Click 
icon to download articles in Microsoft Word format (Best for Printing)
There is nothing more important to our comprehension of any subject than the definition of words and terms. Words are what the Lord has given us as a means of communication and without them, although not impossible, it is very difficult to express our thoughts. We see a perfect example of this in Genesis 11:1-9. The Bible records an account of a time when the entire earth was of one language and of one speech. What this basically means is that they were all using the same words to say the same things. In other words, they understood each other. They purposed in their hearts to build a tower whose top would reach unto heaven. God saw what they were doing and knew that they could accomplish anything that they imagined, so in turn he confounded their language so they could not understand one another. After this he scattered them throughout the earth and they did not build the city or the tower.
The reason of citing this story is to show that once we cannot understand one another, we cannot get anything accomplished. For this reason it is imperative that we make the meaning of the words we use crystal clear so as to not cause any confusion. Any Christian who has ever spoken to a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon will realize quickly that although the same words are being used throughout the course of the discussion, completely different things are being said. That is because the words being used have different definitions. For this reason it is a must that we identify what it is that we are saying from the onset. If we can clearly and firmly establish our speech then there is much less of a chance of misunderstanding what it is that we are saying. There is also less of a chance that what is being said can be distorted. We will begin with a very basic definition of the Trinity and then build upon it from there while defining the other major themes and terms of this writing.
The Trinity Defined
The late James Petigru Boyce defined the Trinity by saying,
“God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence or being.”[i]
“All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality…”[ii]
To elaborate on the above definitions, the Trinity is the teaching that there is “One Indivisible Being” who is God, namely Yahweh. This “One Indivisible Being” exists as “Three Distinct Persons.” The “Nature” or “Substance” of this “One Indivisible Being” is shared equally by these “Three Distinct Persons.” This is the definition that we will use for the Trinity throughout the course of this [site].
Distinct Not Separate
Notice that the word “separate” is never used yet the words “without division” and “inseparable” are. The persons of the Trinity are not “separate” persons they are “distinct” persons. They are eternally connected in the substance they share as God. The difference between “distinct” and “separate” must be recognized as it is imperative to properly defining the Trinity. Now, everything that is separate is distinct, yet not everything that is distinct is separate. An example of this would be a coin and its inscription. The coin and the inscription on the coin are distinct yet not separate. Another such example would be a finger and its print. Many Trinitarian authors see no problem in using the term “separate” in reference to the Persons of the Trinity because they do not intend it in any way to mean a separation of substance or nature, but I have found that the use of the term opens the door to attacks of tri-theism and legitimately so. If each Person were indeed separate from the other, and each Person were fully God, then the conclusion is naturally that there are three gods. At this point we will follow the lead of the Athanasian Creed when it states we worship God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
A Misconception Cleared Up
At this point allow me to dispel a common myth about Jesus while he was on the cross. Right before Jesus’ death he uttered the words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mat. 27:46 & Mk. 15:34)
It is commonly taught that because Jesus took the sin of the world upon himself and that sin separates from God, that Jesus and the Father were separated while Jesus hung on the cross. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It must first be pointed out that Jesus did not become a sinner while on the cross. The Bible is very plain in telling us that Jesus was without sin.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15)
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: (1Pet.
It has always been personal sin that separated man from God; Adam is a prime example of this as it was his personal disobedience that expelled him from the garden of Eden.
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. (Is. 59:2).
2Corinthians
Suffice it to say, there was never a time when they were separated from one another. If the Persons of the Trinity could be separated then their unity would amount to nothing. Their relationship would be no more intimate than the average human being’s.
Being
The terms “nature, essence, being and substance” will be used interchangeably and all with the intent of describing WHAT Yahweh is. To put it simply, they will be used to describe the “stuff” that God consists of. To put it not so plainly, they will be used as an ontological description of Yahweh. Ontology is simply the study of the nature of being and existence.
Person
The term “persons” will consistently be used in reference to each member of the Trinity. Now we are human beings who speak a human language and as such we are limited as to the words we may use to describe an infinite God. When we use the word “person” in reference to the members of the Trinity it is not in the sense of humans. “Person” is a word that describes someone who is conscious and has the ability to reason. It denotes one with personality. A “Person” thinks and has intelligence. The term “persons” will be used in reference to WHO Yahweh is. Just as we must recognize the difference in the terms “distinct” and “separate,” the distinction between “Being” and “Persons” must be made at all times. Each Person is not a separate Being. Each Person shares One Being/Essence.
