"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[…] 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 […]

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Robert J.G.:

A church in our area has this on its “We Believe…” page:

There is one eternal God, who exists in three distinct personalities: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — The Trinity. (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19)

http://www.gracechurchusa.com/beliefs.html

So,… what does “three distinct personalities” mean in terms of Trinitarian doctrine?

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).

[…] 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 […]

[…] Michael Patton of Parchment and Pen has some excellent pointers and even a couple of visual aids for teaching the doctrine of the […]

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.

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.

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

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. 😀

(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.” 😀

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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!

[…] 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 […]

Every religion has a “trinity” of sorts. They are just three aspects of the same thing (just don’t try to name that thing).

Christianity……..Buddhism………..Aspect
Jesus Christ……..Nirmanakaya……human form
God the Father…Sambhogakaya…celestial/deity
Holy Spirit………..Dharmakaya…….formless essence

Hinduism, Islam and the Kabbalah of Judaism have combinations of three, but they are less easily compared than those above.

Don’t tell a Christian to pray to Buddha or a Buddhist to pray to God. Then there is Brahman, Allah and Hashem (the name). They are just words. Now if you want to get beyond them, read my book at http://www.suprarational.org Mystics don’t need a name: “One” is close enough for most of them.

A little more detail about “three aspects” in Buddhism and Christianity:

Mahayana and Vajrayana vehicles of Buddhism speak of Trikaya, or three bodies: Nirmanakaya is the Buddha in human form, Sambhogakayais celestial Buddha and Dharmakayais the formless essence, or Buddha-nature. The Theravada primarily addresses the historic Buddha. The “Three Jewels” are the Buddha, the dharma (his teachings) and the sangha (the community of monks and nuns).

Christianity has its Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit referring to God, Jesus Christ and their spiritual bond of unity (some say the Godhead). Interpretation of the essential nature of each, and their relationship, differed among the churches. In Christian mysticism, the three ways of the spiritual life are the purgative in being purified from sin, the illuminative in true understanding of created things, and the unitive in which the soul unites with God by love.

The “three aspects” in the Kabbalah, Hinduism and Islam (Sufism):

In the Kabbalah of Judaism, sefirot – sparks from the divine – have three fulcrums to balance the horizontal levels of the Tree of Life: Da`at (a pseudo-sefirot) is knowledge combining understanding and wisdom; Tiferet is beauty, the midpoint of judgment and loving kindness; Yesod is the foundation for empathy and endurance. They also vertically connect, through the supreme crown, the infinite and transcendent Ein Sof with its kingdom in the immanent Shekhinah.

Hinduism’s trimurti are the threefold activities of Brahman: in Brahma as creator, in Vishnu as sustainer and in Shiva as destroyer. Saccidananda are the triune attributes or essence of Brahman: sat, being, cit, consciousness and ananda, bliss. The three major schools of yoga are bhakti, devotion, and jnana, knowledge and karma, the way of selfless action. Raja yoga can apply to, and integrate, all three in mental and spiritual concentration.

In Islam, nafs is the ego-soul, qalbis heart and ruh is spirit. Heart is the inner self [soul], hardened when it is turned toward ego and softened when it is polished by dhikr, remembrance of the spirit of Allah. This is a three-part foundation for Sufi psychology. Initiation guides them from shari`a, religious law, along tariqa, the spiritual path, to haqiqa, interior reality. It is a gradual unveiling of the Real.

“Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.”

Sounds like something Satan might say to a Christian looking for truth.

[…] "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff'; digg_skin = 'compact';  Print This Post […]

Most ‘Trinitarians’ believe that each part (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Trinity is ‘separate’ and ‘fully’ God. An elementary examination of this supposition concludes three Gods exist. Though the tongue may confess one God, the heart confirms three. They can’t possibly conceive an idea of one God when three are viewed from within.

This could be compared to a beast with three heads, or a one-headed beast with three bodies…utter nonsense.

Throughout the OT, God states there is ONE God and there is NONE beside Him. So the picture of Jesus (separately and fully as God) sitting next to the Father (separately and fully as God) is refuted from scripture itself.

As far as the functions of God, the OT again is filled with God calling Himself Savior and Redeemer. These are the same functions of Jesus. Same God, same functions.

One can examine himself and carefully reflect whether he/she thinks of three persons/Gods when considering the Trinity. If so, the absolute doctrinal truth of ONE GOD is compromised.

Some form of modalism seems to me the sole way of reconciling monotheism with the assertion that Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son. To go beyond thinking of one God revealing himself in three aspects (modalism, or some form of it) to try to say anything about the ontological substance of God seems unwarranted both Scripturally and intellectually.

When God created man in His own image and likeness, I think He was pulling from His trinity model of existence.
The Father seems often times to be the “brains of the operation”
Jesus is the executor of the plan
The Holy Spirit is the life/power source of it.

