Re: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthr...8540#post28540

Athanasian,

I have a question regarding one of your statements. In the above-cited post (under “The Dual Nature of Christ” thread), you quote Calvinist:

---begin quote---
02-09-2003 @ 10:54 PM
Calvinist:

Water is the same substance no matter the form. This is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity claims: Father, Son, Holy Ghost are same in substance and power. Therefore, it does not violate the law of non-contradiction.
---end quote---


And then you say:


---begin quote---
This is a classic example of the poor reasoning which results from people not understanding the Trinity.

The same volume of water never exists in all three forms simultaneously. If you take a gallon of water, you cannot find conditions under which it will be a gallon of solid, a gallon of liquid, and a gallon of gas - and still only have a gallon of water.

But when you consider the Trinity, you have the same 'volume' (the ousia, in this case), which exists in three persons. The Godhead is 100% Father, 100% Son, and 100% Holy Spirit.

The Creeds make this utterly clear. Each one is 'very God', but there is only one God.

It's analogies like the one which you have drawn which get Trinitarians laughed at. Please, forget trying to draw analogies from the comprehensible to illustrate or 'prove' the incomprehensible. It cannot be done.
---end quote---

I’m confused by a comment you made, that “the same volume of water never exists in all three forms simultaneously.” Could you comment further on this. You’re just saying that you cannot magically multiply water to get 3 gallons, right?
If that is all you are saying, then it’s irrelevant to the point that Calvinist was making.

I personally think the water analogy is great for illustrating how one can have one (water) and three (solid, liquid, gas) all existing at the same time. I have used it in the past and will continue in the future unless I see a reason not to. By the way, liquid water is “100% water” ice is “100% water” and gaseous water is “100% water” so I fail to see what point you were even trying to make.

Oh, and if you’re going to make comments like “This is a classic example of the poor reasoning which results from people not understanding the Trinity.” you better be prepared to back up such a statement. :)

Brian

Today @ 07:23 PM post located here
BrianB:
I’m confused by a comment you made, that “the same volume of water never exists in all three forms simultaneously.” Could you comment further on this. You’re just saying that you cannot magically multiply water to get 3 gallons, right?

No, I am saying that if you have one gallon of water, it cannot be one gallon of ice, one gallon of liquid, and one gallon of gas simutaneously.

But that is the Trinity - God is one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit, but still one God.

[qoote]I personally think the water analogy is great for illustrating how one can have one (water) and three (solid, liquid, gas) all existing at the same time.[/quote]

One volume of water cannot exist as one volume of liquid, solid, and gas simultaneously.

By the way, liquid water is “100% water” ice is “100% water” and gaseous water is “100% water” so I fail to see what point you were even trying to make.

Fallacy of equivocation. I'n not arguing that ice, liquid water and water vapour cannot all three be '100% water', I am saying that one volume of H20 cannot be one gallon of liquid, one gallon of solid, and one gallon of gas simultaneously.

If you can give me a one gallon bucket which contains one gallon of liquid, one gallon of ice, and one gallon of gas, then you'll be making a point.

Oh, and if you’re going to make comments like “This is a classic example of the poor reasoning which results from people not understanding the Trinity.” you better be prepared to back up such a statement. :)

It's a self evident fallacy of equivocation. Like the egg one.

I agree with Athanasian on this. I believe the water illustration actually fits Mormon theology better than trinitarianism. One molecule of water CANNOT be in all three phases AT THE SAME TIME. Liquid, Steam and Ice can all exist at the same time and they can all be "water" but they are not the SAME water. Thus, one could argue from an LDS viewpoint that the Father, Son and Spirit are all "God" but they are not the same God, they are different Gods, all made of the same essence, and they could use the water illustration to demonstrate it. (And I am not an LDS expert so maybe this doesn't fit their belief either. Any LDS around? Does this fit Modalism?)

However, just because the illustration is not perfect does not mean it is not useful. It is far better than the "egg" illustration as the egg yolk is NOT the same substance as the shell and white. The "water" illustration helps people visualize the different "phases", if you'll permit me to borrow language from the illustration, that God is in. To my knowledge there is no physical way one can illustrate the Trinity but this is not necessarily a requirement for the belief. The aceptance should rest on the Bible and not an illustration.

Maybe we need to combine the two analogies.

Of course, as Reasonable indicated, there are no 100% accurate analogy when trying to describe the Trinity. I think that each analogy only works with a great deal of explanation of its limitations and what each one is trying to prove.

I have always had trouble with any analogy due to the inherent weakness in all of them. But, why should we limit ourselves to just one analogy? There are strengths in each one and if used in combination could be a very strong explanation for something our poor finite minds still cannot grasp.

PuritanD

Yesterday @ 08:29 PM post located here
Reasonable:

I agree with Athanasian on this. I believe the water illustration actually fits Mormon theology better than trinitarianism. One molecule of water CANNOT be in all three phases AT THE SAME TIME. Liquid, Steam and Ice can all exist at the same time and they can all be "water" but they are not the SAME water. Thus, one could argue from an LDS viewpoint that the Father, Son and Spirit are all "God" but they are not the same God, they are different Gods, all made of the same essence, and they could use the water illustration to demonstrate it. (And I am not an LDS expert so maybe this doesn't fit their belief either. Any LDS around? Does this fit Modalism?)

Spot on.

