"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
Alternate title: “Trinitarian Heresy 101″
“The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.” But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.”
Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever.
Explanation coming… Hang with me.
Last week I taught a group of kids about the doctrine of the Trinity here at the Credo House as part of our Theology for Kids series. The ages were anywhere from 7 to 13. Though I regularly teach this subject to adults, this was the first time that I taught the doctrine of the Trinity to kids. I was surprised that it went well. It is confusing enough for adults, how much more for kids?
Teaching the Trinity, I have found, is more about giving basic principles of what it is and then shooting down illustrations about what it is not. Proper Trinitarianism is about a delicate balance between the unity and diversity in the Godhead. Christians believe in one God, i.e., one essence, who eternally exists in three separate persons, all of whom are equal.
We often employ illustrations that help us to make the ineffable, effable, the abstract, concrete. But when it comes to the nature of God, especially with regard to the Doctrine of the Trinity, illustrations should only be used to show what the Trinity is not.
Let me list the three major heresies or departures from orthodoxy with regard to the Trinity:
1. Modalism: The belief that God is one God who shows himself in three different ways, sometimes as the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit. It describes God in purely functional terms. When he is saving the world on the cross, he is called Jesus. When he is convicting the world of sin, he is called Holy Spirit, and when he is creating the world, he is called Father. The error here is that this is contrary to what we believe: one God who eternally exists in three persons, not modes of functionality. It is not one God with three names, but one God in three persons.
2. Tritheism: The belief that we have three Gods, all who share a similar nature, but not the exact same nature. In this, the nature of God is either distinguished or divided, which destroys the unity of God. We don’t believe in three persons who share in a species called “God,” but three persons who share in an identical, united nature.
3. Subordinationalism: This is a subset of tritheism, but deserves its own category. In other words, if you are a subordinationalist, you are also a tritheist by definition, even if you don’t recognize it. The subordinationalist says that there is one God in three persons, but the essence of each person exists in a hierarchy. For example, many believe that God the Father is the greatest and the most powerful. Coming in second is God the Son, followed by the second runner-up, the Holy Spirit. Orthodox trinitarianism confesses an essential equality among all the members of the Godhead. None are greater in essence than the other.
Here is a “Trinitarianism Heresy Test Chart” I have created. Keep this by your bed.

Notice:
- If equality is denied, on the opposite side it points to subordinationalism.
- If diversity is denied, the result is modalism.
- If unity is denied, the result is tritheism (or polytheism —many gods).
With this in mind, let me now cover the “stupid statements” and why they don’t pass the test:
1. The Trinity is like 3-in-1 shampoo. This can only point to modalism or tritheism. It is modalistic if you are saying the shampoo performs three functions, yet is one substance. But you can also break down the various elements that perform each function and see them separately. That is tritheism since all of the elements are not the same. They may work together to perform a specific goal, but they are not really the same substance.
2. The Trinity is like an egg. This is most definitely tritheism. While the egg is one, each of the substances that makes up the parts (shell, white stuff, and yoke), are most definitely distinct. The yoke is completely separate in nature from the shell.
3. The Trinity is like water. This is a modalistic illustration. Ice, steam, and liquid are examples of the same nature which at one time or another has a particular mode of existence. Sometimes it is liquid, sometimes it is ice, and sometimes it is steam. God is not sometimes Son, sometimes Father, and sometimes Spirit. He is eternally each, always at the same time.
4. The Trinity is like a three leaf clover. This is a form of tritheism. Each leaf of the clover is a separate leaf. It does not share in the same nature as the other leafs, but only has a similar nature. In the Trinity, each member shares in the exact same nature.
5. The Trinity is like a man who is simultaneously a father, son, and husband. This is an often used illustration, but it only serves to present a modalistic understanding of God that is false. Father, son, and husband only describe various functions of one person. Each function cannot exist in a simultaneous relationship with each other, can’t talk to each other, and cannot exist in an eternal relationship with each other.
6. The Trinity is like a person who is one, yet has a spirit, soul, and a body. This one, like the first, can commit either a tritheistic or modalistic error, but cannot be used to illustrate the orthodox definition of the Trinity. It is modalistic in that the spirit, soul, and body are three functions of one conscience or person. But it can also be tritheistic when one considers that the spirit is not the exact same nature as the body (or the soul if you are a trichotomist—another lesson).
In the end, I do not believe that there are any true to life illustrations that can or should be used to teach or describe the Trinity. The Trinity is not a contradiction (i.e. one God who eternally exists as three separate Gods), but it is most definitely a paradox (a truth that exists in tension).
This graph is helpful in describing the Trinity. It is called the “Shield of the Trinity.”

It is always best to remember that the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Son is God, but they are not each other.
One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly entered into one of the errors that we seek to avoid.
Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?
- Another Illustration of the Trinity
- The Essence of God: Sovereign, Holiness, or Love?
- In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? B: The Father Is Greater than All
- Is the Mormon Faith a True Representation of Christianity?
Print This Post

Jugulum on 27 Aug 2009 at 5:44 pm #
I hope you don’t mind the cross-blog link, but I’m reminded of a recent STR entry about teaching the Trinity to junior highers.
Transforming Little Heretics
Lisa Robinson on 27 Aug 2009 at 7:21 pm #
Transforming Little Heretics? LOL. That MUST go over well with the parents.
C Michael Patton on 27 Aug 2009 at 7:31 pm #
I doubt that this will (should) be too controversial.
I like what Glen Krieder said on Facebook when he read this: “Try this: the Trinity is like . . . the Trinity. The God who is is the only one who is and he is unlike anything in creation.”
Tara on 27 Aug 2009 at 7:33 pm #
Hmmm…I’ll be the dissenter here. I agree with the things you’re saying…I’m neither modalist, nor tritheist, nor subordinalist. I disagree, however, that any of those illustrations need *necessarily* be interpreted in a way that leads to one of those heretical views. For example, I think that the clover illustration can serve exactly the same function as your “Shield of the Trinity” graph. The clover as a whole is God. The first leaf is not the second leaf is not the third leaf, but the clover is each leaf (without each leaf, it wouldn’t be a clover), and each leaf is the exact same essence – it is the clover. Similarly, each leaf must be attached to the others for it to be a clover – one clover leaf by itself is not a clover. So, same purpose, and not tritheistic. Honestly, your Shield of the Trinity graph even looks a little bit like a clover.
My two cents…and I can also see where each of those illustrations could be understood in a heretical way. I just don’t think they *necessarily* have to be.
~Tara
Tara on 27 Aug 2009 at 7:35 pm #
Also, I do think there is some value in illustrations like that. I have friends from other parts of the world who have never even heard of any sort of concept or person even similar to God…illustrations like that are very helpful for them to begin to understand. But I probably feel that way because I’m a Navigator…we’re big on illustrations.
Jugulum on 27 Aug 2009 at 8:02 pm #
But in the clover, each leaf is only part of the clover.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 27 Aug 2009 at 9:05 pm #
Growing up, I was fed all these illustrations, and it wasn’t until I was reading through Grudem’s systematic that it finally dawned on me that all these illustrations were actually clouding the doctrine of the Trinity and not clarifying it. Great post, sir…
Gammell on 28 Aug 2009 at 12:21 am #
What’s your perspective on the use of Marriage as an analogy for the Trinity? Obviously greatly limited, but it seems there’s value in drawing on the practical experience of seeing two-become-one to point to the three-in-one.
C Michael Patton on 28 Aug 2009 at 12:31 am #
I would say that it is ok so long as you are talking about the analogy of the community that exists in marraige, but if you are trying to draw parallels to help understand the nature of the Trinity, it is bad.
EricW on 28 Aug 2009 at 5:43 am #
Growing up, I was fed all these illustrations, and it wasn’t until I was reading through Grudem’s systematic that it finally dawned on me that all these illustrations were actually clouding the doctrine of the Trinity and not clarifying it. Great post, sir…
Douglas: What in Grudem clarified the Trinity for you?
Geoff on 28 Aug 2009 at 6:00 am #
I think the best way to understand the Trinity is to understand Jesus. He had the fullness of God in Him. Colossians 1:19 says 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him. If you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father
It came to mind that it seems like looking to nature to understand the Trinity might not be a bad thing even though I know that we won’t ever be able to fully understand the Trinity until we see things clearly. 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
Romans 1:19-20 says 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
Maybe I am interpreting Romans incorrectly in this perspective, but it seems to be saying to me that we can see His attributes by studying His creation. I enjoyed reading what Tara had to say and I found her arguements equally valid from the perspective she was coming from.
Mike B. on 28 Aug 2009 at 6:32 am #
I notice that this is something that the theologically educated really get up in arms about. We went over all of this in Systematic theology here at seminary, all of the illustrations and why they’re bad. And I can see the point; but in the end, I don’t really think that any of these illustrations were ever meant to describe the trinity with technical precision, but rather to illustrate in very general terms that it is not totally insane to talk about something that is both one and three at the same time, that there are things in this world that we talk about in a similar way, even if they are not exactly the same.
One thing I am a little bit disappointed with is the way in which you explain why Modalism, Tritheism, and Subordination are wrong, “The error here is that this is contrary to what we believe…” I have to say that this is not particularly helpful. The fact that it goes against what the majority consider to be orthodox does not make it wrong. You have to show from the scripture why these are not satisfactory explanations.
Personally, I have been wrestling a lot with the issue of the trinity, and I have some questions. First of all, I have trouble seeing what is so bad about modalism. I understand that it is certainly confusing when it results in having one expression of God talking to another expression of God (being both water and steam at the same time, so to speak), but how is that any more weird or bizarre than having two people who are the same person talking to each other? I am not convinced that modalism is the right way to think about it, but it has the advantage of being the most straightforward way of maintaining monotheism while still believing in the divinity of Jesus (which is, I believe, the central issue in trinitarian doctrine).
Moreover, I am not sure how saying that all members of the trinity have the same nature does not make it tritheism. And the trinitarian triangle, while clever, cannot help but seem like one of those impossible figures that can be drawn but could never exist in the real world.
The Bible doesn’t speak of the “nature” or “essence” of God. That is more of a philosophical construct with no meaning in the real world. I personally really like Richard Bauckham’s divine identity Christology, in which he speaks of Jesus being included within the identity of God. While I think that this is closer to how the scriptural author’s conceived it, and more fitting to a 2nd Temple Jewish context, I am not entirely sure that it is all that much easier to wrap one’s mind around.
It is a complex issue, and I do not think that any attempt to wrap one’s mind around it should immediately be labeled stupid.
Nick on 28 Aug 2009 at 7:07 am #
Well said Michael. I get sick of illustrations about the Trinity really.
btw, since you’re dealing with stupid statements, are you going to make any blogs about what the critics are saying about the upcoming season of Smallville?
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 28 Aug 2009 at 7:14 am #
EricW,
Grudem makes the following point on pg 240 of Systematic Theology:
“Sometimes people have used several analogies drawn from nature or human experience to attempt to explain this doctrine. Although these analogies are helpful at an elementary level of understanding, they all turn out to be inadequate or misleading on further reflection. To say, for example, that God is like a three-leaf clover, which has three parts yet remains one clover, fails because each leaf is only part of the clover, and any one leaf cannot be said to be the whole clover. But in the Trinity, each of the three persons is not just a separate part of God, each person is fully God. Moreover, the leaf of a clover is impersonal and does not have distinct and complex personality in the way each person of the Trinity does.”
That, and his continuing discussion on pg 241, nailed it for me…
Barrett Young on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:19 am #
Thanks Michael,
This sunday, my high school guys Bible study is on the chapter covering the Trinity in Berkhof’s Summary of Christian Doctrine. You have put my mind at ease in teaching this, especially when you stated “Teaching the Trinity, I have found, is more about giving basic principles of what it is and then shooting down illustrations about what it is not.” This was the direction I was going to head. I was going to share the Scriptures that teach God is one, then share the Scriptures that teach the three as distinct, and leave the tension hanging, and answer their questions as best as I can. Your timely post has encouraged me not to speculate.
Jason on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:24 am #
I’ve heard a lot of these illustrations, and they strike me as either a.) revealing the speaker’s own unorthodox beliefs; or b.) failing to express what the speaker believes. I’ll be more direct — I’ll admit clearly that I’m unable to be orthodox regarding the Trinity. Part of the reason is that I can’t swallow the following true statement:
I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox.
I’m unavoidably doubtful about any idea that we know is true, but we also know we can’t understand, and about which someone who is generally and laudably unafraid to exercise his brain says the only path to orthodoxy is to “let the tensions remain without rebuttal.” To my mind, that’s the same as saying, “It’s wrong to think about the trinity”; the essence of rationality is to either harmonize or rebut contradictory statements.
I’ve read many of the most powerful and oft-referenced explanations of the Trinity, and the more I study them and the Bible, the more I’m inclined to believe that the whole idea is neither Biblical nor true. I’m open to convincing, however; I also greatly doubt myself whenever I find myself opposed to almost two thousand years of received consensus.
Nick on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:29 am #
Jason. Would you care to present why you think it isn’t true?
Jason on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:31 am #
Nick – I’d be happy to, but I think that might cross Michael’s rule about not making the comments your place to hold forth at length. If he says it’s okay — even though it will be somewhat lengthy — I’ll do so.
Nick on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:32 am #
If he does, let’s do try to do this one at a time. Nothing like “20 reasons why you shouldn’t believe in the Trinity”, lest we get bogged down.
