Modalism, the Time Analogy, and the Trinity,

[coolnfc]

This is a general questions for all Christians.

I have been trying to explain the logical basis for the Trinity to some non-Christian friends as late by using the famous "Time Analogy". For those who don't know, it goes something like this:


"With time, for example, the past is distinct from the present, which is distinct from the future. Each is simultaneous. Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time ..."


And one of my best friends and one of the most mature Christian friends I know, has cautioned me against using this because it appears to him as a form of Modalism. However, I believe that God put natural trinities in our world to help us use analogies and to try the best to explain Him. Yes, I realize God is so big that showing a diagram or any other analogy is not going to completely allow us comprehend His nature. However, does this analogy support Modalism? I mean, in our minds past becomes present and present becomes future. So should I stop using this? If so, why?

Thank you for your input in advance,

Coolnfc

 

[Knight]

It depends on how you look at it.

I had this discussion with a CF member awhile ago.

Let me see if I can find it.

 

[Knight]

Here you go:

http://www.christianforums.com/t44427

The first few pages deal with the issue you are talking about. The debate then got into the subject of the Trinity itself rather than how to explain it.

 

[Philip]

Here you go:

http://www.christianforums.com/t44427

The first few pages deal with the issue you are talking about. The debate then got into the subject of the Trinity itself rather than how to explain it.

Huh. I thought that thread was lost in The Crash.

However, does this analogy support Modalism? I mean, in our minds past becomes present and present becomes future. So should I stop using this? If so, why?

Read through the discussion Knight and I had. There are better analogies than time.

I have been trying to explain the logical basis for the Trinity to some non-Christian friends

I would suggest delaying the discussion of the Holy Trinity. Milk before meat.

 

[Knight]

Huh. I thought that thread was lost in The Crash.

Nope, it was post-Crash.

Read through the discussion Knight and I had. There are better analogies than time.

Now Phil, I thought we agreed that there is nothing wrong with the time analogy as long as it is explained. The same with any analogy.

I would suggest delaying the discussion of the Holy Trinity. Milk before meat.

Amen to that. The Trinity is something that not even mature Christians comprehend completely. Evangelizing from this doctrine is not a good idea.

 

[Allen2]

When Jehovah Witnesses visit me, after inviting them in, they soon want to talk about the Trinity(everybody they have visited has it garbled). I change the subject to Christ: He is the final, full revelation of Who God is, the Word of God. Since they believe that the Son is a created being, there is plenty to discuss before advancing to the Trinity.
I've nothing against analogies, but I believe that the Trinity can be explained far more simply than it has been. God bless, Al

 

[wonderflex]

I belive that using any model, or analogy is perfectly fine in describing the Lord, just so long as you don't limit what you say to that model. Remember not to make it a box for God. To often when we use analogies we start to belive that they are the actual truth, instead of examples to explain the large portions of our own beliefs. They should be the stepping stones to get people to understand parts of harder truths, from with after getting groundwork, they can have the Spirit show them whatever else they need to see.

My own personal analogy for the Trinity is that it is like an SUV. An SUV is three things - it's a true offroader's dream car. It's a rich man's social marker. And it's a soccer mom's new age transport vehicle. It's still an SUV but it is used for three completely different things. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one being, yet it can be used in three different aspects, for three completely different things.

You guys have fun now....ya hear?

 

[GJG]

The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a non- scriptural doctrine that contradicts a number of biblical teachings and many specific verses of scripture. Also, the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and yet there be only one God.
Here is compiled a number of other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. Note: This list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of how much the doctrine deviates from the Bible.
1. Did Jesus have two fathers? The father is the father of the son (1John1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost Matt1:18,20; Luke1:35. Which one is the true father? Some Trinitarians claim that the Holy Ghost was merely the father’s agent in conception-a process they compare to artificial insemination!
2. How many spirits are there? God the father is a Spirit John4:24, the Lord Jesus is a Spirit 2Cor3:17 and the Holy Spirit is Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4
3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? Matt11:25. Can God pray to God?
4. Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? Matt24:36; Mark13:32.
5. Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? John5:19,30; 6:38.
6. Similarly, what about other verses from scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? John8:42; 14:28; 1Cor11:3.
7. Did ‘God the Son’ die? The Bible shows that the Son died Rom5:10. If so, can God die? Can part of God die?
8. How can there be an eternal Son when the Son was clearly ‘begotten’, indicating an obvious beginning John3:16; Heb1:5-6.
9. If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother during that time? The Son was made of a woman Gal4:4.
10. Did ‘God the Son’ surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could He still be God?
11. If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchanging), how can the reign of the Son have a ending? 1Cor15:24-28.
12. Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father John4:21-24, yet Stephen prayed to Jesus Acts7:59-60.
13. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Obviously the OT does not teach three, but emphasizes the simple fact that there is only one.
14. Are there three Spirits in a Christian’s heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian John14:17,23; Rom8:9; Eph3:14-17. Yet there is only one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4.
15. There is only one throne in heaven Rev4:2. Who sits upon it? Jesus does Rev1:8,18; 4:8. Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?
16. If Jesus is seated on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? Mark16:19. Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? Acts7:55. Or is He in the Fathers bosom? John1:18.
17. How is Jesus part of the Godhead, when clearly the Godhead is in Jesus? Col2:9.
18. Given Matt 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using only the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism?Acts2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; 1Cor1:13.
19. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father Eph1:20, or Jesus John2:19-21, or the Spirit? Rom8:11.
20. If the Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, then why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? Luke12:10.
21. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always show the Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? John14:26; 15:26.
22. If they are co-equal, why does the Holy Ghost not know what the Father knows regarding the return of Christ Mark13:32.
23. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?
24. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?......................and so on…………….and so on!

I believe that trinitarinism is not a biblical doctrine and that it plainly contradicts the Bible in many ways. Scripture does not teach a trinity of persons. Trinity doctrine uses terminology not used in scripture. It teaches and emphasizes plurality in the Godhead while the Bible emphasizes the fact that God is one and only one. It detracts from the fullness of Jesus Christ’s Deity. It contradicts many specific verses of scripture. It is not logical. It cannot be explained rationally, not even by those who advocate it.

 

[Allen2]

The doctrine of the Trinity has to begin and end with Christ who is the full and final and complete revelation of God:
a.Paul writes that "God[meaning the Father] was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him..." and even more strongly, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form", Col.1:19,2:9. The strong adjective ALL and the noun FULLNESS are Paul's way of saying that all that there is to God is in Christ. The Son derives His life and identity from the Father, all that there is to the Father in fact.
2. The Son shares the Divine attribute of being eternal, not created. There never was a time when He was not. The phrase " only-begotten" in Jn.3:16 would be better rendered UNIQUE or ONE OF A KIND. When it speaks of Christ as " the 1st born over all creation"(Col.1:15)this figure of speech is drawn from the Jewish culture where the 1st born son had the preeminence and the rights of inheritance. Notice that in Col.1:16 the passage goes on to say that " all things were created by Him and FOR Him" and in v.18 he is portrayed as 1st born from the dead "so that in everything he might have the supremacy'".
This is similar to David's coronation Psalm where God says to the King, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father", and goes on to describe the king as sovereign and preeminent, just like Christ.
There is more to be said, but I prefer a discussion with a few simple ideas at a time. No doubt in my mind that the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity is rational, Biblical and defensible. God bless, Al