The Trinity...how do u explain it?

[xcamm1]

The trinity is kind of a hard concept to grasp for the baby Christian or for that matter all Christians. What are some ways you describe what the trinity is and how it works? Just looking for some insight- Steve

 

[Phoenix]

Hi Steve,

Part of understanding is right in front of you Or within you, however you would choose to describe it. If you believe that within you - you have a soul that will return to God i think your halfway there. It could be said that we're made of of body, soul, and spirit. There distinct parts of us that make up the whole.

I cant say i understand it any better than that, but maybe it's a start ?

 

[Donny_B]

Space cannot exist without each of the 3 dimensions that make it up. To put it mathematically:

Volume = length X width X height (or Base x height)

1 X 0 X 0 = 0
0 X 1 X 0 = 0
0 X 0 X 1 = 0
1 X 1 X 0 = 0
1 X 0 X 1 = 0
0 X 1 X 1 = 0

but

1 X 1 X 1 = 1

 

[Glenn316]

When someone says the trinity is impoossible I always try to point out that there are things in nature that are trinitarian. Phoenix pointed out one, humans have a body, soul, and spirit.

my favorite is water, just plain H20. Water can be a solid, a liquid, a gas, yet all the time it it is still water.
Some well known person (who I can't remember) used a clover leaf to illistrate the trinity, 3 lobes, yet all connected into one leaf.

 

[Knight]

Another example is time. Time has three aspects to it; Past, Present, and Future. But it's all the same Time.

 

[kimber1]

i think it's glenn that stole my answer!! shame on you!! but that's how my pastor has explained it too. the water, ice , steam thing. we as humans have finite minds adn God is infinite so we will never get the trinity issue i don't beleive!!

 

[WesleyJohn]

Some well known person (who I can't remember) used a clover leaf to illistrate the trinity, 3 lobes, yet all connected into one leaf.

That would be St. Patrick!

The trinity is very difficult to explain without landing in some form of heresy. The church has defined two different extremes in this discussion as heretical. One extreme says that God is ONE who manifests Himself in three different MODES. The other extreme is polytheistic in that it leans toward three distinct gods. Somewhere between the two is the classic understanding of the Trinity.

I do think that many of our analogies that we could come up with have limitations to them. For instance, the ice, liquid, gas analogy is really quite modalistic, in that the water exists in one state at a time, instead of all three.

What is more important to me is this:

What does the doctrine of the Trinity (or Triunity) tell us about the nature of God?

In His very nature, we see that God is relational. His nature is one of loving relationship, for within His very being are three interrelated persons, which exist in Holy Love.

Secondly, we are created in the Image of God (Imago Dei) and so possess that very nature within us. (perhaps soul, spirit, and body?). We were created to love and to be loved, and to mirror divine love to others.

There is an ancient diagram of the Trinity that I find helpful. It is a triangle. God is in a circle in the center of the triangle, with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at each of the points. There are lines connecting all four points, indicated that Father is God, Son is God, and Holy Spirit is God. Yet, Father is not Son is not Holy Spirit. (The diagram is in latin...i've translated for you).

Perhaps someone has this image and can post it?

 

[Theresa]

Well, keep in mind that I am only touching the surface I would say:

Father-uttered Word, idea of himself=Son, love between Father and Son, perfect love=Holy Spirit.

Father=uncreated=Son, proceeds from the Father, true God from true God, light from light, begotten,not made, one in being with the Father=and yet, uncreated also. Holy Spirit=proceeds from the Father and the Son, is also uncreated.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in one divine nature. Each seperate but each one God.


It's really difficult. This book has the only excellent simple answer I have ever encountered:

http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0072.html?E+scstore

 

[WesleyJohn]

Here is the diagram I mentioned (translated into English)!

 

[Philip]

Another example is time. Time has three aspects to it; Past, Present, and Future. But it's all the same Time.

I greatly dislike this one. It suggests Modalism rather than true Trinitarianism.

 

[Philip]

my favorite is water, just plain H20. Water can be a solid, a liquid, a gas, yet all the time it it is still water.

Sounds like Modalism again.

Some well known person (who I can't remember) used a clover leaf to illistrate the trinity, 3 lobes, yet all connected into one leaf.

