Arminians in the middle and false cult teachers at the easy end. The false teachers are targeting our new Christians. New Christians having trouble comprehending the most-biblically-accurate-authors are forced to settle for the false teachers who are writing at their level. This puts up a barrier for new Christians, children, and those with less comprehensive vocab and comprehension levels - which is half of America - into the Reformed world. I'm greatly saddened that our authors aren't writing to the level of a normal adult in America. NIV bible level.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment. But when reading the review, the first thing that stood out to me was the very unpleasant, unloving attitude of the reviewer. Instead of offering a loving but theologically considerate piece, the review was hostile and condescending from the start. Comments like this leave my mouth open: "Having exhausted my positive comments of this stinker of a book, let me turn to its actual content." I am sad to see this was written by one of our pastors. The Christian faith suffers greatly for the pride, harshness and arrogance of its preachers and teachers. If only we had more love... especially towards the body of Christ.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 5, 2014)

I also like this post. I know a few people like your wife that struggle (not doubting them rather struggling to understand) with theological concepts many here would take for granted. We must be prepared to take theological talk down a notch (i would say ' dumb down' but that can be insulting) so they must sufficiently understand it.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 5, 2014)

Sorry for the longness. I'm sure I could have simplified it but it was deeper on my heart. I have really opened up to some things since I met my wife and married her. 

And comparing what seems like a completely correct theological book to "The Shack" isn't really a good thing to me either.

Even the so called sexually suggestive passage my wife read and didn't get that vibe whatsoever. In fact she explained it in a completely different light .So while I haven't read it and can't say it's great, the main point of this post was to bring up that there is a huge lack of literature for those that aren't at high reading levels and that using lighter vocabulary and more metaphors isn't bad, in fact for some people it is necessary to at least get a *basic understanding*. OF course at some point later it is great to dig into deeper theologically sound books.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 6, 2014)

psycheives said:


> Your wife is not at all alone in being unable to comprehend most of today's Reformed books and Christian vocab. At times, it almost seems that one needs a PHD in theology to enter the Reformed world. The Reformed world tends to write to themselves and not to "the real world".


 I agree with that. Though I should add, for myself, that there are those who benefit greatly from much of what I find hard or impossible to comprehend and I don't despise them or the writings for that. But it is true, that often what many write is of a harder to understand nature than the Bible itself, of which they are writing about. This often puts these gems of insights into the Word, which they are conveying, out of the grasp of many who are unlearned or suffer from things like dyslexia, my own wife has dyslexia so I get what its like. I too suffered some heavy head injuries in my past which dumbed me down a bit, , yeah I can laugh at myself over that one as some who I know may say "I never noticed any difference". But yeah, there is a lot of things out there which are out of the grasp of many people because of the nature and way it is written. I have said in the past, why call a creature by its scientific name, Oncorhynchus Mykiss, when you can simply say Rainbow Trout. I will admit that even on this forum I don't get what people are often talking about, but again I just accept my own lower ability to understand and learn and get on with life.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 6, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> psycheives said:
> 
> 
> > Your wife is not at all alone in being unable to comprehend most of today's Reformed books and Christian vocab. At times, it almost seems that one needs a PHD in theology to enter the Reformed world. The Reformed world tends to write to themselves and not to "the real world".
> ...



Lol and that's perfectly okay. I gain much insight. I'm glad I came back to this forum and I feel I can grow from a lot of the theological discussions. Even though I am more of a Reformed baptist. I also am part of a reformed church plant in Saint Louis called the Gate. By no means is my church a "cool church". They don't try to be cool. But the truth is my Pastor has been to jail and even been involved in drugs to many extents. By God's grace God changed his heart. Yet he uses honestly a big vocabulary in many ways in his sermons. He doesn't shy away from reformed terms, or quoting Spurgeon, Luther, or any old reformers. Yet the culture is so different from that of a typical Presbyterian church, it is very refreshing to get a completely different perspective and a completely different look at the scriptures. It's amazing how diverse my congregation is, yet it's amazing how different the personalities, and even how different perspectives are taken just based off of culture or denomination, EVEN if both agree on the same thing. All that to say I'm grateful for all the input in this board. I read Jonathan Edwards even sometimes. Sometimes I don't understand fully what he means, but when I do understand it's powerful! So it's very profitable for me to be here.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 6, 2014)

What's wrong with just saying that the Trinity is a mystery beyond our comprehension that is accepted by faith? The problem with the metaphors is not that they are imperfect, but they actually lead someone further from the truth than if they had never heard them.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 6, 2014)

SRoper said:


> What's wrong with just saying that the Trinity is a mystery beyond our comprehension that is accepted by faith? The problem with the metaphors is not that they are imperfect, but they actually lead someone further from the truth than if they had never heard them.




