Continued Debate Reviews

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Debate Reviews, Blog Posts, and Upcoming Jumbo DL

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line. We press on with our study of two different debates the Fernandes Comas debate on Reform theology and the Perkins slick debate on oneness theology on Thursday.

Lord willing we'll do another jumbo DL and I just finished queuing up in fact the audio from Dirk Junkin's and his Discussion of a very interesting element of Bart Ehrman's arguments. I Linked this in the Monday miscellaneous article yesterday.

It's a three and a half hour Seminar worth dirt with Dirk Junkin was the second speaker the first was Peter J Williams and the last was Simon gother Cole and Just excellent excellent material doesn't you know when I you know People sometimes think in all black and white categories.

It's sort of like what's going on with the with certain Wars going on the blogosphere right now. People will not allow for nuance or anything else and when they when I When I when I recommend something well, I remember mr. Kenny, mr Mr Kenny thought that since I recommended the New King James as an excellent translation of its underlying text that it therefore follows That I agree with everything the New King James Says about everything and so it's different than anything else that I you couldn't possibly recommend two Bibles that are not absolutely identical.

See, it's that kind of utter incapacity to rationally think and to recognize categories that that Unfortunately is out there a lot and so when people Will hear me you say wow you you said I should listen to that but do you agree with every single thing that Peter Williams or Dirk Junkin or Simon gothical said in that or said in anything they've ever written.

And you just want to go. No, actually, but that really wouldn't follow would it. Anyway, it's good stuff. And if you didn't read the Monday miscellaneous blog post, I Would highly recommend that to you in in passing.

So anyway, we will take a look at will listen to what Dirk Junkin had to say and I'll expand on it. I thought it was pretty clear. But I'd like to give you a few more details on it because ironically this was a point I a I should have thought to raise this.

Because I reread the orthodox Christian corruption of Scripture prior to our debate. I should have thought to raise that in the the Q &A section and I didn't but it was something that I had come up with back in the 90s.

Ironically in response to guess what King James only ism and a lot of people are surprised. There is a direct connection between King James only ism and Bart Ehrman. Now you would think those two would be on the far end of the spectrum.

But they are but the spectrum is like a circle and they it spins around almost comes to the same point again. Because fundamentally they they have the same erroneous presupposition and that is. That if God inspired the scriptures we would have one photocopied version of it they both assume that now the King James only guy says I will take the King James and Bart Ehrman says ah, there is none.

So I reject the Bible. But both assumptions the assumptions that both make that one assumption both things are in error. So we'll take a look at that on on Thursday Lord willing. So that will be the extra half hour that we do at that point.

Okay, so let's get back into the friend Fernandez comas debate. We are Phil Fernandez has finished his opening statement. So I haven't heard back from you Phil. I've sent you an email. I'd love to hear back from you.

Especially on the William Lane Craig stuff. I keep forgetting to send it, you know. Normally when you resend the email with a second attempt type thing that normally I gets my attention. Anyways, I'm so far behind and by the way, if you're waiting on emails for me, I'm I've got 55 and yeah, and You know, I have so I feel so good when I get it down below 10.

It's like ah, man I got weight off my shoulders and then It comes in and something happens and you get farther and farther behind and it gets really really ugly and that's just the way it is alright, so Phil Fernandez has finished his opening statement and now we have the rebuttal period and That once you get into the rebuttals and the questions and stuff you get into some more of the really important stuff.

So let's let's pick it up.

Romans 9, Divine Sovereignty, and Election

Just a few things I like to say here. He mentioned Romans 9 and you look at Romans 9 10 and 11. Paul's answering the question. Well if salvation is your faith in Christ and how many then how can the Jews be the chosen nation of God and so many Of them reject Christ.

He's not answering the question. Hey, I'm gonna solve for you predestination and free will.

Except to answer that question is to address the issue. I Agree completely wholeheartedly I agree with John Piper When he said years and years ago the key of this text is the very question that is raised at the beginning of chapter 9 And the statement the key statement They are not all of Israel who are of Israel and his discussion of what that means.

That is exactly right. But to answer the question Paul's response is to go through the history of that promise once it was given and God's sovereignty in the application of those promises in Individual lives all the way through.

