Trinitarian
Analogies
by John M. Frame
Much theological energy has been
spent on the interesting question of whether there are suitable analogies
in our experience for describing the Trinity. The question is
probably not as important as it is interesting. God never tells us that
we must come up with any such analogy. Rather, he simply presents the
truth in Scripture and calls us to accept it on faith.
Nevertheless, teachers of the word
of God have the general task of teaching the word to others in the clearest
and most cogent way possible. Certainly Scripture warrants
the general practice of using illustrations and analogies
in teaching. Thus, although we are not commanded specifically to find
analogies of the Trinity in human experience, the search is certainly
justified.
The problem is that the doctrine of
the Trinity has historically defied attempts to expound it according
to analogies. Some such attempts have resulted in
destructive heresies. The Trinity is very mysterious, and study of
it requires particular caution. The suggestions I make below are
not intended to carry dogmatic weight. I am only
suggesting possibilities, some suggested by others, some from my
own reflection.
1. Models
Historically, theologians have
sought basic models in creation for understanding the Trinity. Essentially
there are two kinds of models. The first is the nature of the human mind,
the second the nature of human social relationships.
The first type of model is
especially connected with the name of Augustine,
who expounded it at great length. He finds unity and threeness
in the faculties of the mind: intellect, memory, will. He also explores
the phenomena of self-knowledge, in which we find the unitary person
functioning in three ways: the knower, the
known, and the knowledge. (I would reformulate according to the categories
of DKG: the subject, the object, and the internalized norm.) He also
explored the nature of self-love: the lover, the beloved, and the love
between them.
Thomas Aquinas, although he insisted
that the Trinity was a matter of faith, not natural knowledge,
nevertheless made the above concepts of self-knowledge and self-love into
a virtual proof for the Trinity,
starting with the data of natural reason (i.e. the existence of God and
His attributes of knowledge and love).
The problem with these analogies, of
course, is that they do not account for the New Testament data, in which
the persons of the Trinity are actual centers of consciousness, entering
into various transactions with one another: the Father sends the
Son, the Son prays to the Father, the Father answers the prayers
of the Son, the Father and Son together send the Spirit. Indeed, the Augustinian/Aquinas type of model veers toward Sabellianism, a heresy which began in the western,
Latin-speaking church, and which has historically posed a particular
danger to the Latin tradition of theology. Certainly Augustine
and Aquinas were quite aware of that danger and sought to avoid it in
various ways, by various detailed distinctions. But when you stand back
and look at the big picture they present, the dangers become apparent.
The difficulty is to get sufficient distinction into a model based upon
the individual human mind. If you try to emend the model to include such
distinction, you might consider the pathology of multiple personality in
human psychology, popularly described in "The Three Faces of
Eve" and "Sybil." In these cases, there do seem to be
distinct persons living in one body. The different personalities may have
different talents, different levels of knowledge, different levels of
maturity, and they may behave very differently. Some of them may be
ignorant of the existence of the others. Yet in some situations these have
been "integrated," eventually, into one personality.
Of course, in many respects,
multiple personality is a very poor analogy of the Trinity. For example,
the mutual ignorance among the multiple personalities, indeed their
frequent multiple hostility, shows something very different from
the harmony of Father, Son and Spirit. But if we consider a
situation in which there are distinct personalities which are
entirely conscious of one another and in complete harmony, one might
have a promising illustration.
We all display different
"faces" to the world. We use different vocabularies with
different people; we write in different styles. Our sense of humor often
varies depending on whom we are with. This is not just play-acting (as on
a fully Sabellian analogy). In these variations
we display different aspects of ourselves.
Indeed, there are various situations
in which we hold internal conversations-- conversations that are not
redundant, but actually informative. Consider situations when we try
to conjure up memories of things. The memory is part of us, but it is
also something for which we search. Consider the phenomenon of dreaming:
part of us creates the dream; another part observes, and is sometimes
surprised by what transpired. Have you ever had the experience of dream
reading? One part of you creates a text; another part of you reads it.
Thus you dream that you are reading. And there are, we are told, various
transactions that take place within us from right brain to left brain and
vice versa. Sometimes (often, to be sure, in pathological cases) one part
of the brain hears a voice produced
by another part.
Again, conceive of a mind which has
infinitely more complexity than the human mind, but which is perfectly
harmonious and self-aware. Perhaps then you will have something
approaching an adequate analogy of the Trinity.