Christian apologist and theologian James White says,
“The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.”[iii]
It is when these two things are confused that heresy arises. For example, if there were three beings who were each God then we would arrive at the error of Tri-theism. If there is only one person who is God then we arrive at the errors of Unitarianism or Modalism, but when we make the distinction between “Being” and “Persons” we come to Biblical Trinitarianism.
The Law of Non-Contradiction
“Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.”[iv]
“Being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites cannot be the same. For the one who affirms that ‘opposites can both be true’ does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true.”[v]
Many who deny the Trinity often posit the argument that because the Trinitarian uses the phrase, “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost” that they are teaching three Gods. This is false for the phrase describes each Person as being God at the same time but not in the same sense. This doesn’t violate the law of non-contradiction in that each Person is not the next. Observe how equating Being and Persons can confuse an explanation of the Trinity.
Illogical Definition
Theologian Jeff Patton wrongly defines the Trinity,
“There is one God, and there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, 1 Pet. 1:2. When we see the Father, we see a person; when we see the Son, we see a person; when we see the Holy Spirit, we see a person; and when we see all three of them, we still see a person, and only one person, God. This is commonly known as the TRINITY.”[vi]
It is precisely because of definitions like this that people reject the Trinity or are so confused as to think it is beyond comprehension. This definition defies logic and is can only be labeled a “mystery” in the most mysterious sense of the word.
Mr. Patton goes on to unwittingly acknowledge the absurdity of his definition saying,
“The Trinity must remain a mystery to our finite minds. To most, the Trinity is an incomprehensible concept. This fact should help us to better understand our own finiteness, and the greatness our God.”[vii]
Well, such a definition is certainly incomprehensible since it violates the law of non-contradiction. Three Persons cannot be One Person at the same time and in the same sense. The Trinity is comprehensible and in comprehending it, we still see the vast greatness of our God and Savior, we still see how finite we are when compared to an infinite and eternally existent God. He need not be an unknowable mystery to us for us to see these things in fact if He was an unknowable mystery to us then we wouldn’t know these things at all.
Essential/Ontological Trinity
Unbeknownst to most Trinitarians is the difference and distinction between the Essential/Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity. Above we have defined the Essential/Ontological Trinity. As we have seen, this deals simply with who and what God is. It addresses the issues of Substance/Nature and Persons.
Economic Trinity
But then there is the Economic Trinity, which addresses God’s actions and function in the world, in other words, what God does as opposed to what God is. The Economic Trinity focuses on How the Ontological Trinity operates within the history of mankind dealing with every issue from creation to salvation. This may not seem like an important thing, but it is necessary to define it here and now. The heretical doctrine of modalism affirms the Economic Trinity while denying the Essential/Ontological Trinity. Modalists believe that God is a single person who throughout history has manifested in three modes or roles. Thus when speaking to them they may appear to believe in the Trinity because they agree with the function and actions of the Trinity, while denying the Essence or Persons of the Trinity. This is another area where clear distinctions must be made.
Foolish Arguments
Universalist L. Ray Smith says,
“Whenever someone tries to teach you a doctrine that is UNscriptural, he will always be forced to use words that are unscriptural.”[viii]
Now this statement leads me into the next point, and this is very important. Everything that is extra-Biblical is not necessarily anti-Biblical! Mr. Smith claims that one must go outside of scriptural language to teach unscriptural doctrine, but this is far from truth. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mr. Smith for that matter needn’t go outside of scripture to teach the heretical soul sleep doctrine. Mr. Smith also teaches the false doctrine of universal salvation using you guessed it, Bible language! Mormons use scriptural language in an attempt to prove polytheism from the Bible. There are thousands of teachings that deviate from scripture whose words are found in scripture, as well as wonderful truths from God whose words are found outside of scripture.
The Bible never says that we must use only the words in the Bible to teach doctrine and anyone claiming such would have to employ language not found in scripture. In other words, the argument is self-refuting. Languages are wonderful and are composed of many, many words and some of these words do not appear in scripture nor would we expect to find them there. But they can still be used to convey the truth of the scripture in a more detailed and clear way. The true definition of “unscriptural” is not that which appears outside of scripture, but rather that which opposes and is contrary to scripture. For instance, the Bible never once tells us that God is not a hippopotamus yet I can accurately and truthfully say that God is not a hippopotamus. I just used language that is not found in scripture to describe God, but the words and description were true nonetheless.