Yes, he deals with nations, but he deals with nations as Representatives for example Pharaoh. Yeah, I wouldn't have wanted to been one of Pharaoh's soldiers gets drowned the Red Sea I wouldn't have wanted to have been one of the firstborn in Egypt all the rest that stuff but the point of Romans 9 is I raised you up for this very purpose that in you I might demonstrate my power and so there is a direct application to these particular subjects that comes directly out of.

The very argument that Paul makes in Romans chapter 9, but in the process of answering that question He does touch on things. He says God is sovereign. He's the one who makes the choice of who gets saved.

I agree with that.

God but how can he agree with that? I'm sorry, but a Molinist Explanation of this that that doesn't follow. Because the only choice God makes in Molinism is to actuate a particular world. The particulars of that world are presented to God based upon middle knowledge not upon the good pleasure of his will and There's a vast difference.

I would argue between the good pleasure of God's will and the limitations provided by middle knowledge. Are those the same thing? I Cannot possibly see how they are righteous.

What he does is righteous because it's in accordance with his goodwill. I agree with that. Paul also says that the Old Testament predicted that many of the Jews would stumble over Christ and That many of the Jews would be lost.

So it was nothing to be Surprised about. But Paul closes Romans 9. With these passages verses, I'll at least read verses 30 to 32. What shall we say then that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained to righteousness even the righteousness of faith?

But Israel Pursuing the law of righteousness has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why. And then he explains why they're not elect. Why. Because they did not seek it by faith.

That it actually says this is why they are not elect. I Don't. I don't recall that in the text that was just quoted. I don't remember anything. But this is why they were not elect because they did not pursue it by faith.

The the point that is being addressed here is no longer what was being addressed earlier as far as that particular argument was concerned. But even even at this point what is what is the the conclusion.

Notice notice let's just back up to 929 and as Isaiah predicted if the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring We would have been like Sodom and come and Sodom and become like Gomorrah. So the Lord of hosts leaves us offspring.

Not the Lord of hosts foresaw that some of us would freely choose to believe and therefore we would still have offspring. That's not the same thing. What shall we say then that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it that is a Righteousness that is by faith faith in opposition to Works, which has been the point all along.

What are they? What are the Jews doing. The Jews are seeking after a works righteousness? But that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why. Because they did not pursue it by faith as if as if it were based on works they have stumbled over the stumbling stone as it is written behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense and Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame so.

What how is this relevant to the rest of Romans chapter 9 how actually it should be the real issue should be. How does this flow naturally from what was said in Romans chapter 9? Because it's one thing to say.

Oh, yes, it says nice things about God's sovereignty. But you have to be able to put 929 through 33 Together with what was said earlier about who are you a man who answers back to God? Well, that is what what is molded say to its molder why if you made me like this has The Potter know right over the clay to make out the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable is.

If you if you fall back on the well, it's it's the free will act of faith thing and then God responds that. That's the exact opposite of what the first part of the chapter said. Before the twins had done anything good or bad.

Before any preachants before any Molinistic middle-knowledge running the possible world's stuff. You have God's will and you have the sovereignty of his will and his good pleasure. So that his purpose in election might stand it was set so you have to you can't just skip over the tough Spartan the tough tough stuff and go to the easy part at the end and.

And say oh, we'll see this this fits with my interpretation of what faith is and and then basically read the text backwards. Which is what we just got you go to the end of the chapter read your interpretation similar.

What Norman Geisler does with John 645 he puts his interpretation of 645 and then reads it backwards through verse 37. That's not how you know again I I don't believe that Phil Fernandez or Norman Geisler any of these guys would ever do this with the Resurrection or the deity of Christ or something like that, but when it comes this one issue all of a sudden all the the rules of exegesis are off and We just we just go all sorts of different directions including even reading the text backwards.

To get your your position, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at the stumbling stone, and then he shows how that was predicted in the Old Testament and so basically God is sovereign.

God is the one who regenerates who justifies. But he does that in response to our acceptance of his free gift. I think the key point of departure that's going to be here. Well the two things I think number one which view is more biblical and I would argue that Calvinism.

Once you accept the Calvinistic system of thought it forces you to reinterpret words. So world doesn't mean world anymore.

