Was the Trinity Broken?

dizerner said:
Nothing can be separated from God in a literal sense, God is in all realities for all times.

That was my whole point.
Click to expand...
I wasn't accusing you of anything, which is why I phrased it as a question. If not pantheism, is the above a description of panantheism?
 
Last edited:
civic said:
You are right though the definition/meaning of the Trinity is Tri-Unity. Separation and being forsaken is no longer Unity but brokeness, disunity, disfunction, unloving etc..
Click to expand...
My being correct about the definition doesn't mean I agree with the concept. I certainly don't agree that the separation and death of the Sin of God meant dysfunction or unloving, in fact it was a demonstration of the opposite. Calvary was a real sacrifice. The temptations Jesus faced throughout His life were very real, and He faced them at great risk knowing of Her failed to pass the test, He would have forfeited His eternal existence. Again though, you guys conflate death with eternal life, instead of seeing them as direct opposites.
 
Brakelite said:
I wasn't accusing you of anything, which is why I phrased it as a question. If not pantheism, is the above a description of panantheism?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't be panentheism either.

I wasn't in any way saying the creation was a part of God, I maintain the Creator-creation distinction.

God upholds all things and is omnipresent, so there is nothing where God is not present in some sense.
 
dizerner said:
I have a lot of problems with annihiliationism (flee the *poof* to come), but this is probably not the thread for it.
Click to expand...
Annihilation is such an inflammatory word, given to a biblical doctrine by those opposed to it I suspect. The Bible word is death. A complete cessation of life. The alternative... If one is to discard the doctrine and persist with eternal torment or some equivalent, is to accept eternal life for sinners. But you are right... Perhaps not the thread for such a discussion although it does have some significant bearing on what actually took place on Calvary, and why.
 
Brakelite said:
Annihilation is such an inflammatory word, given to a biblical doctrine by those opposed to it I suspect. The Bible word is death. A complete cessation of life. The alternative... If one is to discard the doctrine and persist with eternal torment or some equivalent, is to accept eternal life for sinners. But you are right... Perhaps not the thread for such a discussion although it does have some significant bearing on what actually took place on Calvary, and why.
Click to expand...

Look, if death alone is what is meant, than logically dying already pays for your sins.

Thus after you die, you've paid for your sins, and thus logically can enter heaven.
 
dizerner said:
Look, if death alone is what is meant, than logically dying already pays for your sins.
Click to expand...
The wages of sin is death. Yes, death paid the debt owed. But it doesn't help you because you are dead. You need a resurrection, and the only way that can be accomplished is to live the perfect life... As Jesus did. If Jesus had sinned, that some would have remained in place and the entire human race would have been irrevocably lost.
 
Ozias said:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The question shocks us-so much so that it seems to be a mystery from the start. Those of us who believe in the faithfulness and justice of God might be tempted to think that whoever asks such a question is fundamentally mistaken, and indeed that the question itself baffles our understanding of God. Why would God forsake Jesus during the course of performing his mission here on earth?

How could such a question come from Jesus who now blames God for his abandonment. Otherwise, the only possible explanation must be that this question comes from a truly pious-though mistaken-person who just feels abandoned; it is only the honest cry of someone who believes that he has been forsaken. But this question, of course, does not come from someone who has been unfaithful. It does not come from a pious person who simply isn't theologically astute enough to know better. It comes from the lips of none other than Jesus Christ.

It comes from the only one who has been utterly faithful. It comes from the one of whom the Father said, "This is my beloved son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (Mt 3:17). It comes from the one who is the eternal Logos (Jn 1:1), the second person of the Trinity. So these words ring out like a thunderbolt. My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?

Lots of us Christians understand this as nothing less than a scream of total desperation, and we do not hesitate to take this cry as anything less than an expression of a complete and total rupture in the life of the triune God. It is very common, especially among conservative evangelical Christians who strongly defend the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's atoning work, to hear statements such as the following.

The Father rejected the Son. As he exhausted his wrath upon the Son, the Father completely abandoned the Son. The Father hid his face from the Son. Jesus "became sin." Therefore the Father's wrath was poured out on Jesus. The Father turned away from the Son. The physical pain Christ suffered in his passion was nothing in comparison to the spiritual and relational pain that Christ endured as he was separated from his Father. God cursed Jesus with damnation. The eternal communion between the Father and the Son was ruptured on that fateful day. The Trinity was broken.

Jesus seems to be quoting from Psalm 22, which begins with apparent despair but ends in confidence and hope: could this be important? Must we say that the Father-Son relationship was ruptured? Indeed, can we even say that the Trinity was broken-or or are there troubling implications of such a claim?
Click to expand...