When God created us, He gave us
A soul (brains)
A body (what we use to execute our plans)
A spirit (life source)

I may be wrong entirely, but I haven’t found reason to believe otherwise just yet. What do you think?

Jesus, clearly, was Jewish. An honest reading of the Old Testament will slowly force you to see that the Trinitarian God you worship is something new. Christians ought to take the Reformation back beyond the manipulations of Athanasius and the political bishops of the fourth century, to discover and revive the beliefs of the earliest Christians. God is One. PEACE.

Here’s what I’ve learned from my own studies about the Trinity. I’ve been praying for God to reveal His nature to me — if it can even be understood. I want to know Him as the Apostles knew Him.

Yes, Christ was Jewish, and until that point, Yahweh was known as ONE God. We know God never changes. Therefore, the “Son” was nothing new to God. It seems the Bible’s focus “changes” from Father to Son in the NT. But God never changes… Therefore, if God reaches men through Yeshua the Son, He’s always done it that way — the burning bush, the pillar of fire, wrestling with Jacob, in the fiery furnace — ALL Yeshua.

Now, throughout the OT, you have verse after verse proclaiming Yahweh as the Good Shepherd. The Holy One of Israel. The Savior and there is none beside Him. Unto us a son is born, and His name shall be everlasting Father, Mighty God… When Christ is revealed at the incarnation, HE is now attributed as the Good Shepherd – who lays down His life for His sheep. HE is now referred to as the Holy One of Israel and the Savior of the world. By Christ’s own mouth, He and the Father are One, and if you’ve seen Him, you’ve seen the Father.

Therefore, “Yahweh” cannot just be the Father, Yahweh must also be the Son, since by John the Apostle’s words in John 1, CHRIST was Creator, as without Him, not anything was made that has been made. Paul expounds that everything is made by Him and for Him, and THROUGH Him everything holds together.

Also, the name “Yeshua” was a common name in ancient Israel, so why should THAT name be above all names? It isn’t. The name given above all names is YAHWEH. Therefore, if all power is given to the Son and the Son is the Creator, the Savior, the Holy One, and given the name above every other name (even the Father’s?) then it doesn’t make SENSE to me that the Father would sit back in the shadows while the Son inherits the Kingdom — UNLESS the Son IS the Father and simply CALLED the Son (the only begotten of the Father) during His incarnation.

It is my opinion that the Spirit is God’s omniscient love, power, and knowledge – His invisible qualities that indwells us. Therefore, this makes more sense to me as to how God could be “ONE” and yet appear as three.

If there are three persons or essences to God, then He would be like a braid, three strands forever entwined, never unraveling. This would fit the model that they are always fully the braid, but three parts of the braid; never separate, always woven together.

~~Becka

Becky,

I am so very pleased that you are thinking so hard about this very important issue.

The one thing to keep in mind as you prayerfully think about this is that the father is not the son, and the spirit is not the son. And the son is not the father. Yet they are all God. Otherwise who is Christ praying to in the Garden the night before his crucifixion? Who does the Son say he is going to send in the upper room. Certainly not himself. He does not have multiple personality disorder! When Jesus says that the Father loves him he is not saying that he loves himself. So it is important that we keep the distinction of person in place as well as the unity in the essence of the Godhead.

Again, what a wonderful thing you are doing in praying that you can know Him more. God bless you!

In other words, Christ’s very LIFE was a parable of sorts, for those who had ears to hear. Calling Himself the “Son” was giving us a model for submission to God the Father while at the same time appearing as “separate and apart” from the Father, for those who did NOT have an ear to hear.

Everything He did, whether praying or thanking the Father was a lesson for US, as to how WE should pray or thank the Father. Even going off to be by Himself with God. If Christ was Yahweh incarnate, He would need to teach not only by words, but also by deeds and example. So people claiming, “Then Who’d He pray to?” don’t really have a leg to stand on in that regard.

Even in the Garden of Gethsemane, it was a lesson in submission to God’s will, no matter the cost. (As a side note, none of the Apostles were awake when Christ prayed to God with sweat as blood, so I’ve always wondered when did they get that knowledge of what Christ prayed for? Did Christ tell them after the resurrection? Did they just know by the Spirit?)

But this Scripture tells me that Christ’s life itself might have also been a parable regarding the Father/Son relationship (emphasis mine):

John 16:25-27:
25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. ***The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father.*** 26 In that day you will ask in my name, and ***I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.***

~~Becka

Well a parable is not a true story. Christ’s incarnation was a historical event. But certainly his life is an example of submission to the Father.

But you are right that they are all YHWH. In the Old Testament we have many hints to a plurality in the Godhead but it is not explicitly revealed until the New Testament. Notice for example that God said “let US make man in OUR image”. Both plural pronouns. However whe God does make man it say “he” made man in his image. There we have both unity and plurality represented.