From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen) Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY Reply-To: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com Lines: 40 In article , 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]