Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21616
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY
Message-ID: <May.14.02.12.04.1993.25393@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 14 May 93 06:12:05 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Reply-To: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com
Lines: 40
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <May.11.02.37.09.1993.28123@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> 
|> [I fear orthodox theologians have been overly in love with paradox, to
|> the extent that well-meaning people think they've just flat-out
|> confused.  There's no problem with things being both 3 and 1, e.g.  if
|> the 3 are different parts of the 1.  ...
|> But they're in some way
|> different aspects, modes, or whatever, of one God.  If you accept
|> economic trinitarianism, it's possible that you don't have any
|> substantive difference with the standard view.  Is it possible that
|> you just don't find the neo-Platonic explanation illuminating?
|> --clh]

I would put it stronger than that.  I consider it nonsense.

Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have
any *real* existance.  "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have
any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept
invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in
other ways.

So, to attribute an 'essence' to God is to attribute to him something that
does not exist!!  Thus the orthodox Platonic formulation seems to leave
the unity of God in limbo, since it is based on a non-existant 'essence',
thus failing to avoid the very problem it was supposed to address.

Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be
secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes
of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.

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

[I think one can read Augustine as saying something consistent with
your comments.  His "De Trinitate" -- which has been very influential
in the West -- defines the distinction among the persons relationally.
You're probably at one extreme of orthodox views, but I'm not sure
your views are necessary incompatible with the Trinity.  --clh]
