It is said St. Patrick once explained the Trinity to the pagan inhabitants of Ireland by using a three-leaf clover. Augustine preferred the psychological analogies of the mind, the emotions, the will, etc. as three expressions of one being. Other analogies such as a single component of water (H2O) existing in three different states (ice, liquid, vapor), or a man who exists with three distinct roles (husband, father, friend, etc.) have become popular. But actually Trinitarian analogies have now fallen out of favor.
In his systematic theology, Wayne Grudem typifies the theological posture of standard evangelical scholarship toward these type of Trinitiarian analogies. First, he debunks the adequacy of the more common analogies comparing them to ancient and modern heresies, and then summarizes: "It is best to conclude that no analogy adequately teaches about the Trinity and all are misleading in significant ways." So how does he debunk them?
Take the water analogy for example. Grudem outlines its inadequacy by showing that there are parts of the analogy that don't translate to the Trinity. For example "...no quantity of water is ever [in these states] at the same time," or "the element of intelligent personality is lacking." But this is just a misunderstanding of what an analogy does. Grudem confuses an analogy for an allegory. An allegory has lots of elements and parts that are meant to be translated and interpreted as a symbol for something else. Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory because many of the parts of the story are meant to be interpreted as a symbol of our spiritual journey. An analogy is similar, but differs in one important respect. There only needs to be one element that is translatable for an analogy to be well formed. For example, God is our rock, the bible says. This is an analogy. How is God like a rock? God is firm and immovable and trustworthy for building our life upon. But is God made of granite? Do rocks have intelligent personality? No. But I hope you can see that this doesn't mean the analogy is inadequate or misleading! That is because the true function of an analogy is more limited than what Grudem and so many others assume in this context. I am sure you can think of hundreds of biblical analogies along these lines. God is a shield. Jesus is a lamb. Paul is a drink offering. All these analogies have non-translatable features. God is not made of metal. Jesus does not produce wool from his body. Paul is not inanimate liquid. But none of those possible features mean the analogy is misleading or inadequate. No analogies, including Trinitarian ones, need to be translatable in every or even in most parts for it to be an accurate or decent analogy. It only needs at least one part.
Grudem knows this. But I'm not sure he has worked through the implications of this for Trinitarian analogies. He even knows that there are biblical words that are meant to be an analogy of the members of the Trinity. The bible says God is a Father. It also says Jesus is the Son, and the Word of God. He says they are "close to an analogy" of the Trinity. It is true they are not analogies of the doctrine of the Trinity per se, but they undoubtedly are analogies of the members of the Trinity and the inter-Trinitarian relationships. And they are faithful biblical analogies not because for instance everything that characterizes a son in a typical family is like Jesus. They are faithful analogies because one (or maybe two) characteristics of sonship match perfectly to Jesus. If we only demand this more limited role for analogies whenever we (or the bible!) use them, why then do we demand some entirely different standard from Trinitarian analogies?
In his systematic theology, Wayne Grudem typifies the theological posture of standard evangelical scholarship toward these type of Trinitiarian analogies. First, he debunks the adequacy of the more common analogies comparing them to ancient and modern heresies, and then summarizes: "It is best to conclude that no analogy adequately teaches about the Trinity and all are misleading in significant ways." So how does he debunk them?
Take the water analogy for example. Grudem outlines its inadequacy by showing that there are parts of the analogy that don't translate to the Trinity. For example "...no quantity of water is ever [in these states] at the same time," or "the element of intelligent personality is lacking." But this is just a misunderstanding of what an analogy does. Grudem confuses an analogy for an allegory. An allegory has lots of elements and parts that are meant to be translated and interpreted as a symbol for something else. Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory because many of the parts of the story are meant to be interpreted as a symbol of our spiritual journey. An analogy is similar, but differs in one important respect. There only needs to be one element that is translatable for an analogy to be well formed. For example, God is our rock, the bible says. This is an analogy. How is God like a rock? God is firm and immovable and trustworthy for building our life upon. But is God made of granite? Do rocks have intelligent personality? No. But I hope you can see that this doesn't mean the analogy is inadequate or misleading! That is because the true function of an analogy is more limited than what Grudem and so many others assume in this context. I am sure you can think of hundreds of biblical analogies along these lines. God is a shield. Jesus is a lamb. Paul is a drink offering. All these analogies have non-translatable features. God is not made of metal. Jesus does not produce wool from his body. Paul is not inanimate liquid. But none of those possible features mean the analogy is misleading or inadequate. No analogies, including Trinitarian ones, need to be translatable in every or even in most parts for it to be an accurate or decent analogy. It only needs at least one part.
Grudem knows this. But I'm not sure he has worked through the implications of this for Trinitarian analogies. He even knows that there are biblical words that are meant to be an analogy of the members of the Trinity. The bible says God is a Father. It also says Jesus is the Son, and the Word of God. He says they are "close to an analogy" of the Trinity. It is true they are not analogies of the doctrine of the Trinity per se, but they undoubtedly are analogies of the members of the Trinity and the inter-Trinitarian relationships. And they are faithful biblical analogies not because for instance everything that characterizes a son in a typical family is like Jesus. They are faithful analogies because one (or maybe two) characteristics of sonship match perfectly to Jesus. If we only demand this more limited role for analogies whenever we (or the bible!) use them, why then do we demand some entirely different standard from Trinitarian analogies?
No comments:
Post a Comment