Trinity analogy - good or bad?

[crhoades]

But you gave a long list of the characteristics and properties of God. Clearly God is complex and has many characteristics. He has parts that are spiritual - not physical.

What do you mean when you say that God has parts that are spiritual - not physical? Are you saying that God is part love, part justice, part...and together they make a whole God? If not (I doubt that you are arguing for this) then can you give a definition and examples of what you mean by spiritual parts?

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Monty Python Trinity

The best analogy I've ever heard about the trinity is water: Ice, liquid (H2O), and steam are all water.

This view is heretical - altogether! One also ought to speak reverently of God!

 

[Civbert]

Do you have Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility neatly wrapped up in your thinking? That God predestines everything and that man is still responsible but God is not the author of sin (refer to the WCF for the longer version).

That ones actually easy. We are responsible because God holds us responsible - that's what being responsible means - to be held accountable.

I confess I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of it but I know it is Scriptural. Many things need to be accepted on our knees and I hope I'm not going to be labeled a Van Tillian irrationalist for saying that. We should strive to understand all revealed doctrines to the best of our human capacity. Regarding the trinity or the hypostatic union, tough doctrines that require a lot of effort. They are also where the majority of all heresies have sprung up due to man's rationalism.

The heresies have sprung up because men have rationalised in contradiction to God's Word. Rationalism is a theory that one can achieve knowledge by pure reason, apart from revelation. If one looks to Scripture for knowledge, then by definition, one is not a rationalist. I doubt that any heretic was a rationalist since they at least supposed there was some epistemic indication of truth in Scripture. But their thinking was irrational because they held to contrary beliefs and attributed them to a God who Scripture tells us who can not speak falsehoods.

 

[Civbert]

What do you mean when you say that God has parts that are spiritual - not physical? Are you saying that God is part love, part justice, part...and together they make a whole God? If not (I doubt that you are arguing for this) then can you give a definition and examples of what you mean by spiritual parts?

I mean God has different thoughts and characteristics, just as the WCF has said. These are not physical, so they can not divided God into parts. God is gracious and loving and jealous at the same time because these are not physical parts of God, but spiritual. And God is thee persons as Scripture clearly tells us, and so these are clearly parts of God. "God does not have parts" does not mean in all possible senses of the word "parts". It's clearly speaking of the fact that God is spirit and not physical in nature.

 

[crhoades]

I mean God has different thoughts and characteristics, just as the WCF has said. These are not physical, so they can not divided God into parts. God is gracious and loving and jealous at the same time because these are not physical parts of God, but spiritual. And God is thee persons as Scripture clearly tells us, and so these are clearly parts of God. "God does not have parts" does not mean in all possible senses of the word "parts". It's clearly speaking of the fact that God is spirit and not physical in nature.

So is Jesus a part of God, the Father a part of God, the Holy Spirit a part of God and together we have one God? In what sense are you using "part" in the above? Want to make sure i'm not equivocating and reading into the way you are using it but also want to point out if not careful or charitable how it could be read.

 

[ChristianTrader]

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16574

 

[RamistThomist]

I hope I'm not going to be labeled a Van Tillian irrationalist for saying that.

Van Tillian irrationalist!

 

[bookslover]

Are there any problems with analogizing the trinity to a three-headed creature? I had the idea from a movie with a 3 headed giant. The heads even had different names and personalities. So, as with the Trinity there is one God/divine nature in three persons, there is one giant with three personalities.

Of course all analogies fail at some point, but are there any major problems with this?

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.

 

[crhoades]

Van Tillian irrationalist!

I knew I could count on you! As I PM'd Civbert, I'm sure we'll slip into the Incomprehensibility of God debate of Clark and Van Til in a few posts or so. Maybe not. We should probably do a thread split at some point breaking out the analogy usage portion and the sideline between Anthony and myself.

 

[Civbert]

So is Jesus a part of God, the Father a part of God, the Holy Spirit a part of God and together we have one God? In what sense are you using "part" in the above? Want to make sure i'm not equivocating and reading into the way you are using it but also want to point out if not careful or charitable how it could be read.

Just in the sense that there are three clear distinct persons in the Godhead. Think of a yard measure. It's made up of three individual feet. No two are the same, but none alone is a yard. If each foot were alone a yard, then there would be three yards, not one. The Godhead is one in the sense of substance, power, and eternity, but three in person.

