St. Patrick's Bad Analogies

What people said

Cites Affable Geek · 2012-08 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “Is the concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) three Gods or One?”

Firstly, the Trinity is not Tritheism. This is the classic argument of the Muslim against Christianity, but it is not valid. It is not valid, because the formulation of the Trinity specifically states that God is one being who exists in three persons. The Athansian Creed [LINK] (a very ancient creed dating to the fourth or fifth century predating the Orthodox / Catholic / Protestant schims and accepted by at least 97% of all Christians [LINK] ) in particular states: we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Fath

Cites svidgen · 2013-07 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “Is Partialism a real heresy?”

This YouTube video [this video] identifies Partialism as a heresy. It states that Partialism is the heresy wherein The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described as 1/3 of God. To me, it's a vaguely familiar false understanding of the Trinity; but I can't find any solid information about it. Are there any historical documents, early Church writings, or documents from a major denomination (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) that assert this idea by this or any other name as a heresy or false understanding of the Trinity? If the condemnation of this idea can't be pinned directly to a historical document or Church Father, when can we reasonably assert that it was condemned, if ever?

Cites Philip Schaff · 2013-07 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “Is Partialism a real heresy?”

Update: The short answer: No; it seems that partialism is not a "real," historically defined heresy. Explanation: Before writing this post, I checked the applicable titles from among my usual textual sources -- a variety of historic theological works that are now in the public domain and available online. When that yielded no references to "partialism," I went several pages deep on various Google searches. That search turned up many pages that described "partialism," although few of them listed any references, and those that did and those that did not all seemed to have come from one of two sources: Either a page at Monergism.com on Trinitarian Heresies [LINK] , or a YouTube video entitled "

Cites Philip Schaff · 2013-07 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “Does a classic Trinitarian formulation consider God to be his own "Family"?”

Scope: This post offers an answer for the first part of the question, as I understand it: whether or not Jesus' identification of himself as the Son of God makes the Trinity an instance of Partialism. The Short Answer No, it doesn't. The fact that there is no earthly analogue for the Trinity makes it difficult to accurately describe in human language, so a certain amount of "lexical flexibility" is necessary, and theological terminology is necessary if one wants to describe the Trinity with any precision. History has affirmed this necessity. Let me try to explain... The More Detailed Answer The First Ecumenical Council The doctrine of the Trinity began to acquire some of the distinctions by

Cites Affable Geek · 2014-10 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “Understanding Trinity, is the belief that each Person has independent Will?”

The question, as it stands, really isn't soluable. Reason #1: The Crucifixion raises other Trinitarian questions First and foremost, the Trinity itself is hard enough to understand. There is no good analogy [LINK] and any attempt to make one will necessarily fail by over emphasizing oneness or threeness [this video] . Worse, the Crucifixion and death of Christ means that either Jesus was in some fashion separated from the Father were separated on the cross, or else there is the problem of Patripassianism [LINK] - meaning that the Father somehow dies too. One solution kenosis [LINK] modifies the hypostatic union to explain how Jesus can be fully God and yet somehow not able to do everything God di

Critical svidgen · 2013-07 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “Did Saint Patrick actually explain the Trinity using a shamrock?”

The shamrock is a pretty bad analogy for the Trinity. In fact, it's somewhat of a heretical explanation if one puts much emphasis on it. It's partialism: St. Patrick's Bad Analogies (YouTube) [this video] So, that in itself is good evidence that St. Patrick wouldn't (or shouldn't ) have used the shamrock to teach the Trinity. And Wikipedia provides some evidence that he didn't: The first written mention of the link does not appear until 1681, in the account of Thomas Dineley, an English traveller to Ireland. Dineley writes: The 17th day of March yeerly is St Patricks, an immoveable feast, when ye Irish of all stations and condicions were crosses in their hatts, some of pinns, some of green ribbon

Critical Matthew · 2024-07 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “What is the purpose of God (the father) if Jesus created everything; died for our sins; will be the judge on Judgment Day; and will rule afterwards?”

From a Trinitarian standpoint (note that Trinitarianism is the most prevalent branch of Christianity, and Trinitarians generally consider non-Trinitarians to be heretics), the question is nonsense. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. God is God is God. "Equality" becomes a tautology. Attempts to pin down the nature of the Trinity usually end in heresy [this video] . That said, I think Mark Vestal's Answer [LINK] here is pertinent; namely, the question is sort of like asking "if I do all my writing with my hand, why do I need a head?". Similarly, assertions such as "Jesus created everything" overlook the oneness of God and are like saying "my hand typed this sentence" ra