Theological ForumSystematic Theology, Biblical Theology and just plain Theology discussions Grow in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pe. 3:18)
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.
Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906
I had a discussion with a Muslim friend sometime ago. And he had a lot of questions (as well as misunderstanding) when it comes to the Bible's teaching of the triune God. So I was trying to discuss with him about the Trinity. I know that all analogies that seek to explain the Trinity will ultimately fall short because our God is unique. That's probably why it's much easier to describe what God is not like, rather than what He is like.
But how about an analogy using "space"? Perhaps I can hear some feedback or suggestions? I've heard of it a while back. I had explained to my Muslim friend that we believe in the One Being that is God, revealed in three distinct co-eternal Persons. I told him that the one WHAT is the nature or Being that is God. The three WHO's are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And with space, there's height, width, and depth. Height is no less of space in nature than width is, and vice versa. (The Son is no less of God than the Father is; and neither is the Holy Spirit). Height is distinct from width, which is distinct from depth, which is distinct from height. But they all share the same WHAT or nature or substance, namely: space. I ponder if this "space" analogy may be an acceptable one (though not perfect) to use with my Muslim friend? Does it have merit? I'd be glad to hear suggestions on this. Unlike the "water, ice, steam" analogy, I thought this one perhaps does not encourage the "modalism" misunderstanding of the Trinity. But then again, with any analogies, they all fall short when it comes to our God. There is no other like Him.
__________________ Jessica S.
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC) pilgrimsprogress.net - My blog
"All the dark, intricate, puzzling providences at which we were sometimes so offended...we shall [one day] see to be to us, as the difficult passage through the wilderness was to Israel, 'the right way to the city of habitation.'" (John Flavel)
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.
__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA
Last edited by Cheshire Cat; 07-03-2007 at 04:41 PM.
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.
__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookslover
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookslover
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookslover
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookslover
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]
We are to understand Scripture because a failure to understand makes us vulnerable to heresies:
__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
I personally like the time analogy the best, however I do not believe that you have properly dealt with the space analogy in its strongest form. Imagine any of the three axises of space (x, y, or z). Fill in any one axis of space. After you have done so, what does one have. All of space is filled in.
Therefore you could reasonable say that the analogy implies that each dimension represents all of space.
CT
__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC
Last edited by ChristianTrader; 07-04-2007 at 04:07 PM.
Reason: misspelling
1x1x1=1 because the numerical unity is being multiplied by itself not by another. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are I, Thou, and He -- there is numerical diversity so far as personal relation is concerned.
Concerning the species/genus illustration of apples -- this leaves you with three numerical essences categorised under one denomination. The divine unity is more than one of "agreement." It is a unity in "essence."
I strongly suggest we be content to leave Trinitarian discussion where the Christian tradition has wisely left it. The person who approaches this subject should realise he is drawing near sacred ground, and accordingly remove the sandals from off his feet. As John Owen exhorts, "Let him bring with him a due reverence of the majesty, and infinite, incomprehensible nature of God, as that which is not to be prostituted to the captious and sophistical scanning of men of corrupt minds, but to be humbly adored, according to the revelation that he hath made of himself." (Works, 2:368.)
We still need teaching about what the Christian tradition teaches. If we say that God is one in essence and three is person, we need to know what those words mean in order for them to not be empty. Analogies are good ways to help understand.
I use the fire analogy. I can with one lighted candle, produce 2 other distinct flames that are of the same essence.
Of course it breaks down if one examines it too closely, but it does serve in general the 1 and 3. 1 fire, 3 flames.
__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY Member of Franklin Square OPC
Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.
Linear Mode
