Trinity analogy - good or bad?

[Davidius]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 isthree 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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.

• 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.

• 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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