When I was still a student, I had a trinitarian professor for a class who was adamant about not using analogies for the Trinity. Under no circumstances, he told us, was it ever acceptable to use them. Why? Because they are all false and by using them we would be misleading our congregations and bearing false witness to the Triune God. Those are strong words, and they made quite an impression on me.
JAT, generally speaking, doesn’t know that and frequently uses them. Listen for them and we hear trinitarians unknowingly teaching against the doctrine (and the deity) they sincerely profess belief in.
This is captured in an article titled “‘The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo’… And Other Stupid Statements” by another trinitarian, Dr. C. Michael Patton.
“Alternate title: ‘Trinitarian Heresy 101’
‘The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts one thing.’ Ever heard that? How about this, ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.’ Or how about THIS, ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.’ But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.’
Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them.
Ever.
Explanation coming … Hang with me. …
With this in mind, let me now cover the ‘stupid statements’ and why they don’t pass the test.
1.
The Trinity is like 3-in-1 shampoo. This can only lead to modalism or tritheism …
2.
The Trinity is like an egg. This is most definitely tritheism. …
3.
The Trinity is like water. This is a modalistic illustration. …
4.
The Trinity is like a four leaf clover. This is a form of tritheism. …
5.
The Trinity is like a man who is simultaneously a father, son, and husband. This is an often used illustration, but it only serves to present a modalistic understanding of God that is false. …
6.
The Trinity is like a person who is one, yet has a spirit, soul, and a body. This one, like the first, can commit either a tritheistic or modalistic error, but cannot be used to illustrate the orthodox definition of the Trinity. …
In the end, I do not believe there are any true to life illustrations that can or should be used to teach or describe the Trinity. The Trinity is not a contradiction (i.e. one God who eternally exists as three separate Gods), but it is most definitely a paradox (a truth that exists in tension). …
One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, ‘I get it! or ‘Now I understand!’ that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly passed into one of the errors that we seek to avoid.
Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.”
"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
JAT. Unwittingly, and unknowingly, a heretic.
How about that, Theology fans?