 

[MW]

God is not complex. Simplicity is essential to God. His attributes are Himself, not parts of Himself. Heppe: "All dogmaticians pronounce accordingly, e.g., Hottinger, p. 44: 'The attributes are distinguished neither from the essence nor from each other but only by our conceiving.'" (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 59.)

Civbert's insistence that God's knowledge is bound by the laws of logic (as per the archetype/ectype thread) shuts him up to the conclusion that God has parts as if He were finite. This is what happens when you make a god no bigger than what your own mind can conceive. I am sorry to be harsh, but this is the brutal consequence of deviating from the reformed tradition.

 

[crhoades]

Just in the sense that there are three clear distinct persons in the Godhead. Think of a yard measure. It's made up of three individual feet. No two are the same, but none alone is a yard. If each foot were alone a yard, then there would be three yards, not one. The Godhead is one in the sense of substance, power, and eternity, but three in person.

But isn't Jesus fully God? Would that analogy break down by saying that 1 foot is fully a yard? Jesus is in all attributes God. The foot isn't in all attributes a yard (the attribute of length being different.)

 

[bookslover]

And God is three persons as Scripture clearly tells us, and so these are clearly parts of God.

No, this is not correct. God is three Persons, and all three Persons are completely and fully God. Each of the Persons is not a "part" of God. Each one is God. God is one being, and three Persons.

Each Person is distinct from the others, and yet all three Persons have the same essence as the one God. The doctrine known by the fancy name of perichoresis teaches this: that all three Persons have the same essence as God.

 

[Civbert]

Civbert's insistence that God's knowledge is bound by the laws of logic (as per the archetype/ectype thread) shuts him up to the conclusion that God has parts as if He were finite. This is what happens when you make a god no bigger than what your own mind can conceive. I am sorry to be harsh, but this is the brutal consequence of deviating from the reformed tradition.

The infinity of God does not imply singularity. Rather the opposite is true. Something finite can be one things, and one is a finite number.

I don't' find you harsh Rev Winzer, just incomprehensible.

 

[crhoades]

No, this is not correct. God is three Persons, and all three Persons are completely and fully God. Each of the Persons is not a "part" of God. Each one is God. God is one being, and three Persons.

Each Person is distinct from the others, and yet all three Persons have the same essence as the one God. The doctrine known by the fancy name of perichoresis teaches this: that all three Persons have the same essence as God.

Just for the record...the quoting mechanism looks like it isn't working fully. the quote that your wrapped was from Civbert.

 

[bookslover]

Think of a yard measure. It's made up of three individual feet. No two are the same, but none alone is a yard.

The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity is fully and completely God.

 

[Davidius]

How is it that the Trinity can be lumped into one completely homogeneous blob when its 2nd Person has a physical body and the 1st and 3rd do not?

 

[bookslover]

Just for the record...the quoting mechanism looks like it isn't working fully. the quote that your wrapped was from Civbert.

No, the quoting mechanism is working OK. I think I messed up when I used it! My apologies.

 

[crhoades]

The infinity of God does not imply singularity. Rather the opposite is true. Something finite can be one things, and one is a finite number.

I don't' find you harsh Rev Winzer, just incomprehensible.

From the Athanasian Creed

1. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
2. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
   And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
3. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

 

[MW]

The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity is fully and completely God.

Richard, I am in full agreement with you here. There is I, Thou, and He, and all three persons speak as full possessors of theiotes, the divine nature or Godhead.

 

[crhoades]

The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity is fully and completely God.

That's why I used that. Jesus is fully God and not a part of God. I'm trying to flesh this out slowly. That's the position I'm arguing from. Also for the record - the quote that you wrapped was from Civbert.

 

[bookslover]

How is it that the Trinity can be lumped into one completely homogeneous blob when its 2nd Person has a physical body and the 1st and 3rd do not?

Because the trinity is still three Persons, even though one of them (the second Person) is now permanently incarnate. Even in His incarnate state (and now with His glorified body, of course), Jesus is still completely God, having the same exact essence as God as the other two Persons. Becoming man did not take away one whit from his essence as God. He is always the God-man, never the Man-God.

 

[Civbert]

No, this is not correct. God is three Persons, and all three Persons are completely and fully God. Each of the Persons is not a "part" of God. Each one is God. God is one being, and three Persons.

Each Person is distinct from the others, and yet all three Persons have the same essence as the one God. The doctrine known by the fancy name of perichoresis teaches this: that all three Persons have the same essence as God.