That's just not true. Like I said last time there are at least 14 Identifiable uses of cosmos in the Yohannan corpus alone and that's true. Whether you're a Calvus Calvinist and Arminian or anybody else.

Um. The idea here is is as I would my push back to to Phil Fernandes is can you establish that the term world? Always means the same thing. Can you establish the term world always means every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live?

Then then Jesus did not pray for the world. I pray not for the world, but those who've given me out of the world. How do you how do you how do you make those fit you if you're saying there's only one meaning?

Then how do you make those fit. You have to recognize that there are multiple uses and multiple meanings and It doesn't matter whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian now. Will that impact where you lean in that?

Yeah, of course it will. But you have to go to the text themselves and say hey when when you have First John saying if you love the world. The love of the Father's not in you. That's different than God's to love the world, right?

And so each context determines these things so it's just it's just not fair. It's it's unfair to say the Calvinist changes the meaning of world when any Arminian exegete must recognize a shift in the semantic domain of Cosmos in its usage throughout the on yohannin corpus as well as beyond that into Paul or Peter whatever else.

It only means the elect of the world. The lost doesn't mean the lost. It just means that the non elect and the non elect of the world and no.

But all of us were lost. I mean that is a description. Does not Paul include himself in Ephesians chapters 1 2 as having been under the wrath of God. We're all. We were all under the wrath of God. All the elect run to the wrath of God.

All the elect were lost. Some have been found. That is the elect. How is this? How is this an argument? I Still don't understand it. Not elect sinners.

Or that that that will be lost and he will save the elect sinners the elect world and so on. But the key the other key here, so you gotta ask what is the Bible teach, you know? And when you look at the scriptures Hebrews 11 6 but without faith It is impossible to please him for he who comes to him must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of those Who diligently seek him.

I find that hard? to reconcile with Calvinism. Why I.

I'm just about there myself. I'm in chapter 10 in Hebrews, and I'm sure we'll we'll spend a Sufficient amount of time on on that verse. It's the of course it in the context of the book of Hebrews. You're you're now into the exhortation to steadfastness and faithfulness and I would just point out to Phil Fernandez that in Hebrews chapter 11 There are all sorts of different kinds of faith commended.

I mean It's it's it's a real mistake to think that that every example that the writer brings up is saying the same Thing about faith or even talking about the same kind of faith. The whole thing is an exhortation to faithfulness and continued steadfastness but you you've got to look much more carefully at these texts and I just want to what's what about Romans 11 6 Does the Calvinist not believe?

I mean Is this something about saving faith? It has to be the ability of every single human being is is that the argument that's being made? Do we need to go go back and deal with the text that describes saving faith as the gift of God?

I Think that would have been very helpful that didn't really come out in this debate a lot of things didn't come out this debate. And again, I recognize the primary reason for that Was of course the fact that it was just too short.

It had too broad a topic and was just too short and was you're limited to just number of verses. But again, if these are objections Then the assumption that we're gonna we're gonna make is that the person making the objection? understands what the response to the objection is and So if you're gonna make an objection based on Roman on Hebrews 11 6 It might be a good idea to have at least attempted to address what reform people believe about saving faith and Spiritual deadness and all the things that are associated there with probably lift it up from the earth.

I will draw all men unto myself, but another key.

John 12:32, the Cross, and the Golden Chain of Redemption

Again, John 12 32. What does that mean? Deal with the fact that that the Bible also says the cross is repellent to the unbeliever. So what does all men mean here? This this is an excellent example. I would challenge any Arminian to exegete John 12 32.

Don't ignore the fact that Jesus is Dealing here with the Greeks coming to him and that he never speaks to them. He hides himself. No, don't skip that. You've got Gentiles coming in this situation. That's why Philip is the one is Greek name.

That's why he's come to Jesus and Jesus does not reveal himself to them got a deal with that. Because now you have kinds of men it's right there in the context don't skip it. Don't just just go Oh you Calvinist it's right there deal with it and Then answer a question.

The question it needs to be answered is When Jesus says this and he says I will draw all men to myself. Is he contradicting? Not only the biblical teaching of Paul About how the cross is foolishness to whom to those who are perishing.

