I'm trying to follow the conversation...what is PSA?
Was the Trinity Broken?
- Thread starter Ozias
- Start date
With regard to your article and the question that this thread was founded on I would just like to say that it is almost unbelievable that Evangelicals as a whole do not understand that the very simple answer to this is:
No, the Trinity was not broken, it is not possible.
No, the Son was not separated from the Father, it is not possible.
Now, if someone teaches to the contrary (and believe me, almost all "independent Evangelicals" teach this), then they cannot be considered Trinitarians according to the Historic Christian faith, nor do they hold to a Chalcedonian understanding of the incarnation. As has been said (perhaps by Matthias), if that is the case, they should own it. The reason they don't I believe is basically two fold:
1. They believe they do hold to the historic Christian faith regarding the Trinity and the incarnation.
2. The reason they don't understand that they teach neither (regarding #1) is ignorance.
Whether someone takes issue with these doctrines of the historic Christian faith has no bearing on whether teaching that the Trinity was broken during the crucifixion, it is two different issues. Civic, how do the people you share this with take it, what is there attitude. I have had two pastors I know become angry although they refuse to discuss it.
TheLayman
civic
Active Member
Most have been in agreement. Our senior pastor in our Thursday morning Mens discipleship group is on board and I brought it up yesterday. Two other pastors I gave my paper to them yesterday by email and I will meet with both of them after they read it. One other pastor ( my son in law ) is on board with it too. He is in my Saturday morning small group of 4 ( other 2) are elders and they are on board too.
This is the greatest argument against PSA and what led me out of Calvinism was this study.
Funny, I saw "psa" in another post and I scratched my head and as soon as I saw it in this context I saw "penal substitution atonement," don't know why my mind drew a blank earlier. And part and parcel to that is that the "punishment" Jesus endured was the Father's wrath, and I know you have seen me write before that it makes no sense that the Father directed "anger/wrath" at the Son (so you know I agree with you). The Son received "punishment" from men, He paid "the price" for our sins, He suffered for our sins, but the Father loved Him and all the Father ever saw in His Son's was perfection.
Perhaps if people learned to see the Passover sacrifice in Jesus they would begin to understand better...but for some reason they want to see a blob of sin on the cross being punished by the Father.
TheLayman
civic
Active Member
Amen my friend
Wrangler
Active Member
The juxtaposition proves the trinity never existed in the 1st place. If Jesus were God, it would be impossible for God to forsake himself.
The trinity makes a mockery of Jesus in despair. If he were God, there would be no reason for him to cry out to God, let alone his desperate question.
The trinity is broken, in concept. It never worked in practice as this study shows.
Similar threads