== I believe the water illustration actually fits Mormon theology better than trinitarianism.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I would say the three are one substance in a manner which three glasses of water contain the same substance. But they are still three distinct glasses. The three states of matter explanation is just an analogy offered by Trinitarians to try making sense of an obvious paradox. Of course, there is no reason outside the creedal professions, to believe the Godhead is of one homoousia in a manner comparable to water, ice and steam. So logically speaking, the analogy itself proves nothing unless one can make such a relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, stick biblically.

Of course problems will only occur when we begin to import non-biblical terms into Christian theology ( i.e. substance, persons, essence, generated, eternally begotten) and then read them into the Bible as if this theology was present in the NT. Each one requires qualification and definition which the Bible doesn't offer. This is a major reason why it took centuries for the early Church to decide on the nature of the Godhead.

Re:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthr...6264#post46264

Athanasian,

By your statements:

---begin quote---
I am saying that if you have one gallon of water, it cannot be one gallon of ice, one gallon of liquid, and one gallon of gas simutaneously.

But that is the Trinity - God is one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit, but still one God.
---end quote---

and

---begin quote---
If you can give me a one gallon bucket which contains one gallon of liquid, one gallon of ice, and one gallon of gas, then you'll be making a point.
---end quote---

By these statements it seems to me you are saying:

God is one X and three X in the same way that
Water is one Y (volume) and three Y (volumes) [given your “give me” request]

Have I misunderstood you, or is this what you really believe? I want to have clarification on this before I proceed further.

Thanks,
Brian

---
Side Note

It would be better for you to use “mass of water” and not volume. I’m pretty sure I could take one gallon of water and get one gallon of liquid-water and one gallon of gaseous-water out of it in a two-gallon container. Use mass instead. Then the statement would be more technically correct.

If you can give me a one gallon bucket which contains one gallon of liquid, one gallon of ice, and one gallon of gas, then you'll be making a point.

..you'll more like be making an analogy to tritheism.

Yeah- the water/Trinity analogy is way more modalistic than trinitarian- but that being said, technically there is a nanosecond of time where water being frozen is both liquid and solid- and the same (liquid and vapor) for water being brought to a boil! The argument is still antiquated in light of other analogies we can use based in physics or whatever...

I believe the Trinity is spiritually discerned in regards to the understanding of the biblical doctrine. Knowing the fact from scripture is a different story. ATs often ask me to 'explain' the Trinity to them. I simply request, in turn, that they explain to me precisely how an apple tastes without using the words "like", "as" etc,. Bottom line, you know the Trinity, you just can't explain it with any sufficient analogy. Precisely why I don't waste my time doing so.

03-28-2003 @ 08:40 AM post located here
Kevin W. Graham:
I would say the three are one substance in a manner which three glasses of water contain the same substance. But they are still three distinct glasses.

The problem here is that this is not the Trinity. Three separate glasses are three separate entities, even if they are made of the same stuff.

It's like having three different people - all made of flesh, but all distinct beings. You have just given yourself three gods - three distinct entities with their own unshared substance. The fact that they are made of the same stuff does not make them a Trinity anymore than the fact that I can find two other people who are made of the same stuff as me makes us a Trinity.

There is no sharing of the substance in your model, therefore you have three separate beings - three gods.

Yesterday @ 02:28 PM post located here
TBush:
Yeah- the water/Trinity analogy is way more modalistic than trinitarian- but that being said, technically there is a nanosecond of time where water being frozen is both liquid and solid- and the same (liquid and vapor) for water being brought to a boil!

You are talking about the so called 'triple-point' of water. This phenomenon is badly misunderstood. It is not a case of the same mass of water existing in two states (this is physiucally impossible), it is a case of one mass of liquid water and one mass of solid water (ice), existing in the same environment.

It is not a good analogy for the Trinity, because it requires two different masses. The Trinity requires one mass in three different states simultaneously. This is impossible for anything physical.

"It is not a good analogy for the Trinity, because it requires two different masses. The Trinity requires one mass in three different states simultaneously. This is impossible for anything physical."

Yup- that's why I said it's antiquated (not to mention just silly) to use the water analogy when trying to explain the Trinity. What are you- smart or something?

That is a very bad analogy, and I cringe when I hear it used.

Amen.

== The problem here is that this is not the Trinity. Three separate glasses are three separate entities, even if they are made of the same stuff.

True. But why is this a problem? It might not be the creedal Trinity, but it is certainly biblical.

== It's like having three different people - all made of flesh, but all distinct beings.

Exactly. The only way to have three people in on being is to have a schizophrenic being.

== You have just given yourself three gods - three distinct entities with their own unshared substance.

Depends on how you define gods. I'd say I just described the Godhead. A term unlike trinity, persons, substance, etc., is actually biblical.

== The fact that they are made of the same stuff does not make them a Trinity anymore than the fact that I can find two other people who are made of the same stuff as me makes us a Trinity. There is no sharing of the substance in your model, therefore you have three separate beings - three gods.

Which is essentially what the Bible, along with the earliest church fathers taught. They are one God in purpose, but three distinct entities for sure. God is not schizophrenic. Christ is subordinate to the Father and always will be. He isn't subordinate to his other personality of his same entity. Of course this was all worked out trhough the centuries of creeds, but that only makes it Orthodoxy, not biblical. Strict monotheism, which denies other deities in existence, has been proven false and was only one of many fallacious reasons teh church Fqwtahers moved towards a concept of the Trinity. Somehow trying to reconcile the problem of monotheism ye teh distinctions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So they came up witrh the "persons" argument and then swept all the ambiguity under the carpet and stamped it "Mystery of God."

Which is fine I suppose. But don't be surprised when others don't find this too convincing. Especially if they don't come from a Trinitarian upbringing.

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"