I think you gotta look at Psalm 22 as you say... I don't believe it is abandonment..because how can God not be God? I think it is as you say the cry of anguish of pain...but the forsaking not meaning He is no longer God...but the full weight of sin on Jesus.. Him taking it all. Not that He ever ceased to be fully God
 
Ozias said:
The Father rejected the Son. As he exhausted his wrath upon the Son, the Father completely abandoned the Son. The Father hid his face from the Son. Jesus "became sin." Therefore the Father's wrath was poured out on Jesus. The Father turned away from the Son. The physical pain Christ suffered in his passion was nothing in comparison to the spiritual and relational pain that Christ endured as he was separated from his Father. God cursed Jesus with damnation. The eternal communion between the Father and the Son was ruptured on that fateful day. The Trinity was broken.

Jesus seems to be quoting from Psalm 22, which begins with apparent despair but ends in confidence and hope: could this be important? Must we say that the Father-Son relationship was ruptured? Indeed, can we even say that the Trinity was broken-or or are there troubling implications of such a claim?
Click to expand...

The main essential thing is, that whatever is the true and just judgment for sin, is what Jesus had to have experienced for us.

It cannot be different than God's judgment on sinners apart from Christ, or God will have two differing standards of justice.

So although a few technical points (like an idea of literal separation) may be inaccurate, we are trying to describe hell here.
 
Was the Trinity Broken?

KJV Revelation 1:18
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus did not make-believe death. He didn't half die.. one part in the grave and the other in heaven. That isn't death. That isn't a sacrifice.

KJV Romans 5:10
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

KJV Romans 6:3-5
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

What does baptism mean to you? That only part of you died in Christ, while you retained the 'spirit' that lived on as a separate entity, presumably sinless seeing it went to heaven right? Do you not see the contradictions in the theology of a United trinity that cannot be separated? Do you not see the contradictions in the theology that Christ never fully died for you?
 
Brakelite said:
Was the Trinity Broken?

KJV Revelation 1:18
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus did not make-believe death. He didn't half die.. one part in the grave and the other in heaven. That isn't death. That isn't a sacrifice.

KJV Romans 5:10
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

KJV Romans 6:3-5
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

What does baptism mean to you? That only part of you died in Christ, while you retained the 'spirit' that lived on as a separate entity, presumably sinless seeing it went to heaven right? Do you not see the contradictions in the theology of a United trinity that cannot be separated? Do you not see the contradictions in the theology that Christ never fully died for you?
Click to expand...
I wrote an article that addresses this in great detail. Its in this thread. I will be sharing some of it this morning at our mens discipleship group at our church at 5am. Getting ready to go there now.

 
civic said:
I wrote an article that addresses this in great detail. Its in this thread. I will be sharing some of it this morning at our mens discipleship group at our church at 5am. Getting ready to go there now.

Click to expand...
So. I started reading, and immediately came upon a problem. You have started your entire thesis with an assumption, and I presume base your discussion and conclusions on that assumption. I think you should start with something absolute that God has revealed, and work from there.
What is the assumption? The trinity. There is no systematic explanation of the Godhead in scripture. There is no doctrine... Teaching... That explains how God is comprised, how He relates to the holy Spirit and His Son, nor how the unity spoken of in scripture is in fact accomplished and expressed. While no single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact by Bible writers and mentioned several times. Only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity.
If one was to take from scripture only what scripture reveals and no assumptions added, one would still end up with three Divine persons... That one would call those three a Trinity is one of those assumptions,I prefer Godhead.... That those three Divine persons somehow comprise the one God is also scriptural, for each one is clearly Divine yet we are told there is but one God.
The problem we have is not with the above apparent contradiction, but with our finite feeble sin affected fallen minds attempting to define what God has not revealed. We try to explain how those three can be one... And we cannot explain it. No-one can. And God doesn't expect us to.
The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such. This is what took place in the early centuries of the Papacy after several councils finally settled on what they believed to be a definition of the trinity.


Interestingly, we have very few records of what Arians actually believed, and they are held and revealed to us by the enemies of Arianism, in the Catholic church. The definition also of Arianism, and by extension it is presumably shared by Arius himself, though we have no proof of that, is based on the teachings of their enemies. Convenient right,? What we do have which is revealing is a creed personally written by the evangelist to the Gothic nations, Wulfilas. The Goths, after their conversion, were reported to have the most ordered society and cleanest and well mannered peoples of their day. They were of course, charged with Arianism and called heretics by the church, and hunted down and eventually wiped out by Rome's partners, secular armies.
Here is Wulfilas creed. This is what he taught the Goths, and is what they accepted as truth. Wulfilas by the way translated the scriptures into the Gothic language. You decide if this is Arian, or orthodox Christianity. What it isn't is Trinitarian. And that some have Rome cause to vent their hatred against them.