It's a stumbling block a scandal but our own experience. The cross is hated Detested by so many today. It doesn't draw people and what's the difference? Well, I would go to 1st Corinthians chapter 1 and and let Paul explain it to those who are the called.

That message of the cross the wisdom of God power of God to those who are perishing foolishness scandal on there it is. Those were the called who does the calling. God does Be consistent with that calling issue Golden chain of redemption Romans 8 as many years called justified glorified Phil's already agreed just fine glorified go together there's connection well, it's chain and Those who are justified are those who were called.

That's an effective call. That's God's sovereign call and it's not to every single person. Otherwise, everyone's saved. Everyone's justified, right?

Got to be consistent here. He says what makes the ultimate difference? He says if I'm right the cross is unnecessary justification is unnecessary. He says it's self Salvation if the person accepts God's grace, I disagree.

I think that it's it is Excessive To say that if you don't believe in the doctors of grace and none of these things are relevant You would have to be able to demonstrate that. And demonstrate that in essence the person I know what's being said.

That and and I've said it I've said Phil Fernandes was inconsistent here. For example, he believes in eternal security has no reason to We pointed out the many inconsistencies given his view of free will and so on so forth has no reason to believe in it.

And Thank God for inconsistencies. Because there ain't a one of us and if you if you're sitting there listen to me going. Yeah, I've got my theology. Absolutely perfect. I don't miss a thing. I've got every T cross and every I dotted.

No, you don't if you think you do then you're just ignorant and I don't either and so I am thankful. That's why that's why again You know, we like to put the lie to those who call me a hyper Calvinist because they know they are.

It's the hyper Calvinist that makes that kind of perfection of theology claim as if I can I can look for signs of the elect and I can draw this circle so tightly around myself that only I can stand inside it in one foot and Sometimes I even fall out of it that kind of thing.

That's not where I have been or ever have been which is why the hypers dislike me so much. And that has been documented for many many years on our blog and on the dividing line and so on and so forth when we've Never gotten into conversations with them.

But anyway.

With human gifts you have the freedom to accept them or reject them. Even if you accept the gift, it didn't mean you earned it.

It does not mean that you and I agree but he's shifting the ground to earned it the the argument had been made in Mr. Comas's response period That that fundamentally what you've got you've got going on here is and and I'm not sure that that Phil understood exactly what his point was is that When you come down to the the final issue you come down to the eternal state and you have those who surround the throne and they are absorbed in the worship of God and you have those who are As far away as they can be because that's where they want to be as far away from the Holy Presence of God and they are Being consumed in their own self loathing and loathing of God and so on and so forth.

What's the difference between the two and. What mr. Comas was saying is the difference between the two in the Arminian perspective is found Not in the sovereign grace of God Not in his purposes, but in the individual.

There was something better. There was something more sensitive. There was something more repentant Something more spiritual about those who end up saved Than those who end up apart from God. So the idea is the the fundamental issue is not to be found in God is to be found in the creature and.

That really was the argument that that he was making who earned the gift just because you accepted it. I deserve the flames of hell right now as much as I deserve the flames of hell before I was saved.

Now I say I disagree here.

I disagree with with Phil this point because I Understand what he's saying, but I I don't I don't buy this at all. If I have been united with Christ Then his death becomes my death his barrel my barrel his resurrection my resurrection and So I stand before God.

Yes. Yes clothed in the in the righteousness of another. I I Outside of that just viewing me separated from Christ. Yes, but you can't view me as separated from Christ and he's talking as a Christian and so I I Don't I don't I don't buy this.

I'm just as deserving now as before because that denies the reality of the union with Christ. It is ours and what has been objectively done. It makes the the the atoning work of Christ merely hypothetical and I don't I don't believe in a hypothetical Atonement.

I Just I I don't believe. I Understand that from our Arminian perspective. That's pretty common, but I I don't believe in a hypothetical Atonement.

It was a free gift. By God's grace I wouldn't even seek him but through prevenient grace and God's drawing and the convicting of the Holy Spirit.

Prevenient grace. God's drawing and the convicting the Holy Spirit. Evidently God's drawing and the convicting the Holy Spirit are not part of prevenient grace. Do you need the drawing and the convicting apart from prevenient grace.

