Thread: Lee's Trinity
View Single Post
Old 02-09-2017, 05:10 AM   #33
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
Default Re: Lee's Trinity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Not so fast!

If the Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist and coinhere as co-equals from eternity past to eternity future how is it possible that "The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did".
Now you are relying on human terms added to the extra-scriptural definition of the Trinity to make it so iron-clad that it cannot wiggle from your definition.

Co-exist does not mean totally and completely the same. Neither does co-equal. You are inferring beyond the definitions to arrive at something never stated. And the definitions are not as "stated in scripture" but as added as part of the efforts of humans to understand something that was not written to be understood in all ways.

If you think that the term "co-exist" is added for the purpose of making God an indivisible unit, then you are misreading the scripture. Jesus died on the cross while the Father turned his back. There is no account in which the Triune God died on the cross and simultaneously turned His back on the whole scene. It is a fabricated construct designed to arrive at a false conclusion about the nature of God. You think it sounds "logical" but only with respect to a small portion of the descriptive references to God. You force a terse understanding of the One God and dismiss the clear statements that contradict your understanding.

Either you or Evangelical made the comment about the extremes being a ditch with the truth somewhere in the middle. But this argument that the Triune God died on the cross is clearly in the ditch of the Modalist. It is an extreme that is deep into the ditch.
__________________
Mike
I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge
OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote