How to explain Trinity to non-Christian

[~Anastasia~]

just think of your bishop's trikiri

You know I had to look that up.

I've seen them before, but actually today will be the first time I meet our bishop (God willing) and tomorrow we have a hierarchical Divine Liturgy.

Unfortunately I'm going to be in the choir loft (again God willing) ... so I'll have a good view but from far away.

But that's what I was imagining - at least I mean three candles joined to make one flame. Then I got to thinking that it COULD lead to a misunderstanding of God's Essence as being a composite thing, and gives no indication of the Father as the ultimate source.

But as you say, no earthly analogy is perfect. I just think this one is the best I've seen, and with added info to stave off misunderstanding it could help.

 

[Radagast]

A hand easy analogy is water - can be ice, liquid or steam, but still H20. Not very deep though

Did you watch the "bad analogies" video? "That's the heresy of modalism, Patrick."

 

[Tom 1]

Did you watch the "bad analogies" video? "That's the heresy of modalism, Patrick."

Nope

 

[Radagast]

Nope

You should.

 

[Tom 1]

That's why you've fallen into heresy then.

Damn, I knew there had to be a reason. Why didn’t I feel it when I fell?

 

[Radagast]

Damn, I knew there had to be a reason. Why didn’t I feel it when I fell?

Because the heresy of modalism, as popularised by non-Trinitarian Pentecostals and The Shack, is all too common nowadays.

And the point of the video is that most (if not all) analogies of the Trinity are heretical. That's why the Creeds avoid analogy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Because the heresy of modalism, as popularised by non-Trinitarian Pentecostals and The Shack, is all too common nowadays.

And the point of the video is that most (if not all) analogies of the Trinity are heretical. That's why the Creeds avoid analogy.

You think The Shack puts forth modalism? I'm not quite sure how, since (I think I remember) three distinct persons portrayed, in some cases all in the room interacting with the character at the same time.

Though I noticed the "Father" changed from one aspect to another as needed.

I honestly thought the book/movie put forth some worthwhile truths - but the depiction of the Trinity wasn't exactly one of them lol.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I like what Matt pointed out with the water on the river - all three aspects present at the same time.

The problem with water as an analogy, for the purposes of simplification, its usually explained that THIS water can be frozen (ice), then thawed (liquid water), then heated to steam (vapor). Three different "modes" of the same water (substance).

It has its value as a demonstration, but it's far too easy to apply it to something like the Oneness doctrine I've encountered which at its extreme teaches essentially that God used to be the Father, then He became incarnate and was then the Son, but later ascended and became the Holy Spirit. That God could only exist in one "mode/expression" at a time, and thus clearly NOT a Trinity.

So that's the main danger with using water as analogy. Especially if they imagine the same water going through transformations into different modes/substances.

 

[Radagast]

You think The Shack puts forth modalism?

Yes, quite explicitly, precisely because of that "changing aspect."

But, in so far as it puts forth an analogy of the Trinity, it was bound to be wrong.

 

[Tom 1]

I like what Matt pointed out with the water on the river - all three aspects present at the same time.

The problem with water as an analogy, for the purposes of simplification, its usually explained that THIS water can be frozen (ice), then thawed (liquid water), then heated to steam (vapor). Three different "modes" of the same water (substance).

It has its value as a demonstration, but it's far too easy to apply it to something like the Oneness doctrine I've encountered which at its extreme teaches essentially that God used to be the Father, then He became incarnate and was then the Son, but later ascended and became the Holy Spirit. That God could only exist in one "mode/expression" at a time, and thus clearly NOT a Trinity.

So that's the main danger with using water as analogy. Especially if they imagine the same water going through transformations into different modes/substances.

I heard this one from a guy who had been a missionary somewhere in a rainforest, reaching out to local tribespeople. The problem (apart from it not being such a great analogy perhaps) was that they had no idea what ice was.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I heard this one from a guy who had been a missionary somewhere in a rainforest, reaching out to local tribespeople. The problem (apart from it not being such a great analogy perhaps) was that they had no idea what ice was.

Yes there's another problem - when the locals have no frame of reference.