So to be fair doesn't God have to apply all of that to everybody. And. Does God draw everyone equally. Does God bring equal conviction to everybody? These have been would have been the questions. I would have been pressing.

Because I would be pressing for consistency. And I've listened to Phil, you know, you know, he says, you know. This really isn't my area in my you know, my I focus on the resurrection approves the resurrection existence of God.

Things like that. Okay, what's he looking for in those areas? Consistency. So shouldn't we be applying those same things in this area? Which is the fundamental area we want to be bringing those people to.

Which is the gospel itself. I Accepted the free gift.

Okay, if there's ten guys on death row and the governor says I'll pardon any one of you guys as long as you'll accept my pardon. If if seven if three of them accept the pardon. They can't say that they earned the pardon.

The problem is no gubernatorial pardon is based upon acceptance by the inmate. That's rich is going what? If if the governor pardons you they take you out of your cell. They give you your money and your clothes back and they chuck you out the door.

Okay, that's it. Because the governor has the power to pardon you and you be pardoned whether you accept it or not is Absolutely irrelevant. So that's actually a Illustration I've liked to use for a long time because if the governor pardons one.

Do the others on death row have the right to say you need to pardon me, too. No, because pardoning is a sovereign and gracious act and therefore. Yes, the governor ain't gonna spend another dime feeding you.

That brings up a whole nother issue we which we can't get into right now, but yeah, you're exactly right.

They just accepted the pardon freely given. He said Arminianism has led to secular humanism. Who says.

Yeah, I I Understand what? Mr. Comus was saying but there are Arminianism. It's such a long Chain to make the connection that you wouldn't even have time in a debate like this. And so you just don't say things you can't prove and besides that That's not the only way to secular humanism.

Look at the Netherlands. Those weren't a bunch of Arminians up there. Those were a bunch of Calvinists and What that proves is that the Christian faith whether reformed or otherwise can never be made something that is genealogical and Once you make it genealogical You got a problem.

It Cannot be passed on by culture. You cannot pass it on to your infants merely by being a Christian and if you want good evidence of that look at those Northern European nations that had sound theologians and sound theology and great theology and they are the very essence of Humanism today.

So is there a direct connection? No, but there is a direct connection between people Having a surface level faith and embracing whatever the current movement of the world happens to be secular humanism or whatever else so.

Who says you could find every heretical guy that started off in Calvinism. You can find as many as every heretical guy in our mini ism or whatever else you want to call the different non Calvinist views.

He keeps talking about the covenantal aspect of salvation. And just for those of you who are just tuning in haven't listened to this before.

Just so you understand we're talking there about a A Federal vision perspective that I would not hold and that I think does a does fundamental injustice to The message that we are attempting to present.

I think I do not think that it is consistent with a biblical interpretation. And that is one of the problems here. Is that it introduced. Well, it meant that the debate really wasn't. It didn't go the directions that I would have taken it.

Obviously because there are some fundamental differences. That's why mr Comas is a student of Doug Wilson, and that's why I debated Doug Wilson on those very issues back in 2004 in Los Angeles.

Basically He's talking about that. God has decreed that through Christ's death on the cross and through repentance and faith The non elect can enjoy can be saved within a community and can enjoy some benefits here on earth.

But they're if they're not of the decree to elect. If they're not of the elect that Jesus Actually planned to save they're gonna burn in hell forever. That's not too. That's not too appealing to me. I.

Don't know if that's an argument, but I agree. Either I would just simply you know obviously my response to that is that's not what the New Covenant is and it's a confusion of. The extent of the New Covenant and membership of the church and you know, there's all sorts of.

You know, it's I'll have to tell you pretty much. The only people that have been the front lines of this are non federal visionist Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists and The rest of evangelicalism goes.

What? That sounds weird, yeah, well you all just know and it yeah, that's Up working out so I think I'll do just one more section here. And then we'll have to switch over because we only get we only get a half an hour and I I spent a little extra time.

Introduction, so okay.

Jacob Arminius, Spiritual Deadness, and John 14

And again, it seems to me to be inconsistent with the Scriptures now. I actually think we need to take a second look at Jacob Arminius. He was a little bit unsure about the fifth point. I believe that we're we're secure in Christ, but I believe that Arminius Was God centered his theology not man-centered he.