Nothing is wrong with that. I think that as long as you properly explain the imperfect parts of the argument. 

I just think if properly educated and used rightly nothing is wrong with using a metaphor to explain the trinity, as long as we explain ultimately these should not be your ultimate basis for your beliefs on the trinity.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 10, 2014)

We aren't on the same page. It is not that the metaphors are not comprehensive enough--it's that they are wrong. Sure, saying "the Trinity is like ice, liquid water, and vapor" is simple and easy to understand, but so is saying "God is purple." If someone wrote a book that said God is purple I wouldn't think, "well he's communicating in a way that anyone can understand." I'd say, "this guy shouldn't be teaching."


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 17, 2014)

Jesus himself used metaphors in his parables. And even those metaphors you could pick apart couldn't you? 

We could pick apart every little piece if we really wanted to. Like the prodigal son. The father and the son are both humans. Neither one can truly compare to God. Wouldn't comparing God to a human in that way diminish our view of God?

Or how about the fact that the father and son are both of equal status? Isn't God so much higher than us that there is absolutely no comparison?

Every metaphor has it's flaws. If a metaphor has bigger flaws we should probably explain in WHAT WAY it represents God, or in what way it represents truth. It can also do good to explain in what ways it has flaws.


----------



## Justified (Aug 17, 2014)

I was a camp counselor all summer, so I spent a lot of time explaining the Trinity to younger children. I'd lay out a couple essentials: firstly, there are three persons in one being (not three beings in one being, otherwise we have tritheism); secondly, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is God; but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost, and, likewise, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son (I mean all this in regards to their persons, obviously all are of the same essence); lastly, I'd explain that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (John 1), and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son. 

Obviously, take as much time as you can to try to explain each of the points. But each of these points are, what I'd say, essentials. Don't let her be discouraged, and tell her not to get bogged down if she can't comprehend it: it's a mystery. 

I concur, along with Calvin, that metaphors cast more confusion-- and dare I say it error-- about the Trinity. Expound these truths to your wife and work through them. Most importantly pray with your wife through these issues. 

Hope I was of some help.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 17, 2014)

Ultimately we can disagree. I think there are ways to avoid it causing confusion, if done properly.

What we will no doubt agree upon is that those essentials must be taught and gone over carefully, and we must have scripture dictate what we teach, even if it doesn't make sense to us to an extent. The trinity isn't a fully logical thing, but it is the truth and needs to be taught and taught well.


----------



## Andres (Aug 18, 2014)

Zach, I don't have any experience with dyslexia or any other adult learning disorders so I won't attempt to speak to your wife's situation regarding how she can/should learn. With that said, I do have experience dealing with those with limited mental capabilities. In fact, I was actually explaining the Trinity to someone who is completely illiterate just 2 weeks ago. I'm referring to my two year old son. The way I explained it to him was almost verbatim to what's written below:



Justified said:


> firstly, there are three persons in one being (not three beings in one being, otherwise we have tritheism); secondly, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is God; but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost, and, likewise, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son (I mean all this in regards to their persons, obviously all are of the same essence); lastly, I'd explain that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (John 1), and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son.



In the process of explaining to my son I also made sure to mention to him that all metaphors fall short when dealing with the Trinity, just as Scott mentioned already. Yes, I did specifically note this because I know that eventually my son will encounter the ice metaphor or the egg metaphor, etc. And yes I know it's likely he's already forgotten everything I shared that morning, but that's fine because I know I am going to have the same conversation several more times with him until God calls me home.

Now I know your wife is more mentally capable than my two year old son, so even if she isn't able to read some of the deeper works on the nature of God, then this is a good opportunity to fulfill one of your roles as her husband - to lead her in this subject matter. I don't see why you can't read biblically solid books and then break them down for her. 

Lastly, even if you want to disagree with the tone of the initial review, the book Godology posits metaphors and teachings that are erroneous and heretical in regard to the Trinity. What good does it do for someone to understand something if what they are learning is incorrect? If you truly love your wife, which I already know you obviously do, then help to steer her clear of books that encourage such erroneous views.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 19, 2014)

Like I said, if you pick apart the metaphors that much (George himself picked apart the negatives in the book) , you could do the same to even the parables of Jesus Himself. I'd like for someone to address how even Jesus Himself used parables that you could pick apart. What makes these any different?

