Trinity Analogy

Edwards1984 said:

Both of these, as I outlined in my earlier post, teach a Modalist view of the Trinity,

Click to expand...

Daughter, mother, sister analogy is modalism. But how is solid-liquid-gas analogy modalism? In the former, there is only one person in three functions. In the latter, there are three distinct states with one essence; that's similar to three distinct persons with one essence, namely the trinity.

Edwards1984 said:

The example you give - dropping cold ice cubes into water and showing steam - still doesn't work. You are adding to the Trinity by adding more water to the already existent water

Click to expand...

I had explicitly noted that it was not based on the amount of water in the glass, but the essence of what all three are - H2O. That doesn't change at all among them, but yet all three states of it can exist in one place at one time. No more reading into it after that. Which is why I called it rather insufficient.

Personally, I prefer the Eastern Orthodox approach to these sorts of matters, trying to rationalize stuff like this is one of the problems in the worldview of the Western church.

simonpeter said:

Daughter, mother, sister analogy is modalism. But how is solid-liquid-gas analogy modalism? In the former, there is only one person in three functions. In the latter, there are three distinct states with one essence; that's similar to three distinct persons with one essence, namely the trinity.

Click to expand...

But you see, water cannot be solid, liquid and gas all at once. You freeze water, it becomes ice. You heat it up, it melts into liquid. You heat it up more, it becomes steam. Everything in between is not "co-existing," but one bit of matter going from one form (aka "mode") into another. These "states" are also "modes." Therein lies the error. The Trinity is not One Person within the Being of God going through three different "states." That, again, falls into Modalism.

Qyöt27;55339310 said:

I had explicitly noted that it was not based on the amount of water in the glass, but the essence of what all three are - H2O. That doesn't change at all among them, but yet all three states of it can exist in one place at one time. No more reading into it after that. Which is why I called it rather insufficient.

Personally, I prefer the Eastern Orthodox approach to these sorts of matters, trying to rationalize stuff like this is one of the problems in the worldview of the Western church.

Click to expand...

In regards to your metaphor, the problem is, once again, you had to add to that amount (dropping the ice cube into the water). Aside from the fact that it seems to turn the analogy from Modalism into Arianism, it also, as I said before, falls into the trap that Muslims see coming and will use. In any case, if you have to add a solid ice cube, then that isn't the Trinity, which is the Three Persons of the One Being of God being co-eternal and co-existent since the beginning of time - nobody had to drop the Son into a class of the Father and Holy Spirit.

In regards to rationalization, the Muslim is going to rationalize, however. He's going to pick apart every goofy (forgive the wording) analogy of the Trinity. This is why many of us have suggested to simply turn to the Word of God and verify it as a scriptural truth. It also helps, instead of knocking our brains over what metaphor works more than others, having a good, firm definition of what the Trinity is. Half the struggle will be making the Muslim understand the correct definition of the Trinity. The other half will be helping him see that the Trinity is not made up, but a revealed truth of God. You won't get that by comparing it to ice cubes.

On a separate note, I was reminded earlier today of a story told by Fulton Sheen. He was explaining to an old woman what the Trinity was. At the end of his explanation, the woman said, "Oh! I understand it fully now!" Sheen replied, "Then I didn't explain it to you well enough."

Edwards1984 said:

Heck, some of the stuff I've read since I signed up here, you might be one of the more orthodox members.

Click to expand...

Orthodox???? I don't think I get you!

ks777 said:

Are you allowed to share your view? I'd be interested to hear it.

Click to expand...

For anyone interested, I'd have to PM it. I use to post my view on other threads however, I got pulled up for it! And I'd have to warn you, it is a bit of a read.

TanteBelle said:

For anyone interested, I'd have to PM it. I use to post my view on other threads however, I got pulled up for it! And I'd have to warn you, it is a bit of a read.

Click to expand...

Oh! PM please

But don't waste too much of your time.. just a summery will suffice

ks777 said:

Oh! PM please

But don't waste too much of your time.. just a summery will suffice

Click to expand...

LOL! Righto! One's heading your way ..... oh wait, make that 3!

Summary??? Hmmm, not possible, I'm afraid! LOL!

Qyöt27;55339310 said:

Personally, I prefer the Eastern Orthodox approach to these sorts of matters, trying to rationalize stuff like this is one of the problems in the worldview of the Western church.