Arminius was not nearly as Arminian as Arminians are today.

There's no question about that. He came from reformed background. He was much more balanced doesn't mean he was right but.

He was he was he wasn't. No Argon Kanner let's put it that way he didn't seek to defend human free will. He sought to defend God's goodness and God's justice and he thought that unconditional election calls that into question.

Yeah, and and he was exactly wrong about that for the same reasons that Phil Fernandes was wrong in his opening statement about that but I would agree that Jacob Arminius is considerably less anthropocentric in much of what he says than Most of the people you hear rambling on against Calvinism today.

And the list is very long from the archives of Radio Free Geneva.

I agree that we're spiritually dead that we inherit a sin nature From Adam in the garden, but being spiritually dead means exactly what it says in Ephesians chapter 2 verses 1 to 10. It means being separated from fellowship with God without Christ without God.

Without hope far from God and no access to to the father. Does it also mean enslaved to sin?

Does it also mean as Jesus said incapable of coming to Christ. Does it also mean not able to hear his voice. All those Unables who dunatized in the Gospel of John. That is the question that needs to be asked.

Does it mean all of that and I just don't see how a Molinist can actually come up with any of those particular things. Okay, let's I'm looking at the clock and that's right about the halfway point. We'll be able to get about 25 minutes here in on the oneness debate and We are getting closer to the end of the opening statement By Roger Perkins and then that'll allow us to get into the rebuttal periods, which I think again.

Just as in this debate brings out more because you're having to respond to something. That's what that's the value of debates and that's why I when when Certain people say I'll debate them. We just I'm not gonna have that cross-examination stuff anymore.

I'm just like no, you don't want to debate you want to have competing little sermons and sermonettes. And that's not the same thing as a debate. But anyway, so Here we go with Roger Perkins and his opening statements.

And yeah, I know I know the quality is not all that great. But hey, you got it. You got a you got to work on it. You got to listen a little more closely and catch it catch the context and you can start following along.

The Oneness Reading of Hebrews, Colossians, and John

Now he's talking about Hebrews chapter 1 there and has in these last days spoken to us by his son. We clearly believe that the son was active in the Old Testament. Who was it that who was the Yahweh who rained fire from from Yahweh in heaven?

Who was the one according to John 12 seen upon the throne? But the Identification of the person's father son and spirit is due to the Incarnation and therefore it takes place in time in that way. Well, of course that is if you take a variant reading at that point at 1st Timothy 316 where you have rather than Haas the evidence is.

You know, there's there's evidence for the reading of chaos. But even if you take the reading chaos at 1st Timothy 316, that does not mean that the father was manifest in the flesh. That that does not follow because it is Paul who over and over and over and over and over again Distinguishes between the father and the son not in the sense of Jesus was two persons.

One divine one human and they talked to each other and so on and so forth and in fact His very use of the term courios of the son in Distinction from the father his Trinitarian names are they also the father courios for the son.

Given that distinction and the elevation of that name courios being representative of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Clearly indicates Paul is not operating on a oneness foundation at this point at all.

Colossians 2 9 when it's. You got it, you know when when our when when when the Pentecostals start talking fast you need to listen very carefully. Because sometimes they're they're sticking something in there.

It isn't quite there. The term Godhead and this came up with mr. Mr. Kinney very briefly. It is interesting that mr. Kinney was seemingly arguing the same way that mr. Perkins is arguing. That's why I said that mr. Kinney though.

He's Trinitarian doesn't seem to really understand that. The question is what does they are they toss mean? Ponte I play Roma taste they are they toss all the fullness of deity dwells in Christ in bodily form now I believe that they are they toss means that which makes God God the very the very being or essence of God and Trinitarians do not believe that Each of the divine persons only has one third Of the being of God.

We do not believe the Son is one third or the Father is one third. You cannot divide the being of God into parts. And so it would have to be all the fullness of deity That dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form because deity cannot be divided up into parts so If that is indeed the case then from the Trinitarian perspective If Jesus is truly God of the second person of the Trinity dwelt in Jesus Christ in the sense of became incarnate.