I know the terminology. One essence. But the essence is spiritual - therefore the essence is not divisible into parts. But the persons are unique. And each is required. You can not have Jesus is as just God alone, he is God the Son and he is begotten of the Father. You can not call Jesus God apart from the relationship he has to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as you can not call a single molecule of H2O a solid or a gas or a liquid, because those are not simple states of existence, but relationships to other molecules. If you subtract out the Father, or the Holy Spirit, and leave Jesus you have removed any sense to the meaning of to Jesus is God. But Jesus is not the Father, and not the Spirit. He is one in substance with the Father and Spirit.

The term "being" is also vague and alone has little meaning. A being is nothing without something that tells us what it is. God is one being in the sense of one spiritual substance that is unique to the Godhead, and not shared by man. The Godhead is not one being in the sense of one person. God the Father is one person, Jesus is another person, and the Spirit another.

 

[ChristianTrader]

How is it that the Trinity can be lumped into one completely homogeneous blob when its 2nd Person has a physical body and the 1st and 3rd do not?

Perhaps if you think of it as Jesus added unto himself a non essential characteristic, that might help. For example, you are not changed if you place on a hat on your head.

CT

 

[Davidius]

Because the trinity is still three Persons, even though one of them (the second Person) is now permanently incarnate. Even in His incarnate state (and now with His glorified body, of course), Jesus is still completely God, having the same exact essence as God as the other two Persons. Becoming man did not take away one whit from his essence as God. He is always the God-man, never the Man-God.

Perhaps if you think of it as Jesus added unto himself a non essential characteristic, that might help. For example, you are not changed if you place on a hat on your head.

CT

thanks

 

[Civbert]

The problem here is that, unlike the individual feet in a yardstick not making up the complete yardstick, each of the three Persons in the trinity is fully and completely God.

Of course, but in what sense? What does being fully God mean? It doesn't mean the same person. A foot alone is not a yard. And a yard is not a yard if you subtract a foot. Being fully God does not make God one in the identical sense as God is three. God is three in the sense of persons, and one in the sense of substance, power and eternity. So Jesus is not fully God in the sense as being identical with God the Father. He is fully God in the sense of being of the same substance. Beyond that, we can not say.

 

[Civbert]

Perhaps if you think of it as Jesus added unto himself a non essential characteristic, that might help. For example, you are not changed if you place on a hat on your head.

CT

Good point. Jesus was still Jesus before he was incarnate. So Jesus is not defined by having a body. Jesus is not God by any temporal characteristics he now has, like becoming incarnate. He is God, at least in part, because He is eternal.

("In part" meaning there are other characteristics that define Jesus as "fully God".)

 

[bookslover]

Of course, but in what sense? What does being fully God mean? It doesn't mean the same person. A foot alone is not a yard. And a yard is not a yard if you subtract a foot. Being fully God does not make God one in the identical sense as God is three. God is three in the sense of persons, and one in the sense of substance, power and eternity. So Jesus is not fully God in the sense as being identical with God the Father. He is fully God in the sense of being of the same substance. Beyond that, we can not say.

I think it would be better to say that Jesus is fully God and the Father is fully God. Being incarnate doesn't lessen Jesus' "Godness", if you want to put it that way. The second Person and the First Person are not identical, as Persons, but they are identical as being the same God, as all three Persons possess the essence, or the being, of God. One being, three Persons.

 

[bookslover]

I know the terminology. One essence. But the essence is spiritual - therefore the essence is not divisible into parts. But the persons are unique. And each is required. You can not have Jesus is as just God alone, he is God the Son and he is begotten of the Father. You can not call Jesus God apart from the relationship he has to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as you can not call a single molecule of H2O a solid or a gas or a liquid, because those are not simple states of existence, but relationships to other molecules. If you subtract out the Father, or the Holy Spirit, and leave Jesus you have removed any sense to the meaning of to Jesus is God. But Jesus is not the Father, and not the Spirit. He is one in substance with the Father and Spirit.

You: "One essence. But the essence is spiritual - therefore, the essence is not divisible into parts."

Right. Though I think it would be better to use "spirit" instead of "spiritual".

You: "The persons are unique. And each is required."

Right.

You: "You cannot have Jesus as God alone, He is God the Son..."

Well, this statement could be read as meaning that Jesus' essence as deity is dependent on His relationship with another Person of the Trinity. That would not be correct. His essence as God is not dependent on His inter-trinitarian relationships.

You: "...and He is begotten of the Father."

Thinks: not gonna go there, not gonna go there [*bites tongue*]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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.