Let me add that the foundation for teaching the trinity would never be metaphors, but rather stuff similar to what you posted Andres


----------



## Andres (Aug 19, 2014)

Zach Rohman said:


> Like I said, if you pick apart the metaphors that much (George himself picked apart the negatives in the book) , you could do the same to even the parables of Jesus Himself.



No, not even close to being the same thing, but I digress. Prayers for you and your wife as you seek to grow in Him.


----------



## nicnap (Aug 19, 2014)

Zach Rohman said:


> Like I said, if you pick apart the metaphors that much (George himself picked apart the negatives in the book) , you could do the same to even the parables of Jesus Himself. I'd like for someone to address how even Jesus Himself used parables that you could pick apart. What makes these any different?



Zach, did Jesus attempt to describe the Trinity by way of analogy at any point? No. Then, what you are saying about analogies and the Trinity and Jesus' use of parables does not compare. There is a difference between the Lord of Glory and His inerrant Word, and some man trying to make use of metaphors and analogies to try and describe a profound mystery, of which its essential understanding belong to God alone (Cf. Deuteronomy 29:29). The danger with trying to use analogies with the Trinity is that if you get it wrong, then you are on the wrong side of heresy. John Murray said it well, "At the point of divergence the difference between right and wrong, between truth and falsehood, is not a chasm but a razor’s edge."

Now to lighten it up, but get the point across, you should watch this.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 20, 2014)

[video=youtube;KQLfgaUoQCw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw[/video]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 20, 2014)

Zach,

Christ did not teach in Parables so He could be understood. Quite the opposite. When asked why He taught in Parables, He gave a plain answer. I suggest you look it up.

I agree that we need to speak in plain language but not all concepts are easy to apprehend. There is no requirement that we all equally apprehend some truths in order that we be saved. Even Peter acknowledges that there are doctrines that are difficult to understand.

I think a simply way of understanding the Trinity it this.

There is one God.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Spirit is God.
They are all God but there are not three Gods but one God.
The Father is not the Son or the Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Spirit.
The Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

Honestly, if a person can understand the states of water then they ought to be able to understand that.

I don't like simple analogies because then people think they have apprehended the reality by the analogy. In fact, if you search what Christ said about Parables then you'll see my point. How many people probably walked away thinking: "Oh yeah, I get what Jesus was saying. He's so _earthy_ and easy to understand..." but Christ said that "...seeing they do not see."

The majesty of the Godhead was never intended to be easily apprehended.

Incidentally, one of my children is on the autism spectrum so I'm not immune to the problems of communicating truth to people. That said, stacking up a bunch of bad non-Biblical analogies on top of one another doesn't aid understanding any more than a bunch of shots that miss a target don't add up to a bulllseye.


----------



## Justified (Aug 20, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Zach,
> 
> Christ did not teach in Parables so He could be understood. Quite the opposite. When asked why He taught in Parables, He gave a plain answer. I suggest you look it up.
> 
> ...


The way you explained it was how I did in a earlier post, and I entirely, wholeheartedly agree. The Trinity definitely falls in the category of the Doctrine of God. What is the Doctrine of God but who God is! If this is a matter of the who God is, we ought not to confound or diminish his attributes-- none the least of these are his unsearchableness, incomprehensibility, and divine mystery. Reflecting on this now, I believe that the unknowability and mystery of the blessed Trinity is one of those essential doctrines of the Trinity; moreover, even God choosing not to reveal this mystery to us, reveals something about him, i.e., his incomprehensibility.

I rest in thought that infinite God's being so far transcends my finite being.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 20, 2014)

God _has_ given us a way to think about the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Zach, I teach Bible lessons to kids, including very young kids sometimes. I like finding creative ways to get ideas across to them, and I especially value being able to use simple language to communicate deep things. I have no problem at all with that way of thinking, and I appreciate your concern in general.

Yet I do have a problem with these Trinity metaphors. I've heard the arguments about how kids learn differently and we need to come up with creative metaphors to explain God to them, but these metaphors are still dangerous in that they actually explain God _wrongly_. None is sufficient. Especially on a matter so central to our glorious task of knowing God better, I urge you not to accept illustrations that lead us astray. Be relentlessly biblical.