F.F. Bruce said,
“Let us not be misled by the foolish argument that because the term “Trinity” does not occur in scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is therefore unscriptural.”[ix]
The description of this argument as “foolish” is accurate and warranted. The common rebuttal to this is that the word "Bible" does not appear in the Bible yet we read one anyway. There are many doctrines taught in the Word of God whose titles do not appear there. Two such examples would be the “Rapture” and the “Millennium.” While Christians have been debating the timing of the Lord’s return and the details concerning the catching away of the saints for years, there is no doubt that the doctrine of the rapture is present in scripture (1Thes. 4:15-18). The same is true of the millennial reign of Christ (Rev. 20:4).
The word “Monotheism” does not appear in scripture yet we see that Judaism and Christianity were strictly monotheistic religions based on the commands of God in scripture to believe in, worship, and serve him alone. “Incarnation” is another word foreign to scripture yet we read of the Word becoming flesh (Jo.
So please, do not be alarmed or thrown by arguments such as this, but rather deal with them quickly and move forward in stating your case by first, defining the terms you are using and then showing how these terms, although not necessarily Biblical in language are Biblical in teaching. As Robert Letham said, “This [is] necessary because heretics [misuse] the Bible to support their erroneous ideas.”[x]
Notes
[i] “Trinity” The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, Ed. Mark Water (
[ii]
[iii] White, James. “A Brief Definition of the Trinity” http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html>
[iv] Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (
[v] Geisler, 250-51
[vi] Patton, Jeff. “God–There is Only One True God” http://www.eternalsecurity.us/biblical_theology%20God.htm
[vii] Patton
[viii] Smith, L. Ray. “Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY? [A Scriptural Refutation of the Trinity Theory]” http://bible-truths.com/trinity.html
[ix] The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, 1069.
[x] Letham, Robert, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, (
The sad but true fact is that most people who believe in the Triune Godhead do so ignorantly and blindly. Contrary to popular belief, you can be indoctrinated with truth. Indoctrination is simply accepting something without questioning it. I thank God for placing me in a congregation where my pastor preaches and teaches the incorruptible Word of God, but not only does he teach it—he encourages us to go out and see if what he teaches is true. This is precisely what the Bereans did when Paul came preaching the gospel of grace, and they were commended for doing so, being described by Luke as “more noble than those in Thessalonica” (Ac.
But contrary to scripture, most people just accept what their pastors or teachers teach them without endeavoring to see if what they have said is true or lines up with what the Word of God says. There are many reasons for this, but those reasons are beyond the scope of this project. What I will say is that this is the same error that the heretics and cultists fall into. This is what I call blind faith. You might be saying to yourself, well, you have to have blind faith in order to believe in God, right? Not really. God never commands us to believe in him blindly, He only tells us that we need faith to please him (Heb. 11:6).
Now Faith is…
Hebrews 11:1 defines faith for us saying, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Substance
OK, so we can see that faith is the substance of things hoped for. Now we can’t see these things but faith is our substance. Faith is tangible. Not tangible in the carnal sense of being able to reach out and grab a hold of it physically, but it is something that our spirit and soul (intellect) can attach itself to. The Greek word is hupostasis[i] and means essence, assurance, or confidence. So we can reason that faith is personal—one has a relationship with faith and subsequently a relationship with God through faith.
Evidence
Faith is also described as the evidence of things not seen. The word for evidence is elegchos and simply means proof. We have assurance, confidence, and proof that God is real. Now there is nothing wrong with believing in God without having seen him. The fact is that none of us have seen him (Jo.
After Jesus rose from the grave he appeared to the disciples. John tells us that, “Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.” (Jo. 20:19c-20) They told Thomas about it but Thomas said, “…Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (Jo. 20:25) Did the disciples rebuke Thomas for this statement? No, in fact eight days later Jesus walks into the room while Thomas was there and said, “…Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (Jo. 20:27)
Jesus gave him a sign… How many times do we read of God bringing the children of
Now notice what He said to Thomas after all of this—“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (Jo. 20:29) Notice that He didn’t say, “blessed are they that believe without evidence”… because the word believed used there in Greek is pepisteukas which means to have faith, commit trust, or place confidence in, and we know that faith is our evidence, confidence, and assurance!
Let me give one quick example. We can’t see the wind but we believe in it because we can hear and feel it. Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to wind while speaking to Nicodemus when he said, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (Jo. 3:8, nkjv)
We can’t see our new birth but we have evidence that it occurred. Even though we cannot see God we have plenty of evidence that he is real. He is visible through his creation, and his creation reveals who and what he is. We will see this demonstrated in the pages to come.