This one I like.

 

[WesleyJohn]

I greatly dislike this one. It suggests Modalism rather than true Trinitarianism.

I agree with you on this. However, I did just have a thought which may be worth something (probably not though!)

The reason that you and I say that the time analogy smacks of modalism is because for us time cannot co-exist in past, present, and future. In other words, time can only exist in one of those modes at a time.

However, I've heard it said that God exists in the eternal now, able to see past, present, and future eternally co-existing. And so, perhaps the time analogy works if we were able to look at time from God's perspective instead of ours.

Peace,

WJ

 

[Philip]

I agree with you on this. However, I did just have a thought which may be worth something (probably not though!)

The reason that you and I say that the time analogy smacks of modalism is because for us time cannot co-exist in past, present, and future. In other words, time can only exist in one of those modes at a time.

However, I've heard it said that God exists in the eternal now, able to see past, present, and future eternally co-existing. And so, perhaps the time analogy works if we were able to look at time from God's perspective instead of ours.

I had a similar thought as I was typing that post. Any given event can be considered past, present, or future, depending on the observer. So, in a sense, each event is all three. I don't like what this implies about God. It suggests that the Trinity is a matter of perception and not objectively true.

 

[Knight]

The time analogy is meant to illustrate the concept of a trinity not the nature of God.

It's an illustration not a direct application. Don't push the description too far.

 

[Philip]

The time analogy is meant to illustrate the concept of a trinity not the nature of God.

I am not sure I understand this statement. The nature of God is the Trinity.

Time is not a trinity. It is a single thing. We assign different events the titles past, present, and future based on their relationship to us. Past, present, and future are not objective realities. They depend on observers. The same is not true of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit would exist just the same with our without us. Our relationship to God does not define Him.

If you think I am reading to much into this analogy, perhaps you could explain what information I should get from it.

 

[Knight]

You're over thinking the analogy. The intent is to illustrate a trinity. Let me see if I can explain.

There is one time. It is constant. We see it in three forms but each is still the same time.

The Past is time
The Present is time
The Future is also time

It is all time but it exists, to our perception, in three forms. Each is, at the same time, distinct and united.

Now consider God. He is one God but exists in three persons.

The Father who is God.
The Son who is God
The Holy Spirit who is also God

They cannot be separated but at the same time are distinct. This is NOT suggesting that God is an "office" which is held by three persons. God is one being who is unified, consistent and coherent and exists in the three persons of the Trinity.

Is this making any more sense?

 

[Philip]

It is all time but it exists, to our perception, in three forms. Each is, at the same time, distinct and united.[emphasis mine]

This is where the analogy fails. Your three forms of time are depended on our perception. This is not true of God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit existed before we were here to perceive God.

 

[Knight]

I never suggested that the nature of God depended on our perception. The analogy is meant to describe a trinity not to directly apply to God. Thus is the nature of an analogy.

Is there a reason you're intentionally trying to poke holes in these trinity analogies? If you read my previous post you will notice that I did not use the word "perception" when describing God. I said that he exists in three persons.

 

[Knight]

I think I see where you're getting the modalism idea from in this analogy.

The past becomes the present which becomes the future.

This is not what this analogy is attempting to describe about God. You're looking at it linearly. Try looking at it globally.

The Father was and is God
The Son was and is God
The Holy Spirit was and is God

Let me tell you what I don't like about the clover analogy. It can suggest that God is an office (the whole clover) made up by three leaves. THis can still be useful for explaining the Trinity as long as it is understood that the whole clover represents the person of God and not an office.

The time analogy is also useful as long as it's understood that the Father did not become the Son and the Son did not become the Holy Spirit.

As with any of these some exposition is necessary for the Trinity to be explained. I don't think any one of us would just drop the analogy on someone without providing the explanation.

 

[Philip]

I never suggested that the nature of God depended on our perception.

You didn't, but your analogy does.

Is there a reason you're intentionally trying to poke holes in these trinity analogies?

Yes. I think they are misleading. As I said before, Modalism is an understanding that natually arrises from both the time and the water analogy. If an analogy is misleading, it should be avoided.