Jason on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:35 am #
Good plan, I think. If not, I’d be happy for Michael to send you my e-mail so we can discuss it in that way, and if you want to post our discussion on your blog or elsewhere, we could do that.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 28 Aug 2009 at 9:08 am #
I still like Dorthy Sayers’ explanation of it, in “The Mind of the Maker”. She sees a “trinity” in the creative work of any artisan:
For every work [or act] of creation is threefold, an earthly trinity to match the heavenly.
First, [not in time, but merely in order of enumeration] there is the Creative Idea, passionless, timeless, beholding the whole work complete at once, the end in the beginning: and this is the image of the Father.
Second, there is the Creative Energy [or Activity] begotten of that idea, working in time from the beginning to the end, with sweat and passion, being incarnate in the bonds of matter: and this is the image of the Word.
Third, there is the Creative Power, the meaning of the work and its response in the lively soul: and this is the image of the indwelling Spirit.
And these three are one, each equally in itself the whole work, whereof none can exist without other: and this is the image of the Trinity.
Mike S on 28 Aug 2009 at 9:11 am #
Mike B,
The reason why it is so important is that an un-orthodox view is a false god and not the One True God. A denial of the two natures of Christ is a denial of the incarnation, death and resurrection. To deny the separate nature of of the Persons of the Trinity, one will end in polytheism and declare the Son a created being. There are things that you HAVE to believe about the Trinity. To reject them, well, makes one not a Christian.
Jesus was born human and became divine? Heresy – Adoptionism
Jesus had a human body and soul, however his rational mind was Divine/Logos? Heresy – Appollinarianism
Jesus is of similar essence with the Father but not the same? Heresy – Arianism.
Jesus only appeared to be man? Heresy – Docetism.
Jesus’ human nature was absorbed by his divine nature? Heresy – Monophysitism.
Jesus had only his divine will? Heresy – Monothelitism.
There is a divine Jesus and a human Jesus? Heresy – Nestorianism
Jugulum on 28 Aug 2009 at 9:13 am #
Douglas,
Say, this Grudem guy sounds pretty smart.
pankaj on 28 Aug 2009 at 10:02 am #
I believe we need to emphasis on the aspect of Plurality in Unity rather than Singularity in Unity ( which is concept of allah and other cults) and in that fashion it is going to make perfect sense. Many entity which exist is plurality in Unity Like Family, Couple, community and nobody is going to say “contradiction” only thing to be emphasized is that the Plurality in Trinity in inseparably united like the three angles of Triangle as well well as Perichoretic Unity. I give following defense of the trinity
DEFENCE OF TRINITY
1) When we look at the universe, we observe that it is made up of so many diverse things like plants, animals, humans, stars etc. Sunlight which appears white to naked eye, viewed through prism appears to be made of seven colors. We are made, physically and chemically, of the same elements yet we are so different from other human beings, things and animals. A word is made up of many Alphabets; A painting of many colors produces a harmonious mosaic. An orchestra of many musical instruments produces a symphony, instead of cacophony. If there is unity in diversity in the creation, is it not reasonable to expect unity and diversity in the creator.
2) Bible says God is love. If God is unipersonal, He will not be love. For God to be love there must be Subject-Object duality, without which loves will not be a possibility. In absence of plurality of persons within the being of God, love will remain as potential and not an actuality. So in one sense, we (creation) would have helped God find His perfection by being the object of His love! This of course is absolute nonsense. We have to reach the unavoidable conclusion that within God there has to be a plurality – a Subject (Father) Who loves, an Object (Son) Who is loved (John 1&:24) and a Medium (Holy Spirit) through Whom that love is communicated (Romans 5:5). This combined with the unity of the Essence of God is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Josh Parsley on 28 Aug 2009 at 10:04 am #
Hello,
What do you think about this quote?
“Tell me how in this room there are three candles and but one light, and I will explain to you the Trinity – the mode of the Divine existence.” – John Wesley
pankaj on 28 Aug 2009 at 10:05 am #
I request those who want to study philosophical defense of trinity, read the chapter on Trinity by L.T.Jeyachandran in the book “BEYOND OPINION” by Dr. Ravi Zacharias. This is the most brilliant defense of Trinity as far as I have studied
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 28 Aug 2009 at 11:09 am #
Jugulum,
Yeah he’s burning some serious braincells
…
Joe on 28 Aug 2009 at 11:11 am #
This might be usefully cross-linked (by someone who knows how to do that here), to a more academic discussion on this blog: “In what Sense Are Jesus and the Father One, Part I.”
Which at times went so far, (in an animated discussion now largely deleted) as to question the viability of the concept of the Trinity. By discussing its nature in detail.
Mike B. on 28 Aug 2009 at 11:23 am #
Mike S:
I think you may have misunderstood my comment.
When I was speaking of “nature” I was referencing Michael’s comment that orthodox trinitarianism is different from tritheism because the father, son and Spirit all have the same “nature.” I wasn’t referencing the dual-nature of Christ. But your comment illustrates well one of the difficulties with the whole discussion. It’s the confusing terminology. So Michael says that we need to affirm that all the persons have the same nature, and you say that we need to affirm their separate natures. I think you mean two different things by your uses of the word nature.
At any rate, I agree that correct trinitarian doctrine (whatever that is) is important for the reasons you mentioned. But I believe now, and I always have believed that the central issue is not really that of the “nature” or “essence” of God, as if we could know such things anyway, but rather the question of how we can consider Jesus to be divine and yet still call ourselves monotheists. It is a question, not of what we affirm philosophically, but how we worship. If we worship Jesus and he is not God, then we are idolaters. If we do not worship Jesus, and he is God, then we are deniers of God. So if we worship Jesus AND we worship God, we need to have a pretty darn good explanation for why we are not worshiping two Gods. And not just any explanation, but preferably the correct one.
But it happens that that explanation is rather hard to pin down.
just some guy on 28 Aug 2009 at 11:56 am #
Water Illustration as commonly told suffers from modalistic tendencies…
but Water illustration highlighting the “triple point” – The single combination of pressure and temperature at which water, ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium.
In other words… in a scenario where the temperature and pressure are lowered to a specific point, water exists in its three main forms (gas, liquid, solid) simultaneously.
Now that Modalism has been averted, what is the fatal flaw of this illustration?
C Michael Patton on 28 Aug 2009 at 12:08 pm #
just,
not sure as I am not familiar with the chemistry of what you are talking about.
Nick on 28 Aug 2009 at 12:09 pm #
One problem could be is that each possesses a property the others don’t. It’s like different variations of the same substance simultaneously. I’ll grant it’s better than the typical water analogy.
j on 28 Aug 2009 at 12:11 pm #
man, and I thought “the shed” took care of this whole mess . . . .
j on 28 Aug 2009 at 12:38 pm #
oh wait, that was “the shack”. I guess “the shed” (or behind it) is the place for heretics
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 28 Aug 2009 at 1:13 pm #
The triple point breaks down in that, while you have water, ice and steam are simultaneously present, they are not in equal quantities, while all three members of the Trinity are eternal and co-equal…
Jugulum on 28 Aug 2009 at 1:23 pm #
And being in equal quantities doesn’t make the ice, water, and steam “coequal”. It’s still like the clover–equally-sized leaves, equal amount of H2O. Each a third of what’s there.