The second type of model is taken
from interpersonal relationships on the human level. This is often called
"social trinitarianism." Social trinitarians cite as their theological mentors, not Augustine, but the Cappadocian
Fathers who, one generation younger than Athanasius,
secured the acceptance of trinitarian orthodoxy
at the council of Constantinople of 381. These
were Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen,
and Gregory of Nyssa. Augustine
began with the unity of God and tried to find pluralities within the
unity; the Cappadocians, on the other hand,
started from the three persons and sought to describe various kinds of
unity among them. They began by describing the Father, and his various
motives for eternally begetting the Son and for sending forth the Spirit.
The great strength of social trinitarianism is the weakness of individual trinitarianism: the transactions between the divine
persons in the Scriptures. Its weakness is the difficulty of finding
adequate unity among the persons to justify a confession of monotheism. As
Sabellianism was a danger to Western theology,
so tritheism (particularly in its Arian
form) was a danger to the Eastern theologians.
[1]
Here, as with the
individual model, I think that godly speculation can have an edifying
function. For it may be that among human beings there is more unity than
appears on the surface. Things could be said about ESP experiences
and statements of recent scientists (supposedly based on
subatomic physics; certainly I cannot verify it) that all minds may
be united at a deep level. But more significantly, we should
reflect on the solidarity of the human race in Adam and of the elect
in Christ. Certainly this solidarity is federal and
representative. But is that all? The representative model has always
been troubled by the specter of arbitrariness. Certainly God has
a right to appoint Adam as my representative, but does
that appointment have any basis in God's justice and wisdom? I
suspect that representation is rooted in something deeper than itself.
I am not impressed with Shedd's attempt to base
this solidarity in a kind of Platonic realism, or the attempts of others
to draw metaphysical conclusions from our seminal presence in
Adam's loins. But I can't avoid the conclusion that at some level the human
race (and its successor, the Christian church) is far more "one" than might appear on the surface.
When we are in heaven, no doubt we
will retain our individual characteristics. But the earthly family will
be transcended by the people of God, so that there will be no
more marrying or giving in marriage. And the unity among that
family will be greater than that of the earthly family: a union
that will take away any potential grief over the loss of
sexual pleasure. No doubt we will share knowledge and talents on a
scale unprecedented in this life. Could such a social system be
an adequate analogy of the Trinity? It does seem to me to point
in that direction.
2. Vestigia
Vestigia Trinitatis are the marks of God's trinitarian character found in the creation. If all of
creation reflects God's invisible nature, his power and glory, is
there any way in which creation reflects the Trinity as such?
Certainly there are many phenomena
what are three in one sense, one in another (or, more broadly, one-and-many).
Saint Patrick's shamrock is as good an example as any. But are
there also phenomena which can be specifically related, in
edifying ways, to the Trinitarian unity and diversity?
Van Til
regards all the world as such a vestigium, in
its remarkable diversity-in-unity, which has baffled philosophers through
the years. They have wanted to see the universe as one, in order to gain a
comprehensive knowledge of it. If knowledge is available to man, they have
reasoned, it must be amenable to a single system of rational explanation;
and in that respect it must be one. However, it must also have
enough diversity to leave something to be explained! That diversity,
to the secular philosopher, must be, because of its very diversity, irrational. Thus the secular philosopher
is frustrated, trying to assimilate irrational data to a rational system.
Van Til says that the world is one and many, not
because it is both rational and irrational, but because it reflects the
unity and diversity in God. As such it is not possible for humans to
know it exhaustively either its rational structure or its
irreducible diversity. But we can know in part, as we submit our thoughts
to God's revelation.
I would add that in Scripture there
are many triads that reflect God's Trinitarian nature. The "Lordship
attributes," for example, correspond to the Trinitarian persons in
this way: the Father is the planner (authority); the Son
accomplishes (control); the Spirit applies (presence). Thus continues
the scheme of triads I have developed in DKG and in other
places. Note also the pattern of Jesus' offices (prophet, priest,
king), and the major benefits of salvation (justification,
adoption, sanctification).
I have speculated on other phenomena
in creation that also might suggest the relations among the persons of the Trinity. Vern Poythress has suggested the scientific
distinctions between particle, wave and field and has applied them
to linguistics (Kenneth Pike's contrast, variation,
distribution). Note also: 1. The three major human life systems:
circulation, respiration, brain-nervous system. 2. The primary colors of
the cathode-ray tube: red, green and blue. 3. The dimensions
of height, width, length. 4. The nine dimensions of some
recent physical theory: a trinity of trinities. 5. Husband, wife,
child in the family. 6. Intention, action, response. 7. Pietism, Doctrinalism, Social Action as different emphases within
the Reformed churches. 8. I, IV, V, the primary chords in music.
9. Human personalities, some of which emphasize the demand
for justice, others the expression of feelings, still others
the commitment to action. These are components of all of us,
but different people tend to stress one or