Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!edwardsb
From: edwardsb@harvard.ARPA (Bill Edwards)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Trinity
Message-ID: <337@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 12:37:48 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.337
Posted: Mon Jan 28 12:37:48 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 07:22:38 EST
References: <1476@cornell.UUCP>
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 25

> From: melanie (Melanie Nesheim)
> 
> It was neat to find Chuck Hedrick using the word "aspects"
> to describe the Trinity. That's how I've thought of it for a long
> time: that there are three aspects to God, but He is still one
> being, not three beings. However, I wasn't sure how to explain it
> so it would make sense to others. Chuck did an excellent job with that,
> and with overviewing the positions of the various churches on the
> Trinity. My experience is in agreement with his overview.
>                             --Melanie

	My only problem with this terminology is that it has a tendency
towards modalism.  It looks like the Persons of the Trinity are more
than just 'aspects'--they certainly are distinguishable entities (for
lack of a better description) in the New Testament.  The paradox is
that God is one essence and three persons at the same time.  If you
don't keep this tension in perfect balance, you veer off either into
tritheism--or into a denial of the personhood of Christ and the Holy
Spirit. 

	In the end, though, one has to admit that the Trinity
is a mystery which we cannot comprehend, but which should move
us to awe.

						Bill Edwards