EricW on 28 Aug 2009 at 1:28 pm #
Okay, I’ll have to read p. 241 in Grudem at the bookstore.
Although I wonder if he interacts with the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor?
If he doesn’t do that, I’m not sure he is really doing the subject justice.
(FWIW, I once fully comprehended and understood the Trinity, but then the pharmacological effects subsided and I was back in 4 dimensions….)
Joe Chavez on 28 Aug 2009 at 2:08 pm #
Little late to the discussion.
I love the “Shield of the Trinity” illustration.
I’ve heard it said that anyone who claims to completely understand the Trinity is lying. It’s so profound in its implications that the more you study it or the more you meditate on it, the less you seem to understand. The Trinity just “is” and maybe we should leave it at that.
One close visualization I heard to describe the Trinity is like taking three candles that are all lit. If you put each end together, they form one flame but they are still three candles. Even that really doesn’t get to the true nature.
Great post.
Neal A. on 28 Aug 2009 at 2:17 pm #
Jason,
Contrary to your post, I think the fact that we don’t (can’t) understand the Trinity is natural. That’s not a plea for ignorance, I think very strongly that we ought to strive to understand as much as we can. At the same time, if God truly is infinite, it seems necessary that there are things about him that I simply can’t understand. The categorical difference means the I should expect this. Much the same way that I expect an ant really has very little understanding of me.
I’m not sure that it unique either. There are somethings we know we can’t know. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle comes to mind, though it is admittedly a much easier topic.
Neal
Mike S on 28 Aug 2009 at 2:30 pm #
This would be a good time for Michael to post on Gregory Palamas’ essence and energies of God.
Hans Zaepfel on 28 Aug 2009 at 3:13 pm #
“To say, for example, that God is like a three-leaf clover, which has three parts yet remains one clover, fails because each leaf is only part of the clover, and any one leaf cannot be said to be the whole clover.”
But each leaf is in essence clover.
C Michael Patton on 28 Aug 2009 at 3:18 pm #
But each leaf is not everything that the clover is, it is only a part of the whole. In the Trinity, each member is not simply a part of the whole (ontologically), but each are fully everything that the whole is, sharing in its unified essence.
Jason on 28 Aug 2009 at 3:24 pm #
Neal -
I agree that there are many things about God that none of us can understand, because of God’s infinite nature, in part, but even more because of His power and his general intangibility. In that way, we’re very like your ant, who probably not only fails to understand you in many ways, but (if it is able to hold a belief at all) also holds incorrect beliefs about your nature.
In another important way, however, we differ from the ant: we have significant reasoning ability. That means that we can reason about God, and examine what we believe we do know about Him. If we find that our beliefs about God contradict our secure knowledge about the nature of things in general, we have to reconsider one or the other. We either have to reconsider our idea of the Trinity, or our secure knowledge that in general 1!=3. We either have to reconsider our idea of the Trinity, or our secure knowledge that if a==d and b==d and c==d then a==b==c.
Jason
Nick on 28 Aug 2009 at 3:27 pm #
The Trinity does not teach that 1 = 3 nor does it teach that each person is equal to the Trinity or that each person is another person. The persons of the Trinity differ by relationship. Only one begets. Only one is begotten. Only one is proceeding from two others.
Tara on 28 Aug 2009 at 3:31 pm #
Hans -
That’s pretty much where I was going with that.
I think it’s clear that each of the illustrations breaks down at some point or another. But again, I do think that they have value in helping to explain who God is at an elementary level. I’m sorry, but not all people have the advantage of being able to ponder the philosophical and theological implications of the Trinity on the level of Modalism vs. Tritheism vs. Subordinalism – or on Wayne Grudem’s level, either. I very strongly believe in the value of getting to that point, too – don’t get me wrong. Christians need to be able to think, and think well. All I’m saying is that most people can’t start there, and we shouldn’t discourage them from learning and trying to understand as much as they can about God because they’re not up to that level yet. Saying “Don’t use these illustrations ever, because they’re stupid” when when there are people who desperately needs Jesus and would be genuinely helped by them doesn’t proceed from conversation that comes from grace – it seems to proceed from arrogance, because not everybody is as smart as we are.
I’m truly not trying to be offensive by saying that – if it comes off that way, I apologize. The main reason I say it is that I have friends who aren’t able to converse on that level – sometimes because they haven’t been educated that far yet, but also sometimes because they barely understand English or come from cultures that have never heard of any supreme creator at all. A good example would be my Japanese friend Ai-chan – I scribbled the clover illustration on a napkin for her a few years ago in order to help her begin to understand, because she asked me about the Trinity, and in her culture, the only gods they’ve heard about are buddhas or little rock and tree-spirits called “kami.” The notion of one supreme God itself doesn’t make sense to them at all – let alone one God eternally existent in three persons.
Debate the finer points of theology all you want – that’s very good and excellent, and it helps us grow in our understanding of God. But what I was mostly trying to say before is that I would encourage everyone not to shy away from simpler explanations when it will help the gospel go out to people that need it – and save the theological debating for when they’re more mature and their faith is well grounded, and they’re able to reason on that level. Debating theology does no good if we’re not able to love people well while doing it – and the best way of loving them is to let them hear the gospel in a way that they can understand.
That’s my other two cents – I guess I’m up to about 6 cents now?
Grace and peace,
~Tara
Jason on 28 Aug 2009 at 3:34 pm #
Nick -
I’ll clarify what I meant by a==d etc. The Athanasian view of the Trinity says:
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
But it also says:
The Father is not the Son
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father
That is, it denies that the persons of the Trinity have a transitive relation.
Jason
Dr_Mike on 28 Aug 2009 at 4:19 pm #
(I left this comment on the following post but thought it to be simply so stunningly brilliant as to warrant posting it here, too. Such is my devotion to
propagating my own heretical viewsserving others that I would do something like this, i.e., go the extra 1.6 kilometers.)How ’bout an individual suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID, previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder).
Such an individual has three distinct personalities and yet all have the same essence, i.e., a common brain with the same, shared neuropathways. It could also be that each distinct personality is aware of the others, shares the same values, purposes, experiences, etc., and that the three personalities relate to one another.
Not that God suffers from DID, but I think it is a close and perhaps even viable illustration.
Or maybe I – or one of I – are missing something.
(For the record, I didn’t say that: I did.)