Click to expand...

You'd be most disappointed on this count, we care far more than the West seems to about the doctrine of the Trinity. A "minor" detail on this count was the sole doctrinal reason for our split from the Western Church - there are more now.

EDIT: I don't know where people get the idea that we Orthodox are not dogmatic. We are quite dogmatic. And rational. We are quite precise about the Trinity. We're not some "ancient mystical mystery tradition" or whatever.

gzt said:

You'd be most disappointed on this count, we care far more than the West seems to about the doctrine of the Trinity. A "minor" detail on this count was the sole doctrinal reason for our split from the Western Church - there are more now.

EDIT: I don't know where people get the idea that we Orthodox are not dogmatic. We are quite dogmatic. And rational. We are quite precise about the Trinity. We're not some "ancient mystical mystery tradition" or whatever.

Click to expand...

The server ate my last response, so I'll try to summarize.

What I meant wasn't about not being precise or dogmatic. I meant that there are linguistic difficulties in translating, and these difficulties are part of the problem. Terminology like 'ousia' and 'hypostasis', or so on - growing up I never heard it explained in such terms, or in any kind of terms with the depth of connotation those provide. They build a better foundation for understanding the concepts being presented, because a greater depth is provided using these terms than are expressed in languages like English (the one comparison about the range of words for 'love' in Greek vs. English is a perennial favorite for pointing out inadequate English translation).

In many ways, the impression is that Orthodoxy tends to present many of these foundational concepts as living, integral, and dynamic, whereas a lot of people's experiences in Protestant (and maybe Catholic, but not to quite as much of a degree I guess) churches are that those same things are presented as cold, analytic, and simple. That cold meaning is what I meant when I said 'rationalize'. Perhaps this perception is flawed and only appears this way on the outside looking in, but it does keep appearing. Maybe just because people are unfamiliar with it.

Okay, we're cool then. Mentioning "rational" like that triggered me a bit, because, as you mention, the terminology used in the East is quite precise so it lays a slightly more rational and comprehensible approach. However, it is also an approach that is not merely a "list of facts about God", which tends to be how a lot of groups in the West present it, but rather something with real practical implications for what it means to be a Christian. All theology, in the East, is practical theology. But I bristle when I hear people talk about how it's not rationalist, or legalist, or whatever, but it's all really a mystery and it's not elaborated or whatever, when, in fact, they get quite specific about the Trinity and the two natures of Christ in a way that surprises and shocks many in the West who aren't familiar, but it's vitally important because, to us, OUR SALVATION IS AT STAKE in these questions. Christ has two wills or we are not saved! But you were NOT succumbing to that error, so I am sorry for implying that you were and snapping at you.

EDIT: added missing NOT in last sentence.

God in different forms.

gzt said:

Okay, we're cool then. Mentioning "rational" like that triggered me a bit, because, as you mention, the terminology used in the East is quite precise so it lays a slightly more rational and comprehensible approach. However, it is also an approach that is not merely a "list of facts about God", which tends to be how a lot of groups in the West present it, but rather something with real practical implications for what it means to be a Christian. All theology, in the East, is practical theology. But I bristle when I hear people talk about how it's not rationalist, or legalist, or whatever, but it's all really a mystery and it's not elaborated or whatever, when, in fact, they get quite specific about the Trinity and the two natures of Christ in a way that surprises and shocks many in the West who aren't familiar, but it's vitally important because, to us, OUR SALVATION IS AT STAKE in these questions. Christ has two wills or we are not saved! But you were succumbing to that error, so I am sorry for implying that you were and snapping at you.

Click to expand...

No offense taken. Generally when I use terms like 'rationalize' it's in a sense of that engine in people's minds kicking in and doing thought-cartwheels to justify something to themselves, rather than a practical approach borne from necessity.

Or I mean it in a more Cartesian sense, i.e. philosophical Rationalism as it's existed since the Renaissance. Which, considering these doctrines and integral theology were formulated over a thousand years before Descartes was even born, it kind of conflicts if you try to reconcile them - because said discipline didn't exist for most of that time (but then you can get into arguments over whether Socrates was saying the same things, and whether Descartes was just describing something already assumed by people, or whatever). Maybe there are parallels to be found, but I'm generally of the opinion that once something exists for long stretches of time, some new ideology, even if similar, cannot completely mesh with what previously existed and describe it in its totality.