Confusion
So why is there all this confusion over the Trinity and why do so many people misunderstand the teaching? Why do cults make the claim that it isn’t taught in the Bible and how come most people who profess Christ as their Lord say they believe in a Triune God but are unable to provide any scriptural support for the doctrine?
I believe the answer to these questions is that the average believer accepts the Trinity on blind faith without having endeavored to understand the doctrine. Many times they hide behind its being a divine mystery. The myth is perpetuated that this mystery cannot be grasped and we must rely solely on blind faith in order to believe it. But on the other hand we have a host of believers that have done the research and offer up much in terms of explanations.
Explanations
“The Trinity is one of the great mysteries of the Christian Faith. Unlike an antinomy or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason. It is known only by divine revelation, so the Trinity is not the subject of natural theology but of revelation.”[i]
This is a very important point. Simply because something transcends reason does not mean that it violates reason. Any Unitarian, whether Oneness Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witness, or so-called Biblical Unitarian can claim that the Trinity violates logic because it is beyond it, but they place themselves in a self-defeating position because they would then have to claim to know and understand logically all there is to know about God. Who would do this? If God transcends logic and reason without going against it, then there is no reason why the doctrine of the Trinity cannot as well—and remember, our position is that the Trinity is Who and What God is.
“TRINITY – Theological term used to define God as an undivided unity expressed in the threefold nature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. As a distinctive Christian doctrine, the Trinity is considered as a divine mystery beyond human comprehension to be reflected upon only through scriptural revelation.”[ii]
Once again we have an important point that was also noted above. The Trinity is known only by scriptural revelation; it is not the conclusion of natural theology, the Trinity itself being supernatural!
“Trinity – Ultimately, Christians base their belief in the Trinity not on any ability to understand or explain the concept, but rather on the evidence of Scripture that our God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[iii]
This quote is somewhat misleading and in the hands of the wrong person could possible be used against the doctrine, but when understood in context it is in harmony with the above quotes—point being that scripture is the ultimate source for our faith in the Triune God.
“TRINITY – 3. No Rational Proof of It: As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him.”[iv]
Again we have a comment that could be misconstrued if not considered in context. The author of this article is simply saying what the others have said in that the Trinity is the product of special, supernatural revelation. The divine origin of scripture is the foundation of man’s knowledge of the Persons and Being of God. No true analogy is found for the being that ultimately transcends all things, therefore we must rely upon his revealed word to know Him, but as you will read in the quotes below, He has left traces of his Trinitarian Being in His creation.
237 “The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God". To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to
261 “The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”[vi]
I have selected these particular quotations in order to demonstrate that there is no contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity being a mystery while having an explanation from scripture. We must now ask the question of what exactly a mystery is.
Mystery
The online etymological dictionary defines “mystery” saying,
“c.1315, in a theological sense, "religious truth via divine revelation, mystical presence of God," from Anglo-Fr. *misterie (O.Fr. mistere), from L. mysterium, from Gk. mysterion (usually in pl. mysteria) "secret rite or doctrine," from mystes "one who has been initiated," from myein "to close, shut," perhaps referring to the lips (in secrecy) or to the eyes (only initiates were allowed to see the sacred rites). The Gk. word was used in Septuagint for "secret counsel of God," translated in Vulgate as sacramentum. Non-theological use in English, "a hidden or secret thing," is from c.1300. In ref. to the ancient rites of
Aside from what this definition does say, let’s focus on what it does not say. We do not read that a mystery is something that is impossible to know, understand, comprehend, or explain. Nor does it say that every mystery must remain mysterious. I would now like to pay special attention to the last underlined definition, a hidden or secret thing. Although this is listed as the word’s non-theological use, I would point out that this very definition has its foundation in scripture.
Concealed Truth
In the book of Proverbs King Solomon recorded these words,
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” (Pro. 25:2)
The word conceal is the Hebrew sathar and in this particular passage refers to the act of God concealing or hiding a thing. The words thing & matter are the same Hebrew word davar which literally means word.