Lisa Robinson on 28 Aug 2009 at 4:24 pm #
Tara, the problem with using illustrations that do not accurately define the triune God is that it conveys a distorted message concerning Him. I think it much more honoring to God to define the Godhead without illustrations than to insist upon them, and paint a wrong picture. That means simply explaining one God existent as 3 distinct persons, who are each identified as God with distinct roles without the use of illustrations. I do believe there is a tension in not fully comprehending how this work even for those who have seriously investigated the topic.
I also believe the Spirit can overcome these difficulties anyway in the hearts of those we are trying to convince concerning the trinity.
EricW on 28 Aug 2009 at 4:35 pm #
My question is:
When the Son weds His Bride, does the Godhead become a Quaternity?
Tara on 28 Aug 2009 at 4:35 pm #
Lisa,
I would agree that you are correct – a distorted message can be a problem with using those illustrations. I disagree, however, that it’s wrong to use them – because I think the first priority is the message of the gospel, not the specifics of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the gospel may be well served by the use of an illustration that breaks down at some point. I would agree that you don’t want to stick with that illustration to explain the Trinity forever, but I think that saying “The Trinity is *kind of* like this” is a good start, as it was for my friend Ai-chan, and the distinctions about where the illustration breaks down and the point at which we must all humbly confess our inadequacy to accurately or fully understand a mystery like the Trinity can and should be discussed, debated, and honed later, as that person is being discipled and is maturing in his or her faith.
I think a lot of doctrinal issues are like that, actually – Calvinism vs. Armnianism, for example. I listened to a John Piper message once where he stated that no one starts the Christian life as a Calvinist – we’re all born Arminians and some change on that point later.
And I believe that the Spirit can overcome the difficulties inherent in fallible illustrations in the minds and hearts of people we are trying to convince of the gospel, as well – not just that He can overcome the difficulties of being unsure.
At any rate, I think that’s probably enough spare change from me – blessings to you all.
~Tara
mbaker on 28 Aug 2009 at 6:05 pm #
I’ve heard all the explanations above, except for the shampoo one, but the one I like best was a mathematical example, which I think came from Billy Graham. He said, regarding the Trinity. “It isn’t 1+1+1 =3, as most people suppose when they hear the term ‘triune God’, it is 1 x 1x 1=1.”
I agree with CMP in that we shouldn’t over teach or over simplify this concept, except to the extent we emphasize that Christ was Lord long before He became our Savior. And even though He already held that lofty position, He loved us enough to be born on earth in humble circumstances, and to live a sinless life, and to die as the ultimate sacrifice to reconcile humanity back to God. I think when you explain to folks like that they better understand the sheer extent of what has been done for all of us by Christ.
Mark Begemann on 28 Aug 2009 at 6:09 pm #
Analogies are useful in some ways (maybe more useful in pointing out their shortcomings, agreed) and pictures/graphs are useful in some ways… but they fall short, too. It seems inconsistent to sing the praises of a graph that still FAILs while calling all analogies “stupid” and to never use them ever. The shield isn’t all that great! It *might* do a better job of conforming to language used in creeds but it still falls short. For years i thought i had the trinity all figured out because i understood the shield. Now i realize it was a gross oversimplification and actually hindered my understanding of our great God. Point people to scripture- and not just a few proof texts, the whole of scripture. Encourage much study and prayer and meditation.
Sorry to be so negative. I do appreciate your last few statements.
Grace and peace,
markb.
EricW on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:23 pm #
Okay, I skimmed Grudem pp. 241ff. He covers a lot of territory. I found a contradiction he needs to correct and/or his editor should have caught. Where he discusses the filioque, he says that it was added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (not his term, but that’s the correct term for the Creed as finally formulated by the two Councils) and explains when, where, why, etc., as well as his view that the Western addition has a slim edge in terms of correctness vs. the pre-filioque Eastern version that accepts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. Eastern Orthodox disagee with Grudem, of course. But then a few pages later where he is discussing the importance of the correct doctrine of the Trinity, he quotes “…the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son” and says that’s as the Creed was originally written (as I remember from having skimmed/read it at the bookstore; those who have a copy can verify this).
mbaker on 28 Aug 2009 at 8:29 pm #
Yikes, Eric,
Tell us non-informed folks who go more by scripture than the creeds, or the church fathers where we fit in here.
Thanks.
EricW on 28 Aug 2009 at 10:05 pm #
mbaker:
filioque = “and from the Son” (Latin). For political/theological reasons (i.e., to assert the full, the Western Church added that phrase [in brackets] to: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord (or Lordly One – Pelikan), the Lifegiver, Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], Who with the Father and the Son is co-worshiped and co-glorified, Who spake through the prophets.”
The East rejects it because they say Jesus specifically said the Spirit proceeds from the Father (as well as because Creeds are not to be altered except by the whole Church). They also say that the double procession of the Spirit (i.e., from both the Father and the Son) upsets the order of the Trinity.
EricW on 28 Aug 2009 at 11:09 pm #
Sorry, I was interrupted. It should read:
filioque = “and from the Son” (Latin). For political/theological reasons (i.e., to assert the full deity of the Holy Spirit against heretics), the Western Church added the phrase filioque (what I put [in brackets]) to: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord (or Lordly One – Jaroslav Pelikan CREDO, I believe), the Lifegiver, Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], Who with the Father and the Son is co-worshiped and co-glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.”
The East rejects it because Jesus specifically said the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and also because Creeds are not to be altered except by the whole Church. They also say that the double procession of the Spirit (i.e., His proceeding from both the Father and the Son) upsets the order of the Trinity as they understand it: i.e., the Father begets the Son, and sends forth the Spirit; the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds; that’s one way these two members of the Trinity are distinguished from each other in relation to the Father. For both the Father AND THE SON to send forth the Spirit would mean that the Spirit is dependent on and/or subordinate to both the Son and the Father, whereas the Son is only dependent on/subordinate to the Father, which makes the Son and the Spirit no longer co-equal, because the Son would have only one source, whereas the Spirit would have two sources – or something like that.
David Zook on 29 Aug 2009 at 2:04 am #
Great post…great comments. One for the ages. After wrestling with this topic and illustrations for years, I have finally submitted to the wonderfully glorious fact that this doctrine is shrouded in mystery that the human mind will never fully comprehend because it is unique. There is nothing like it, there is nothing to compare it to.
Ahhh the mystery of Creator and the Gospel wrapped in omniscience and perfection. It’s too lofty for me to understand, yet it is lofty enough to worship.
The Bible Archive » Blog Archive » Why “No-Illustrations of the Trinity” Is Faulty on 29 Aug 2009 at 11:46 am #
[...] point that Michael Patton reinforces in his posts regarding the stupidity of using these illustrations to teach the trinity. He states that teaching the trinity “is more about giving basic principles of what it is and [...]