I, Wulfila, bishop and confessor, have always believed in this way [ 17 ] and it is in this one true faith that I will go to the Lord: I believe in one God the Father, only un begotten and invisible, and in his only begotten Son, our Lord and our God, maker and author of every creature who has no similarity. Therefore, there is only one God of all, the Father, who is also the God of our God [Jesus Christ], and one Holy Spirit, illuminating and sanctifying virtue (...) who does not is neither God nor Lord, but a faithful minister of Christ, not equal, but submissive and obedient in everything to the Son; and that the Son is subject and obedient in all things to his God, yet similar [ 18 ]to God the Father; God begot everything by Christ and organized all things by the Holy Spirit.
 
dizerner said:
I don't understand your point.

Even a non-Trinitarian can still believe in PSA.
Click to expand...
I should have used Godhead, not Trinity and no one can know anything about the Plural God of scripture. God hides His attributes and character from us. The Holy Spirit in us cannot teach us the deep things of God. Who would have thunk it lol. If God is unknowable toss away your Bible.
 
Brakelite said:
So. I started reading, and immediately came upon a problem. You have started your entire thesis with an assumption, and I presume base your discussion and conclusions on that assumption. I think you should start with something absolute that God has revealed, and work from there.
What is the assumption? The trinity. There is no systematic explanation of the Godhead in scripture. There is no doctrine... Teaching... That explains how God is comprised, how He relates to the holy Spirit and His Son, nor how the unity spoken of in scripture is in fact accomplished and expressed. While no single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact by Bible writers and mentioned several times. Only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity.
If one was to take from scripture only what scripture reveals and no assumptions added, one would still end up with three Divine persons... That one would call those three a Trinity is one of those assumptions,I prefer Godhead.... That those three Divine persons somehow comprise the one God is also scriptural, for each one is clearly Divine yet we are told there is but one God.
The problem we have is not with the above apparent contradiction, but with our finite feeble sin affected fallen minds attempting to define what God has not revealed. We try to explain how those three can be one... And we cannot explain it. No-one can. And God doesn't expect us to.
The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such. This is what took place in the early centuries of the Papacy after several councils finally settled on what they believed to be a definition of the trinity.


Interestingly, we have very few records of what Arians actually believed, and they are held and revealed to us by the enemies of Arianism, in the Catholic church. The definition also of Arianism, and by extension it is presumably shared by Arius himself, though we have no proof of that, is based on the teachings of their enemies. Convenient right,? What we do have which is revealing is a creed personally written by the evangelist to the Gothic nations, Wulfilas. The Goths, after their conversion, were reported to have the most ordered society and cleanest and well mannered peoples of their day. They were of course, charged with Arianism and called heretics by the church, and hunted down and eventually wiped out by Rome's partners, secular armies.
Here is Wulfilas creed. This is what he taught the Goths, and is what they accepted as truth. Wulfilas by the way translated the scriptures into the Gothic language. You decide if this is Arian, or orthodox Christianity. What it isn't is Trinitarian. And that some have Rome cause to vent their hatred against them.

I, Wulfila, bishop and confessor, have always believed in this way [ 17 ] and it is in this one true faith that I will go to the Lord: I believe in one God the Father, only un begotten and invisible, and in his only begotten Son, our Lord and our God, maker and author of every creature who has no similarity. Therefore, there is only one God of all, the Father, who is also the God of our God [Jesus Christ], and one Holy Spirit, illuminating and sanctifying virtue (...) who does not is neither God nor Lord, but a faithful minister of Christ, not equal, but submissive and obedient in everything to the Son; and that the Son is subject and obedient in all things to his God, yet similar [ 18 ]to God the Father; God begot everything by Christ and organized all things by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Even if I agree with your critique it doesn't prove I'm wrong.

You say I made an assumption a presupposition. Even if I concede that is the case the paper proved the presuppositions are correct.

If I wrote a paper declaring in the OP- the earth is a sphere ( an assumption ) then spend the rest of the paper stating why the earth is a sphere with evidence proving it then my assumption was correct. The same with my paper on the Tri-Unity of God in the atonement. I could rename it the Unity of the Godhead in the Atonement or the Unity of the Plural God in the Atonement or the Unity of the One God- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Atonement. All which carry the same exact meaning with my paper

hope this helps !!!
 

Similar threads

Rory Wilson
The Trinity and the Incarnation
2 3
Replies
56
Views
698
Runningman
Runningman
Cyrus
Your Views on The Trinity
34 35 36
Replies
713
Views
7K
Peterlag
Peterlag
civic
God is Love
Replies
17
Views
139
Studyman
S
Rowan
The Trinity The Touchstone of Truth
26 27 28
Replies
551
Views
5K
101G
101G
P
Proof of the Deity of Jesus on display in answering prayer.
Replies
4
Views
65
101G
101G
Back
Top Bottom