Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21582
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re:Major Views of the Trinity
Message-ID: <May.13.02.31.12.1993.1566@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 13 May 93 06:31:12 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Reply-To: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com
Lines: 31
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <May.9.05.41.12.1993.27549@athos.rutgers.edu>, Bocher writes:
|> 
|> It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to 
|> explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water.
|> Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor.
|> Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.

This sounds to me like a sort of generic modalism (in the the three phases
of water are but different modes of behavior of the same physical stuff).
It certainly does not seem to me to describe the orthodox position.

[Of course, I suppose that the medieval view of water may have been
different, but now we know that the phases of water are just different
*behaviors* of the same physical stuff - different modes, not different
identities - but perhaps the medieval people did not know that].

|> And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I
|> also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three
|> ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and
|> an employee in a business.

This is clearly Modalistic Monarchianism, since these three aspects depend
solely on point of view, and are do not really represent actual variety
within the person.

Do you now begin to see why 

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