Grackle on 29 Aug 2009 at 9:58 pm #
I would disagree a little bit with CMP’s point six. It depends on how one’s understanding of nature of man. Which is of course very little! But the Bible seems to suggest man as a triune being:
From Matt 10:28, we learn that the soul is distinct from the body.
From Heb 4:12, we learn that the soul can be divided from the spirit.
From this we can gather that the soul is not the body, the body is not the spirit, and the spirit is not the soul. But we can reasonably say that the human body is human, the human spirit is human, and the human soul is human. Yet they are not 3 humans but one human being. In fact you can use the Shield of the Trinity with the human personas, just put ‘human’ for ‘God’, the soul, etc for the Father, etc.
This concept is not modalistic nor can it lend to tritheism; experientally I am not a spirit one moment, then a soul or body the next! Neither can I divide my nature such that I should need 3 separate driving licenses for my soul, spirit, and body.
Now, I recognized that (1) it is inherently impossible for the finite to fully explain the Infinite, so my finite human trinity cannot explain fully the Holy Trinity.(2)there is a basic futility in trying to explain one thing we cannot fully understand (God) with one we struggle to understand (man).But the human trinity concept has been helpful to me personally in trying to grasp the Trinity. It does help when the concept of a Triune being does not attack my seat of reason because I am one myself. So while inadequate, there is at least a small anchor of reason to ensure that my belief in the Trinity is not unreasonable faith. The problem of course is when we reject this trinity of man.
I think we can permit SOME of these little illustrations provided they are presented with caveats; otherwise even CMP’s charts should not be allowed, since they mislead us into thinking God can be adequately presented through diagrams!
EricW on 29 Aug 2009 at 10:08 pm #
From Heb 4:12, we learn that the soul can be divided from the spirit.
Not necessarily. Check out some commentaries on the meaning of the Greek phrase used. Also, joints and marrow don’t even touch each other, so they can’t be “divided” from each other, even though that’s what some translations say or imply.
Robert J.G. on 31 Aug 2009 at 12:46 am #
I would guessthat people like Grudem are interpreting “person” to mean “personality,” which is not what the ancient term meant. On the doctrine of the Trinity, I think we shouldn’t speak of 3 centers of consciousness because I don’t see how you can say that without concluding there are three Gods. The ancient church never spoke as if God has three minds or wills (of course, being ancient, they did not share the modern obsession with something called “consciousness”). They followed the rule that everything in God is one except where they are related differently (e.g. Son is related to Father as begotten, Father to Son as begetter). This essentially means we do not try to look “inside” each of the persons as if they had a distinct consciousness or personality we could know. They are persons ONLY in relation to one another: we see them and understand them only in their dramatic relations to one another.
This is the original sense of “person” (Latin persona) which literally meant mask, referring to the characters in a play who in ancient times all wore distinctive masks (hence the list of characters in a play is still sometimes called dramatis personae, literally “masks of the drama”). Hence the term suggests: (1) we don’t look behind the masks to find three “real persons” or centers of conscious, because who these characters are is defined not by their inner consciousness but by their dramatic interaction with each other and (2) it’s not just one person wearing three different masks (which would be modalism). The drama, in this case, is mainly the drama of salvation, in which the Son is incarnate. It’s as incarnate Son, i.e. as a man, that he addresses his Father as “Thou,” just as it is only in his incarnate life as a man that he can speak of his will as other than the Father’s (as he does in Gethsemane when he prays, “Not my will but Thine be done”). As God his will and mind are no different from the Father’s. If there were two divine wills, minds or consciousnesses, then it would be possible for them to disagree, feel differently, go their separate ways, etc., and that would mean there were two different gods here, which is quite contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity.
a different Joshua on 01 Sep 2009 at 6:38 am #
The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed… small and yellow and adds flavor to food.
The kingdom of God is like leaven – it emits gas bubbles in dough to make bread.
The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure in a field – covered up with dirt and invisible to all who are nearby save the lucky guy who happened upon it.
The kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea. If you don’t dry it out on the rocks and constantly mend it, it will eventually break apart and lose the whole catch.
I have to side with Tara here. All analogies eventually break down, that shouldn’t keep us from using them to illuminate a difficult or obscure topic.
You can spritualize it all you want, a principled avoidance of all analogies, stories, narratives, and illustrations may just be poor communication.
Lisa Robinson on 01 Sep 2009 at 6:48 am #
Joshua, that is the beauty of human language. You can accurately describe something using words without the use of visual aids. I don’t that equates to poor communication skills, at all.
EricW on 01 Sep 2009 at 10:52 am #
Robert J.G.:
A church in our area has this on its “We Believe…” page:
http://www.gracechurchusa.com/beliefs.html
So,… what does “three distinct personalities” mean in terms of Trinitarian doctrine?
a different Joshua on 01 Sep 2009 at 1:03 pm #
I agree that there is much beauty in human language, especially the ability to “paint pictures with words.” Jesus is still renowned for the parables and analogies he used to make the concepts of God and the kingdom come alive to his audience. (of course we don’t know that he didn’t point to the mustard tree or the fishing nets while he spoke. Even if he didn’t, the entire audience pictured (visually) in their minds the analogy.)
My point was not to exalt multi-media communication, but to avoid statements that imply that analogies must be without fault in order to be useful.
To be sure, some of the illustrations do come across pretty stupid to me as well, but several of them may offer facets of truth, that allow brief glimpses of clarity or flashes of insight into admittedly knotty subjects.
As long as we aren’t claiming that the trinity is exactly like H2O, or exactly like a shamrock, why should we avoid them at all costs? No analogy on any topic is foolproof, and analogies of the trinity are no different.
(even if we avoid all analogies… “non-visual” descriptions and definitions on this topic are also difficult to get right – it took the combined efforts of the entire church several hundred years to figure out how not to say it wrong… and some still argue about it).
Trinitarian Heresy « NT Discourse on 03 Sep 2009 at 6:47 am #
[...] is a nice post over at Reclaiming the Mind on why the use of imperfect analogies to describe the Trinity are not worth their trouble. Based on [...]
Dr. Platypus » Blog Archive » On Teaching the Doctrine of the Trinity on 03 Sep 2009 at 8:08 am #
[...] Michael Patton of Parchment and Pen has some excellent pointers and even a couple of visual aids for teaching the doctrine of the [...]
Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 03 Sep 2009 at 9:21 am #
Michael,
Allow me to quote from a posting I did earlier on a series I started on the Trinity at EclecticChristian.com
“Writers in the early church compared God to a river. Each stage of a river is different, from where it may start as a spring bubbling out of the ground, through the meandering in may experience through the countryside, to the delta it forms as it empties itself into the ocean. We would not try to say that the start of the river is identical to the end of the river, and yet we would say that each part of it is the river.
If a guide takes me to the head of the Amazon river, he would say “that’s the Amazon river.” When he takes me to the middle of the Amazon river, he would say, “that’s the Amazon river.” When he takes me to where the Amazon river empties into the ocean, he would say, “that’s the Amazon river.” Each part of the river is called the river, and yet each part of the river makes up the river as a whole.
