So, a little context: My wife and I have been discussing recently how we both agree that we should avoid even trying to express the Trinity in an analogy because it usually leads to heresy. Ice-water-vapor (modalism) is a common one. Then today our preacher was talking about it in a very unhelpful, cringe worthy way.
This got my wife and me talking again. An analogy we like is a light source, its light, and its heat. A video by Tekton Apologetics on Youtube called “Try-outs for the Trinity” suggest this as the best analogy but also admits reasons to why it isn’t perfect, as no perfect analogy exists. This, however, without the admission of why it doesn’t work, is arguably Arianism, that Jesus and the Spirit were created. That’s heresy. I would never tell this analogy to anyone, so it isn’t very useful to me.
Then my wife said that if only it could be another quality of an eternal light, not the source…
What occured to me was the radiance (or intensity, or brilliance) of the light, the warmth of the light, and the reflection (?) of the light. The brilliance being a quality of the Father (shining, radiating), the warmth being the Spirit by which we experience or “feel” the light, and the reflection being the Son. Reflection is only observed upon its interaction with an object, so something about that idea seems fitting for Jesus, as He is the point in which God bridged the gap between Him and us.
I think the main problem here that I see is that it seems like maybe the three are a part of the light, forming the light. That’s at least arguable, though not necessary as I think it conveys that the three qualities share the same essence of being light while being distinct from each other. I dunno.
Do you think this could be helpful? What problems do you see with it?