You haven't said in what way your wife thinks differently, so I don't really know if this will help, but for teaching kids I have a little Trinity and person of Jesus lesson I use that incorporates flash cards with numbers on them. It seems to help even little kids, as young as 5 or 6, feel like they at least know the basics. The notes are online, so I'll link to that below. It's _not_ meant to be a comprehensive study of the Godhead and surely some people would choose different elements to include, but it has helped me explain these things in a fairly simple way that avoids unbiblical analogies about God.

God and Jesus 101 lesson notes
God and Jesus 101 printable flash cards


----------



## Edward (Aug 20, 2014)

First, I would suggest that if you are going to review a book review, you owe it to both authors to read the book first. 

Second, I find your reasoning inconsistent. First, you identify how your wife was a victim of home schooling, then you say you now see the benefits of home schooling. The bulk of your post is the best indictment of home schooling and defense of the special ed programs in public schools that I've seen in quite some time, but you can't seem to see the picture that you've painted. So why should I accept your endorsement of a book you haven't read?


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 21, 2014)

Let me try to clarify a few things.


Now I think homeschooling has benefits and has a great place. Basically my wife was homeschooling gone wrong. I don't know who to blame for that. I don't want to publically bash or anything but she definitely was very behind. I think it was hard for her being dyslexic and maybe they didn't know how to handle it. Either way, we are where we are. She does have a lower educational level than a typical college student, and yes, she wouldn't be able to understand half of the words in a book by John Piper, John Macarthur, R.C Sproul, etc.

My main point of making this post was 2 things:

1: I did find the attitude of the overall book insulting. 

2: The book was compared to The Shack, and practically called heresy. Yet nothing in the book was said, even by the reviewer, to be theologically incorrect, and my wife has yet to find anything in correct about it.

3: We all may not agree that it is okay to use metaphors to describe the trinity. I did want to defend that, because if explained rightly they can perhaps be helpful. Now we may disagree on this point. But honestly that was the only legitimate argument I even found against the book. Now to call a book out and give it that bad of a review based on a few poor metaphors (he even explained the errors in them himself) I think that's not cool. 

Again we may disagree on this. 

My main point overall was to address the attitude towards these books. I think if someone made a theological book that was super easy to understand, if it was so far below your educational level it probably wouldn't be the most pleasant read. Especially if you heard it comapred to J.I Packer. 

I think inside Reformed circles today there is a lot of book smarts and a lot of theological knowledge, but I think there is a deep need in the church today. I see many people who have lower educational levels and I don't see people going down to their level to properly explain things. You can disagree with metaphors regarding the trinity and that's fine, I'm just saying knowing my wife, I wish there was a lot more material out there that was easy to read, and understand from more theological authors. I only know of a few authors to even attempt to explain things on an 8th grade level. 

Now: My attitude is always safer than sorry. I would never make metaphors the main emphasis when discipling anyone, including my wife. And with such concern regarding this from other brothers I would definitely stray away from them even more. I appreciate all the helpful hints on describing such a deep doctrine in an elementary way. It's actually extremely helpful. My main concern is doing this the best that I can, and you all helped to give me many resources regarding this.

(Sorry, my posts aren't always the most organized)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2014)

Zach Rohman said:


> The book was compared to The Shack, and practically called heresy. Yet nothing in the book was said, even by the reviewer, to be theologically incorrect, and my wife has yet to find anything in correct about it.


Zach: What do you think of these metaphors:



> "Like the Irish three-leafed clover...Like a mind, God is intellect, memory, and will--one system, but three functions. Like water, God is fluid, steam, and icicle--one substance, but three textures." (p. 19)



If you do not find anything theologically incorrect in this statement then I don't think you actually subscribe to the London Baptist Confession.



Zach Rohman said:


> I think inside Reformed circles today there is a lot of book smarts and a lot of theological knowledge, but I think there is a deep need in the church today. I see many people who have lower educational levels and I don't see people going down to their level to properly explain things. You can disagree with metaphors regarding the trinity and that's fine, I'm just saying knowing my wife, I wish there was a lot more material out there that was easy to read, and understand from more theological authors. I only know of a few authors to even attempt to explain things on an 8th grade level.



You'll have to forgive this question but why should I believe that you have much exposure to "Reformed circles" when you're in a Southern Baptist congregation?

My children certainly are not college educated and I can tell you that there is a rich collection of material that correctly explains theological concepts to young children. If an adult does not have a high school level of education then curriculum suited for elementary students may be appropriate as the person grows in understanding. 

