Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
But you have over complicated the question. I really wanted to understand how you , OBW, explain, in whatever terms you prefer, how only the Son died on the cross though co-existing, co-inhering, and being co-equal in divine Trinity from eternity past to eternity future.
|
And, as I said, you have defined one aspect of the Trinity in such terms that would appear not to mean what you think they mean.
Co-existing does not mean Siamese twins. It is actually so vague as to be reasonably applicable to you and me. You and I both exist. That is, in a sense, to co-exist. And the term is used often to refer to two persons, or groups of persons who are able to live in relative peace despite differences.
Yes, that is not what they mean when they use those terms for the Trinity. But what they don't mean is that the prefix "co" ceases to imply at least two and instead insists on a singular. Co-leaders both lead, not singularly lead. Co-inhabitants live together, not morph into a single being. Co-existing is to exist together. While the intent of those who decided to use this term for the Trinity was to infer a stronger connection than I have been referring to here, it was never intended to imply nothing but connection — in other words, no separation.
Your argument is one of semantics. You want to use a term and insist on how to understand it in a context in which the definition you insist upon is not implied or even reasonable.
Your argument is almost as bad as "there is only one life giving spirit." That is a falsehood constructed to drive wedges between the followers of the one who spoke the error and everyone else.
- - - -
To answer your question is truly simple. God is not simply one as is understood by modalists. He is some sort of triumvirate. Not like the three that took over after Julius Caesar. But there are three and they are also truly one. But as three they are not to be confused with each other.
As three, the Son was born in human flesh, lived a life confined to the foibles of physics, time, space, and the evil that dwells in men. He then was crucified, died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended to the heavens. During this period, he prayed to the Father. And while on the cross, the Father turned away and darkness came over the land. Jesus did not turn his face away, neither did the Father hang on the cross.
Jesus said that if you have seen him you have seen the father. How is this if they are not simply the same person? It is because the three only have one image. One representation. If Jesus is there to be seen, you have seen all there is to see physically. If you have observed how Jesus lived and spoke, you have observed how the Father and the Spirit live and speak. There is one image of the invisible God.
But that invisible God is not a singular. God did not think in his private thoughts "I will make man in my image . . . ." No, God said "Let us make man in our image." One God. One image. But a plurality of thought such that he can say "us" and "we" concerning that One God.
No. It is not necessary to understand and agree with the Athanasian creed to be saved. Agreement with it does not save you nor does disagreement with it infer you are not saved. But in its verbose way it acknowledges that the full understanding of the nature of God is not simply one way or the other. It is truly three that are truly One God. We cannot understand that. If we insist on it being fully understandable, we end out with either three Gods that manage to get along, or with one God that plays parlor tricks. Neither is correct.
The sparse accounts we get in scripture are not intended to create the meat of a trinity doctrine. They are intended to say the specific thing that they are saying at that point.
Jesus is the image of the invisible God, therefore if you have seen him you have seen God.
If you are instead wanting to talk about seeing what God is like, it is really the same. If you have seen Jesus living and speaking, you have seen and heard God in action.
Yet Jesus prays to the Father. And he does what he sees the Father doing. I will not get into a discussion of a hierarchy within the Godhead. I am satisfied that there are aspects in which they are not identical. Among them is the fact that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Not the Father and not the Spirit.
At the same time, God is spirit. As such, he is unified. Not just by decision, but fully. There is no argument within the Godhead followed by a vote in which a vote of 2 carries and the other goes along because that is what a God that is "one" does. That is truly tritheism. And that is how we got Satan. Lucifer was a completely separate being who refused his place under God and rebelled. A God that is not truly one would always be at risk of this kind of thing happening.
But the fact of that oneness, however it should properly be understood, does not remove the separateness. Jesus still prays to the Father. And to this day we approach the throne of God through Jesus, not approach the throne of Jesus. Jesus said to pray to the Father and to ask "in my name." (Not tack on an ending of words, but to truly be a representative of Christ in prayer.)
Your version of the Godhead makes so many verses meaningless or useless. It makes the words of Jesus nonsensical. ". . .pray to the Father that he send another comforter. . . ." Nonsense if they are so singular and one that the crucifixion of Jesus was the crucifixion of the Triune God and God in his entirety died on the cross.
Your definition of what it means to be Triune when speaking of the crucifixion nullifies the "tri" and makes it just a solo God. No matter how much you argue that you believe in the three, you have nullified them and made them into nothing but a singular.
Does that make you unsaved? I do not believe so. But there are many who would say so.