That being said, every analogy of the Trinity will break down if stretched too far. This is simply as a result of not being able to describe the infinite with finite language.
As Joshua Hearne, a co-author of Eclectic Christian notes in the comments:
I agree that you can’t limit the Trinity to the roles that are played within the Trinity. Each of the three persons of the Trinity have different roles to play, but their interdependence is so much greater than the roles they play. The river analogy breaks down when you consider that a river can have many sources. Take away one source, and you still have a river. A river may, or may not have a delta. Not having a delta does not detract from the fact that it is a river.
The same can not be said for the Trinity. I believe that there is an interdependence in the Trinity that is not properly captured in the river analogy…”
Still, I think the river analogy is better than most.
#John1453 on 03 Sep 2009 at 10:31 am #
I have to say that I’m completely with C. Michael Patton on this one. I’m all for helping people to understand things in the Bible and understanding God, but (1) I don’t think any of the alleged analogies are helpful, nor do I think they communicate anything useful about the triune nature of God (they all try to use physical material substances to describe a spirit entity), and
(2) this aspect of God is so transcendant that it should not be reduced to an analogy of any kind. It’s best to state it outright and leave it at that. There is no way, this side of heaven, that we will be able to understand it. I also think that we should be satisfied to approach the matter the way the Bible does, more simply and directly.
This does not mean that I oppose scholarly articles exploring or attempting to understand this doctrine. Nor would I oppose making the fruit of such work available to the rank and file.
regards,
#John
EricW on 03 Sep 2009 at 11:11 am #
We act and talk like we think we can understand and explain salvation and the atonement and the incarnation, so I don’t know why we act and talk like we don’t think the Trinity can be grasped or explained or analogized, taking strident issue with those who attempt to explain it or dare to analogize it.
For every attack on The Shack there should be equally vociferous criticisms of things like The Four Spiritual Laws.
EricW on 03 Sep 2009 at 11:19 am #
(rewrite/expansion)
We act and talk like we think we can understand and explain salvation and the atonement and the incarnation, so I don’t know why we act and talk like we don’t think the Trinity can be grasped or explained or analogized, taking strident issue with those who attempt to explain it or dare to analogize it.
Paul writes about the mystery of the Gospel and the mystery of our faith and the mystery of Godliness – things which have to do with salvation, the atonement, and the incarnation. Yet we treat these and the teaching of them as if they are 1-2-3 explainable and understandable like a set of assembly instructions for an IKEA bookcase.
For every attack on The Shack there should be equally vociferous criticisms of things like The Four Spiritual Laws and a lot of other things that are out there in the guise of “teaching the faith.”
Jason on 03 Sep 2009 at 11:27 am #
I’m pretty sure there are equally vociferous criticisms of the works you mention . . . you’re probably just reading the wrong (or right, depending on your point of view) people. In fact, you can find some pretty forceful criticism of anything that might be written about religion.
Probably more of the reason for writings about the Trinity being controversial is the lack of a clear Biblical pattern for understanding the Trinity. Matters regarding salvation and the atonement, though hard to understand, at least have enough Bible text behind them that there is an inarguable basis for discussing them; the incarnation and the Trinity, not so much so.
mikelioso on 03 Sep 2009 at 12:56 pm #
I’ve always argued that the variety of opinion and lack of understanding of it disqualifies a beleif in the Trinity as a requirement of salvation. It’s like saying ant good citizin must understand E=MC Squared.
C. Barton on 03 Sep 2009 at 1:48 pm #
Two things:
1) When we say that the Trinity are “equal”, how do we measure that? We simply can’t reduce God to salient qualities, especially because all we know of Him was volunteered by Him in the first place. I mean, even Moses had to ask His name: “Um, and who shall I say is calling?”
2) Not to get all mystical and such, but we order things as one, two, three, because we have this physical space of three dimensions, time, etc., but these things do not exist outside of the physical creation; simply because we cannot imagine a concrete example does not make the existence of the Trinity less real. As C.S. Lewis surmises, Heaven will appear more “real” than the earth ever did.
This makes Jesus’ sacrifice all the more amazing to me, because God Himself became a human and will remain human (in Jesus’ glorified body); now His name is above all other names, both in Heaven and on earth – God as Messiah!
Doug Knighton on 04 Sep 2009 at 7:35 pm #
Daniel Fuller combined the arguments of Jonathan Edwards and C.S. Lewis in his book _Unity of the Bible_ (Zondervan, 1992) (see chapter 8 “God’s Necessary Work of Being a Trinity”) into the most coherent and cogent analysis of the Trinity I’ve read. John Piper later adapted it in his book _The Pleasures of God_ (see chapter “The Pleasure of God in the Son”). Both authors (along with their predecessors) offer a construct that uses biblical categories while it presents an analogy to which human beings can relate.
Fuller answers two important questions in his presentation: 1) Why must God be a trinity? and 2) Why would an all sufficient being need/want to create? The implications of his argument reach far beyond.
At the risk of distorting a long argument, I will try to summarize his thinking: God, the Father, knows himself perfectly. He is able to view himself in all his perfection. The (self)image he has is so perfect that it has life in itself. The Father’s Image is necessarily identical in every way with the Father. This Image is what we call the Son. As the Father and Son relate to one another, the love they generate encompasses all their perfections. The love of the Father and Son is so fulsome and spirited that it has life in itself. This esprit between the Father and Son is what we call the Holy Spirit. Thus the Holy Spirit is labeled the “love of God” in Romans 5:5. Because the Father has always had this perfect image of himself, and because the Son and the Father have always loved each other in their perfection, the Trinity has always and necessarily existed.
So the Trinity is not unlike anything in creation, nor is it a paradox — there no contradictory properties to this arrangement.
I commend Fuller’s work to thoughtful people.
Warren Lamb on 04 Sep 2009 at 9:31 pm #
Very meaty discussion all around. Michael (CMP) are usually onthe same page, but not always. This is one of those times when we are close but not exactly inthe same place.
An illustration (as many have laready noted) will eventually break down. However, Jesus used word pictures a great deal in order to make an eternal truth comprehendable within the frame-of-reference of His hearers. Every good teacher does the same.
So, in my own attempts to help people grasp an inkling of an understanding of how God can be three-in-one, I use the illustration of time.
Time consists of past/present/future, all at the same “time”, yet all trhee are distinct, and all three are necessary for one to have “time”. Also, while all three exist simultaneously, they do not function identically.
I know, I know – there are weaknesses with this, but there is an element of ungraspability to trying to “picture” past/present/future all at the same time, which is where I mention something like, “And that illusiveness is a tiny gimmer of just how much more difficult it is for mere mortals to truly comprehend the Trinity.”