There are two ways to view hiding something. Sometimes when someone hides something they do it with the intention of keeping it hidden. They hide something so that no one else will find it and only they will have access to it. I can attest to this as I hide the key to my safe with the express intention that no one finds it and breaks into my safe. Then there are the times when something is hidden with the express intent of it being found, (e.g. Easter egg hunts). We see the same behavior with God in scripture. When Moses died the Bible tells us that God “buried him in a valley in the land of Moab over against Bethpeor and no man knows of his grave unto this day” (Deut. 34:5-6). It is speculated that had the Israelites known where Moses was buried they would have mourned indefinitely and never moved on. Then again at times when He hides something He does it with every intention of it being found.
Every verse of scripture is a trail on God’s map to the treasure of his mysteries. The born again believer may certainly consider themselves royalty. Peter told us that we were a “chosen generation, a royal priesthood” (2Pet. 2:9). If not us then who should take the honor of searching out a matter? Moses said, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever…” (Deut. 29:29)
The word secret in this verse is the same Hebrew word for conceal that Solomon used. In this passage it refers to the thing hidden. The thing hidden or concealed belongs to God but once he reveals it, it belongs to us and our children forever! These treasures are ours already—All we have to do is search them out and lay claim to them!
Good Stewards
The above quotes that speak of the mystery of the Trinity state that it must be revealed to the believer by scriptural revelation, and I agree 100% with these comments. Moses seems to have agreed as well. I believe this is true for nearly every biblical doctrine and I also agree with the statement that God has left traces of his “Trinitarian being in his work of creation” but not in the same sense that many Trinitarians do. We will touch on this in just a moment.
But mysterious or not, we have to remember that as saints, we are, “The ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1Cor. 4:1). Jesus speaking to his disciples informed them that, “Unto them it was given to know the mysteries of the
Notes
[i] Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (
[ii] Henry, Jerry M, “Trinity,” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Eds. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie
[iii] “Trinity” Richards Complete Bible Dictionary, Ed. Lawrence O. Richards. (
[iv] “Trinity” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (E-Sword Bible Software Download) http://www.e-sword.net/dictionaries.html
[v] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (New York: Image Book-Doubleday, 1995) 70.
[vi] Catechism, p. 78
[vii] “Mystery” Online Etymological Dictionary, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mystery
“For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]” (Rom.
Trinitarian Presuppositions
God has declared in his Word that he is clearly seen in his creation, but from this can we conclude that there are truly representative pictures of his Tri-unity in nature? I don’t believe so for the reason that if there were, then the doctrine of the Trinity could indeed be the result of natural theology rather than special revelation. Now please do not think that I’m saying there are not things that at first glance might appear to be analogous of the Trinity, of course there are many such things and we will address them in a moment—but if we are to remain honest then we have to admit that as Christian theists we view the world through Trinitarian lenses.
We take the product of God’s special revelation which is the doctrine of the Trinity and then read it back into nature, which in reality is no different methodologically than scriptural eisegesis or let’s say anachronistically reading a 19th century Mormon belief such as eternal progression back into the 2nd-4th century Patristic writers’ reflections on theosis (deification). As keeping with the great commandment to “love the Lord with our entire mind” (Mat.
Zeal without Knowledge
Now there are many believers in the Trinity who are zealous to prove the doctrine to unbelievers or opponents, and who are also very sincere in their attempts to do so, but one of the worst things that the Trinitarian can do is draw false analogies to prove their position. I can’t tell you how many debates I’ve witnessed where a Trinitarian has relied on wrong examples and false analogies to explain the Trinity, and I can’t tell you how many times they have been called on their error. Aside from being embarrassing, it is a poor witness and simply not the truth. I can speak from experience in this area, as I have used quite a few of these analogies at times in the past, but in wanting to remain faithful to God and his Word I was forced to abandon them and rely solely on the scriptural revelation as a form of proof.
Of the many problems that these analogies present I believe that the worst is them serving as examples for positions that Trinitarians are accredited with but do not hold (i.e. tri-theism or modalism). I have a sneaking suspicion that the use of these analogies has provided anti-Trinitarians with ammunition for years in order to erect their straw man arguments which they knock down with ease. It is for this reason that I believe we need to address the issue of false analogies as Trinitarian proofs.