I remember reading about a missionary who went to a people who had no idea what sheep were. But wild pigs were common. For some reason the decision was made to use pigs for sheep ....

Forgive me, this still sounds blasphemous to me so much that I can't actually type it.

"Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world"

You just can't substitute "piglet" which I think they did.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes there's another problem - when the locals have no frame of reference.

I remember reading about a missionary who went to a people who had no idea what sheep were. But wild pigs were common. For some reason the decision was made to use pigs for sheep ....

Forgive me, this still sounds blasphemous to me so much that I can't actually type it.

"Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world"

You just can't substitute "piglet" which I think they did.

Needs must I guess. Sheep analogies work much better with sheep though.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, quite explicitly, precisely because of that "changing aspect."

But, in so far as it puts forth an analogy of the Trinity, it was bound to be wrong.

I agree it had to be wrong in that there is no possible way they could have correctly illustrated God.

At any rate, if you meant the changing thing, I can see that. It's actually a tangle of bad analogies and heresies. Though if taken COMPLETELY as a parable illustrating a few good aspects, I liked it. My husband hated it though. And I can see his points.

 

[Tom 1]

I agree it had to be wrong in that there is no possible way they could have correctly illustrated God.

At any rate, if you meant the changing thing, I can see that. It's actually a tangle of bad analogies and heresies. Though if taken COMPLETELY as a parable illustrating a few good aspects, I liked it. My husband hated it though. And I can see his points.

I read the book and just found it a bit vague and disappointing.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Needs must I guess. Sheep analogies work much better with sheep though.

As long as hopefully they got the point. At least they wouldn't have been naturally prejudiced against pigs.

But later on some of the Law and the bit about the sacrifice of the pig in the temple would take some explanation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I knew there had to be a reason. Why didn’t I feel it when I fell?

I think the Apostles themselves even were accused of heresy,
and Jesus too, right?
Did they "feel it when they fell into hearsay" (sic)

As for the sheep, the sheep hear the Shepherd's Voice. Not everyone does,
so it is good the Shepherd Talks to the sheep, eh ?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I read the book and just found it a bit vague and disappointing.

I felt somewhat that way at first reading.

Actually it was too close for me emotionally. My daughter had been essentially kidnapped and for a few years I didn't know where she was or if she was ok. I wasn't emotionally up to reading it at first.

What I DO like about it, and iirc it came out better in the movie - is the theme of restoration. Even in tragedy, the child was restored to joy in the kingdom. It showed that the man's own pain at the hands of his father was from pain his father had suffered as well - all the result of sin, but in the end there was forgiveness and restoration. And even the man's own soul was somewhat healed by the God characters working with him and walking with him to confront the source of his pain and good and beautiful things came from that.

It was all somewhat obscure though. If taken too much at face value it began to lose what was best about the story.

And it was something I couldn't find and appreciate for a while.

 

[Tom 1]

How do I delete a post? This post had the same content as the one below addressed to yehuaslavejeff but I mistakenly posted twice

 

[Tom 1]

I felt somewhat that way at first reading.

Actually it was too close for me emotionally. My daughter had been essentially kidnapped and for a few years I didn't know where she was or if she was ok. I wasn't emotionally up to reading it at first.

What I DO like about it, and iirc it came out better in the movie - is the theme of restoration. Even in tragedy, the child was restored to joy in the kingdom. It showed that the man's own pain at the hands of his father was from pain his father had suffered as well - all the result of sin, but in the end there was forgiveness and restoration. And even the man's own soul was somewhat healed by the God characters working with him and walking with him to confront the source of his pain and good and beautiful things came from that.

It was all somewhat obscure though. If taken too much at face value it began to lose what was best about the story.

And it was something I couldn't find and appreciate for a while.

That’s intense. Is your daughter ok now?

 

[Tom 1]

I think the Apostles themselves even were accused of heresy,
and Jesus too, right?
Did they "feel it when they fell into hearsay" (sic)

As for the sheep, the sheep hear the Shepherd's Voice. Not everyone does,
so it is good the Shepherd Talks to the sheep, eh ?

Actually, having worked with sheep, I can see how effective some of Jesus’ analogies must have been for the people he was teaching.