Kalyn on 08 Sep 2009 at 7:25 pm #
I read this earlier today and came back to it as it was on my mind — a LOT. I have heard the water/ice, vapor before. I remember the first time I heard it, the image that came to mind was the shape shifter from star trek.
Backtracking a bit, when I first came to Christ from a NON Christian background and not knowing anything about it until I first heard the gospel for the first time in 1983, I had always believed Christians believed in 3 gods. I even thought that they had to come up with a New Testament because they found errors in the Old Testament. The trinity was something that I really struggled with BIG TIME when I was saved. It was so difficult that I just gave up and didn’t think about it — didn’t want to hear about it, talk about it because it made me crazy trying to figure it out. That is until I someone said to me “body, soul and spirit” yet one person. That I could wrap my mind around. I am not human unless I have those three — I could be missing eyes, legs, arms, etc. but I am not a living human being unless I have those three.
My struggle was over. I also realize that this is not a good explanation of the infinite — we are finite and simply lack the ability to understand. I can accept that and, in fact, do accept that. However, the only thing that I disagree with in your blog post that to use that explanation is tritheistic or modalistic error. God is God because He is the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit, separate but one. How that really works, I don’t know. I’m not smart enough.
But for me, I needed something to wrap my mind around especially in light of the fact that I come from a background that believed Christians worshipped 3 gods and worshipped a man named Jesus.
mbaker on 08 Sep 2009 at 8:01 pm #
Warren,
As you said, there are weaknesses in all the examples we humans can wrap our finite minds around regarding the Trinity, yet I find common sense examples useful myself, to relate the natural (God’s) to the supernatural (God’s). Since He is a relational God, I believe this is why Jesus spoke so often to people in parables, which bridged the gap from their everyday understanding of the stark realism of their daily lives, to be able to embrace supernatural concepts more readily.
So I agree with both you and Kayln that it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to do, and indeed at times can be very helpful.
C Barton on 08 Sep 2009 at 9:13 pm #
Jesus explained once that He spoke in parables to present a challenge to the hearers; He hid the plain truth in His parables, perhaps knowing that those who understood were inspired by God the Father to understand.
But other times, Jesus presented a parable, or simile, by saying, “What can the Kingdom of Heaven be compred to . . .”, or, “What is the Kingdom of Heaven like?” So He was trying to explain a different spiritual dimension, not directly known by us, in ways we could understand.
Let us remember that God was fully present in Jesus’ body (Col. 2:9), so that He really knew how to explain with skill what He wanted us to know.
And by the way, how do we know the details of, say, the temptation in the desert? Jesus, I believe, told the apostles what they needed to remember and write down when they had the chance. He knew that His words would be canonized for our benefit.
Matt B. on 11 Sep 2009 at 5:52 am #
To be quite honest, I’ve never understood the big deal that we make about this. It is a very confusing topic that our minds really cannot grasp, but where in the bible does it say understanding the Trinity is vital to our salvation? Why would somebody be a heretic for being confused about it?
C. Barton on 11 Sep 2009 at 11:08 am #
Paul says in 1 Cor. 13 that we see things “darkly”, or in an imperfect way, while in the flesh, but that this carnal veil will be lifted one day. Could this not be applied to our understanding of the Trinity also? Let’s face it guys, we sometimes have to say, “I don’t know yet”, about some of the mysteries of God’s Kingdom. Take care that pride of knowledge doesn’t divert you into foolish arguments.
Jason R. on 29 Sep 2009 at 4:02 pm #
I realize this reply is several weeks old, but I simply cannot resist pointing out that Christ himself was a pretty big fan of illustrations and analogies. When Christ began his teachings with “The Kingdom of Heaven is like…” He did not then stop and say, “Oh wait, that analogy is going to break down. Better not say that; it would be stupid.”
I enjoyed the post. I love a good theological debate as much as the next guy. But I think that if your theology becomes so esoteric that you would deny pedagogical methods Christ whole-heartedly embraced, your theology is almost certainly in error.
Anne on 06 Nov 2009 at 1:15 pm #
“Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.”
LOL. Of course that is what religion likes, for people to be too confused to know for sure that you’re just talking through your hat. What a nonsensical bunch of baloney.
If god is three in one, then how come god as Jesus didn’t seem to know he was part of the same god? What was the point of sacrificing himself to appease his own anger over Original Sin? (or don’t you believe in that…exactly?)
The really amusing part is that you have zero evidence for any of these explanations being either right or wrong outside, possibly, of a couple of cryptic passages in the bible. The world around you does not support the existence of any god, much less your bizarre trinity.
Daniel B on 09 Nov 2009 at 6:42 pm #
“But when it comes to the nature of God, especially with regard to the Doctrine of the Trinity, illustrations should only be used to show what the Trinity is not.”
What’s the justification for that statement?
Saying “three persons, one nature” isn’t a useful statement without explaining the difference between a person and a nature. What does “three persons” mean if it doesn’t mean “three separate individuals” – which is the usual and natural way to interpret “persons”.
I have always thought that the illustration of a person’s body, soul, and spirit is a great one if it’s not taken in a “this is EXACTLY the same as God in EVERY way” sense. We are made in God’s image, so it makes sense that we would have been trinitarian. It doesn’t mean we have the exact same kind of trinitarianism that God has, of course. But it’s very useful conceptually because they are both paradoxical in similar ways. My soul, spirit, and body, are 3 distinct things that can relate to one another, yet there is only one me.
Warren on 09 Nov 2009 at 8:34 pm #
Daniel,
A couple of difficulties with that illustration. First of all, there is a LOT of disagreement on whether man is trichotomous or dichotomous.
Second, the illustration you chose actually describes modalism – it’s only ONE person. God is THREE persons. It is His “ontos”, His “essence”, that is one.
Simply put, there is no ideal word picture to describe the Trinity because everything we can get ahold of is immanent, while the Trinity is transcendent.
SirRuncibleSpoon on 29 Jan 2010 at 4:56 pm #
Truly this whole thread illustrates the truthfulness and wonder of Ecclesiastes 3:11:
“He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.”
With respect to all you have wrestled with: The energy of your great struggles to render comprehensible the ineffable will have a moment when it all dissolves in a moment of recognition.
I John 3:2- “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.”
One day we will be like Him-whatever changes that may entail. We will know this because we see Him, at last, just as He is. We don’t discover our similarities as the final flowering of our logical powers. We simply and without impediment ’see’ Him . . . just as He is. None of us shall reach for our Grudems, and even Ravi’s jaw shall slacken in awe.
I can’t wait!
trinities - Mysterians at work in Dallas (Dale) on 19 Feb 2010 at 7:17 am #
[...] blog post by theologian C. Michael Patton, who blogs at Parchment and Pen: a theology blog. In his interesting post, he says that all the typical analogies for the Trinity (shamrock, egg, water-ice-vapor, etc.) are [...]