Furthermore, there is no fundamental difference in the reading level of Godology versus any of R.C. Sproul's books. They're both written at a popular level. The only differences you keep drawing out are BAD analogies that you believe are helpful. You like the word pictures but the word pictures you like are NOT harmless but _dangerous_.

It is not a fault of Reformed people that they write at a popular level but avoid dangerous analogies but it is to their credit that they write at a popular level and avoid word pictures that some people might like but, in thinking they have learned something, they have learned error.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 27, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Zach Rohman said:
> 
> 
> > The book was compared to The Shack, and practically called heresy. Yet nothing in the book was said, even by the reviewer, to be theologically incorrect, and my wife has yet to find anything in correct about it.
> ...




I think those metaphors are again, right in a slight sense, but wrong in many senses. I just don't see anything wrong with them being presented and being explained as such, those few right points they bring can to some people help them in my opinion.

Yes, in different ways I have been apart of many reformed circles. Some online, and many in my own congregations. My church also had an intern that was a Presbyterian, and my former boss was a Lutheran (but with full belief in God's sovereignty). I've been apart of many message boards like the Puritan Board. 

I cannot claim superior life experience though. I am very young. I was simply saying in my experience this is what I've seen. 

I do see a big difference in reading from R.C Sproul and Christian George. My wife's reading level is not really up to reading R.C Sproul just yet to be honest with you. 

Here's the bottom line though:

1: I appreciate all of the concern you all have shown towards me. It was shown in a loving manner with a love for truth. 

2: It has made it very clear to me that it is never a good idea to use analogies as a firm foundation for your teaching on the trinity. I always believed this. But what you all have said has really made that clear to me.

I would say that there are in the end better ways to teach the trinity than metaphors. So why use metaphors at all if you are going to have to spend so much time explaining the fallacies in them? I think that's the main point you all want to get across to me.

I appreciate that point and fully take it to heart. I think at best they should probably be used more like Wayne Grudem. He brought them up, but just to explain the fallacies away, and to explain all of those analogies fall short, so why should we teach something using things that fall short so much? I think if you ever read the chapter on the trinity part yourself you would probably see that he does explain how those analogies fall short. Yet again, maybe too much emphasis was put on those analogies in the book. I think you all are very wise for seeing that.

I think then, if you can get anything from me from this post, it is that I think there is very theologically rich material being pushed sometimes on people who don't have that reading level. I think sometimes we expect everyone to be at the same educational level and they are not. You would be surprised what educational levels you would find. Recommending J.I Packer's "Knowing God" to everyone individual you discipline might not be the wisest thing so early on.

Thank you all though for your love shown in the posts and the way you responded. I appreciate you all.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 27, 2014)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/reading-material-lower-reading-levels-84419/

This is for a discussion on what books would be better for my wife to read. I would love for anyone to contribute with any insight if you have any. I know many of you have more experience in the world than I do, and you may know of many godly authors that are reformed and still write very easy to read books. I haven't seen too many, but I know many of you probably have.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 27, 2014)

Zach Rohman said:


> I think then, if you can get anything from me from this post, it is that I think there is very theologically rich material being pushed sometimes on people who don't have that reading level. I think sometimes we expect everyone to be at the same educational level and they are not. You would be surprised what educational levels you would find. Recommending J.I Packer's "Knowing God" to everyone individual you discipline might not be the wisest thing so early on.
> 
> Thank you all though for your love shown in the posts and the way you responded. I appreciate you all.


Thank you for your irenic attitude toward my concern.

As I noted, it's not for lack of material suited for different reading comprehension levels but one may need to turn to children's curriculum if one's vocabulary is under-developed. That may not sit well with some adults who want to read books written for adults but a person needs to be humble about their abilities. I spent a good time of my career training adults or dealing with training issues and curriculum always has to be geared to the learning level of the learner. Your wife is not unusual in her inability to follow texts written at a high school reading level. That said, theological training is best done by someone who can disciple the learner and not leave it to books for people to figure out on their own. If your wife is trying to understand the Trinity and you can grasp what an orthodox teacher is teaching then explain it to her and help her grow in her apprehension.

Blessings to you!


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 28, 2014)

It would be pretty easy for me to argue. But arguing if it's right or wrong to use those at all is so petty. I have many loving brothers here all telling me wonderful ways to teach the trinity in simplicity. When like five people all want to tell you something, it doesn't mean they are fully right, but when a bunch of solid brothers have something to say in agreeance I should probably listen


----------

