After posting about the words/phrases we use to talk about the trinity yesterday I came across a passage in Doctrine, by Mark Driscoll, as I was reading this morning. It is relevant so I thought I would share it with you:

Fifth, while it is true in one sense that God did become a man, we must be careful to note that the second divine person in the Trinity became a man and that the entire Trinity did not incarnate as a human being. Lloyd-Jones explains:

But to me it seems always to be wise not to say that God became man. That is a loose statement which we had better not use. We often do say that, but believing as we do in the Persons of the Trinity, what we should say is that the second Person in the Trinity was made flesh and appeared as man. If we merely say, ‘God became man’, then we may be saying something that is quite wrong, and if people believe something wrong as the result of our statement, we cannot really blame them. We must be particular and we must be specific and we should always be careful what we say…

Jesus Christ has not been changed into a man; it is the eternal Person who has come in the flesh. That is the right way to put it.

This, I believe, reinforces the point I was making (or attempting to make): Imprecise language may be interpreted in a variety of ways which can include a correct interpretation as well as incorrect interpretations. While ambiguous language may be true, it is only true provided the person(s) hearing/reading interpret it correctly. The same ambiguous language may also be false or misleading if insufficient clarification is provided.