Love
In the 4th century Augustine used love as an example for the Trinity. The reasoning behind such an analogy seems simple enough as scripture explicitly states that ‘God is love’ (1John 4:8, 16). Augustine presented the analogy as thus:
“But love is of some one that loves, and with love something is loved. Behold, then, there are three things: he that loves, and that which is loved, and love. What, then, is love, except a certain life which couples or seeks to couple together some two things, namely, him that loves, and that which is loved? And this is so even in outward and carnal loves. But that we may drink in something more pure and clear, let us tread down the flesh and ascend to the mind. What does the mind love in a friend except the mind? There, then, also are three things: he that loves, and that which is loved, and love.”[i]
So we have the lover, the beloved, and the love itself. Norman Geisler commenting on Augustine’s illustration said, “…love does not exist unless these three are united as one. This illustration has the advantage of being personal, since it involves love, a characteristic that flows only from persons.”[ii] But when reflecting on this analogy it presents us with only two persons, the lover and the beloved. The love itself is not personal but simply an impersonal force or emotion flowing between the two. This leans toward a Jehovah’s Witness view of the Holy Spirit being an active force as opposed to the Trinitarian view of a personal Spirit.
Robert Letham also points out that, “It also implies that the Father and the Son need to be united, for love ‘seeks to couple together some two things’ [which] is in contrast to the accepted teaching of the full mutual indwelling of all three persons which Augustine does not seem to have grasped.”[iii]
The Universe
Christian apologist Matt Slick of the Christian Research and Apologetics Ministry advances an illustration of the Trinity via the Universe and it’s components on his website CARM.org. He says, “Basically, the universe consists of three elements: Time, Space, and Matter. Each of these is comprised of three 'components.'”[iv] From here he goes on to list the various components of each ‘element’ respectively (i.e. Time = Past, Present, Future; Space = Height, Width, Depth; Matter = Solid, Liquid, Gas) saying of each that they all share the same nature. He concludes by saying, “Note that there are three sets of threes. In other words, there is a trinity of trinities. If we were to look at the universe and notice these qualities within it, is it fair to say that these are the fingerprints of God upon His creation? I think so. Not only is this simply an observation, but it is also a good source for an analogy of the Trinity.”[v]
Well, I would have to disagree in saying that they are truly good sources for analogy. As stated above, at first glance they appear sound but upon further reflection they all break down in some way, shape, or form. Let’s begin with the Universe as a whole and continue through to each component.
The intimate link between time, space, and matter appears to be a good analogy of the Trinity but we have to admit that time is not the universe all by itself, neither is space, and the same is true concerning matter. Each Person of the Trinity enjoys an equal and complete ownership of the nature of deity. When we speak of any one Person we speak of God, but in speaking of any one component of the universe we are not speaking of the universe. Next as is evident with most analogies, it eliminates any personal relationship (even more so than Augustine’s analogy of Love) because the things being compared are simply not personal. At best the universe can be used to describe a triad (3 things operating as one) rather than a Trinity of Persons.
Time
Time is another seemingly good analogy of the Trinity and in my opinion perhaps the best that exists, but still it is not without its deficiencies. We all know that time consists of Past, Present, and Future. They are all equal and necessary for time to exist and function. Much like the Trinity, we view each increment of time in relation to the others. For instance past and future are only known in relation to the present. We view the past as that which was before the present and the future as that which comes after the present, yet all three increments of time are time in and of themselves.
They all share equally the essence or nature of time—these three are one yet their distinction is maintained and made known in their relationship to each other. But once again time lacks personality—the increments of time do not interact with one another on a personal level as the Persons of the Trinity do and they also do not co-inhabit one another in their distinction. The past is not in the present or the present in the past yet it is said that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (Jo.
Space
Where this analogy fails aside from the lack of personal relationship is that each is a part of the whole similar to the universe example. Now some would argue inadequacy based on the perception of two-dimensional objects which have height and width but possess no depth, but I’d point out that nothing is truly two-dimensional. If a simple square were drawn on a piece of paper and we examined it under a microscope, the lines of that would have a height, a width, and a depth, be it ever so small. But the analogy still fails for the abovementioned reasons.
Matter
Matter is probably the most commonly used false analogy, but more for the reason of scientific ignorance than blatant illogic. In the mind of most, matter consists of Solid, Liquid, and Gas, which would be three in one. I must admit that I have used this analogy many times myself, but upon researching this matter (no pun intended) I discovered that there are actually 4 dominant forms which occur naturally and a fifth form that appears via manipulation. Aside from Solids, Liquids, and Gases, we have the form of matter known as Plasma.
The Perspectives on Plasmas web site said this of plasmas,
“Plasmas are conductive assemblies of charged particles, neutrals and fields that exhibit collective effects. Further, plasmas carry electrical currents and generate magnetic fields. Plasmas are the most common form of matter, comprising more than 99% of the visible universe, and permeate the solar system, interstellar and intergalactic environments.”