Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - Became or Not Became

Cal · 07-29-2014, 11:21 AM

Orthodox trinitarianism says: The Son is God, not in part but in whole. It says, the Spirit is God, not in part but in whole. It also says, the Son is not the Spirit. This is a big part of traditional orthodox trinitarianism. They like to point out the distinction between the Son and the Spirit, to the point of saying one is NOT the other.

Now, the Bible never says that it is wrong to say one is the other. What it does is describes them in some way distinct and coexisting. Jesus calls the Spirit "another Comforter," meaning another other than him existing alongside.

Further, let's do some experimental math.
The Son is the whole God
The Spirit is the whole God
The Son is not the Spirit
Therefore, the whole God is not the whole God.
Whoops!

So I'm going to say something which may be controversial (I can only hope): Saying the Son is NOT the Spirit, as a flat, final, bottom line fact, is a much an error as saying the Son IS the Spirit, as a flat, final, bottom line fact. Both statements are misleading, which is why both should be avoided.

If the Son is God and the Spirit is God and there is only one God then in some way the Son is the Spirit. Saying otherwise can never make any sense in any dimension. I'm sorry, it can't. But if the Spirit is "another" than the Son, then in some way the Son is not the Spirit.

The question is what are the "ways." That we don't know. We can speculate. And some speculation makes more sense to me than others. But we don't know for sure.

What I do believe is that the old definition of the Trinity that flatly says "The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit" is as bad as saying "the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit." Both should generally be avoided.

But, again, 1 Cor 15:45 is not about this. It is about the humanity of Christ in resurrection.

07-29-2014, 11:21 AM	#320
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: "Become" or "Not Become" Interpreting 1Cor 15:45 Orthodox trinitarianism says: The Son is God, not in part but in whole. It says, the Spirit is God, not in part but in whole. It also says, the Son is not the Spirit. This is a big part of traditional orthodox trinitarianism. They like to point out the distinction between the Son and the Spirit, to the point of saying one is NOT the other. Now, the Bible never says that it is wrong to say one is the other. What it does is describes them in some way distinct and coexisting. Jesus calls the Spirit "another Comforter," meaning another other than him existing alongside. Further, let's do some experimental math. The Son is the whole God The Spirit is the whole God The Son is not the Spirit Therefore, the whole God is not the whole God. Whoops! So I'm going to say something which may be controversial (I can only hope): Saying the Son is NOT the Spirit, as a flat, final, bottom line fact, is a much an error as saying the Son IS the Spirit, as a flat, final, bottom line fact. Both statements are misleading, which is why both should be avoided. If the Son is God and the Spirit is God and there is only one God then in some way the Son is the Spirit. Saying otherwise can never make any sense in any dimension. I'm sorry, it can't. But if the Spirit is "another" than the Son, then in some way the Son is not the Spirit. The question is what are the "ways." That we don't know. We can speculate. And some speculation makes more sense to me than others. But we don't know for sure. What I do believe is that the old definition of the Trinity that flatly says "The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit" is as bad as saying "the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit." Both should generally be avoided. But, again, 1 Cor 15:45 is not about this. It is about the humanity of Christ in resurrection.