Your Favorite Analogy for the Trinity May Be Heretical
|The doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God, but three persons who are God.
Ultimately, no analogy will help us comprehend this doctrine. It transcends reason.
(By the way, transcending reason is not the same thing as being contrary to reason. What is contrary to reason falls within the jurisdiction of reason and is condemned by reason. What transcends reason is outside the jurisdiction of reason altogether.)
Now, I think some analogies are helpful. Augustine, for example, develops a good psychological analogy for the Trinity. But the analogies you’ve probably heard the most of are not very good. One of the most common analogies is water: Water is one thing, but it takes three forms: liquid water, water vapor, and ice.
Another common analogy is that of a person with several different roles: For example, a woman who is a mother, a daughter, and a wife all at the same time.

The Trinity is simple. God is like this pizza. There’s a crust, cheese, and tomatoes. Now listen, this is gonna blow your mind: It’s ALL THE SAME PIZZA! See, God is just like that.
Unfortunately, these analogies don’t portray orthodox Trinitarianism so much as the heresy of modalism
Modalism, also called Sabellianism after the guy who promoted this error in the early church, is the view that there is one God who reveals himself to human beings in three different roles, or three different modes: the mode of Father, the mode of Son, and the mode of Holy Spirit.
Since these analogies show how one thing can also be three things, I think they are not completely useless. The problem is that they don’t show how one thing can also be three persons. The analogy of the water shows how the same substance, water, takes three forms, or appears in three modes. The analogy of the person with three roles shows how one person can have three roles; this is a perfect illustration for modalism, but not for orthodox Trinitarianism.
It’s understandable that people would want to affirm modalism. It is easy to make sense of it–a little too easy. It reduces the mystery of the orthodox doctrine to a comfortable, easily understood concept.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with easily understood views. Most of the best views, I tend to think, are quite easily understood if we only read the right books (e.g., C. S. Lewis). The problem with this view is simply that it isn’t the correct view of the Trinity. It recognizes one God, but that’s not the whole doctrine. It doesn’t recognize three persons; it actually denies them.
For more on this, try listening to about 40 minutes of William E. Bell. The relevant lecture is available here. (But I cannot confirm that Bell is legally available here; I don’t know who owns the copyright to his lectures, or whether that person gave permission for them to be on this particular website.)
(More articles at www.ThinkingThroughChristianity.com)
Mark,
Thanks for sharing this. The site does have Dr. Bell’s permission, I assure you. Also, he is currently recovering from Wes Nile. He was hospitalized, but is now doing a little better. You may want to pray for him though.–Scott
My favorite analogy is the apple: one apple, three parts (ie. persons): skin, flesh, core. I don’t know if it’s heretical or not, but when other children were asking about their pets being in heaven and I was asking about the Trinity (probably just because we didn’t have any pets growing up), the apple analogy really helped me out. 🙂
So glad to know that, Scott!
And so sad to know that.
And so glad to know he’s doing better!
—
Renea, I’m not sure if I know enough to comment on the apple analogy; as far as I know it’s ok, i.e. not heretical or anything. It’s very similar to the legend about St. Patrick using a three-leaf clover to illustrate the Trinity.
Of course, it doesn’t illustrate three PERSONS in one GOD. But the best I’ve come up with for that is ridiculous sci-fi stuff, e.g. the episode of Stargate: Atlantis where a mishap with Wraith technology resulted in McKay and Whatshername’s consciousnesses both living in McKay’s brain: Two persons, one biological substance. Or we could pretend that a transporter mishap on the Enterprise did the same thing to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy: three consciousnesses, one body.
As with the apple, the best I can say is that as far as I know these analogies are ok.
I’m a little more confident with this, though: Never mind the analogies and just observe that personhood doesn’t always line up with substance, even in everyday human experience. I.e., people share physical space and biological substance all the time. E.g., pregnancy and blood and organ donations.