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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

..]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]