I am also writing a chapter about the Trinity and about Christology. When it is finished, I'll post it in this forum.

Anywho, I have a question to all who deny the Trinity.

Only Christadelphianism has the essential loophole. This paradox reaches anyone else however who denies the Trinity.

Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be saved? Yes! You know, I always heard, "If He was not a man, he could not have died; if He was not God, He could not have atoned for my sins."

I don't know if any theologian came up with this argument prior to what I wrote on my files last night, but it hit me- why Christ has to be God in order for us to be saved, and finally, the link between soteriology and theology. In other words, orthodox theology does INDEED affect my soteriological view. You must believe in the Trinity, or at least the deity of Christ, for salvation.

I'm going to start a new post after this.

Would we be off the hook if Jesus wasn't God, but rather God decided to impute the sins of the elect (or the world, whatever) to Christ, and He died for our sins? Would He have to be God in order for His blood to cleanse us?

No. If the perfect life was lived, and God used the blood of the perfect lamb, and chose to apply it to whomever He willed, then those people could be saved.

But if Jesus was not God Himself, it would have been unjust for God to slaughter Jesus, the perfect lamb, and impute our sins to Him. Ponder this.

If Jesus was not God, then whether consentually or not, it would be unjust to impute sin to someone else. Even if Jesus said it was OK. Consent does not make something right. I could ask you to stab me in the throat, and whether I gave consent or not, you would be given life in prison. Same with Jesus. The issue is not whether Jesus gave consent. If Jesus was not God, the one whom we have actually transgressed against, then it would have been unjust for God to impute our sins on Him. ONLY if the judge, victim, and executioner whom we have personally violated against HIMSELF died, then we would be free.

So Jesus would not have to be God to let us off the hook. But if Jesus was NOT God, it would have been unjust for God to punish Jesus whether He permitted it or not. The very judge Himself would have to be the substitute.

Sorry, I was rambling. I need to get my thoughts collected into an organized manner. LOL!

Any thoughts? I'm particularly interested in those who believe that Jesus is our Savior, but is not God. TTYL Jesus loves you!

Hi Will,

If creation is given, in the Bible, as a sufficient revelation of God, such that to not respond by faith is inexcusable, how then can one assert the need for a Trinitarian belief?

Let me put it this way. Let's say Christ had to be divine in order to be able to save us. I'll use an analogy. Let's say someone is sick. He is given medicine. Component "A" must be in the medicine in order for him to get well.

So, the person drinks the medicine. But, he does not believe Component A is in the medicine.

Does the person get well, nonethless?

"Component A" represents a belief in the Trinity.

"Medicine" represents any part of truth about God that can be received by faith.

Well, the analogy isn't perfect, but I'll use it anyway.

Just to let you know, I do not believe in the Trinity. I believe Christ and God were both divine. God as a result of being God, Christ as a result of being born (begotten) of God. In other words, Christ inherited divinity. He was divine by virtue of being God's Son.

I also noticed that you said nothing about the Holy Spirit. What if a person was "Binarian," i.e. believed Father and Son are two Persons making up the one God?

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Only Christadelphianism has the essential loophole. This paradox reaches anyone else however who denies the Trinity.

What "essential loophole" are you referring to? I think the Christadelphians believe in a representative sacrifice, rather then substitutionary - is this what you are talking about?

Hey WW!!

Hey DD!

(Off topic, but sorry to hear about your eye.....)

05-01-2003 @ 07:43 PM post located here
Will_C_Drotar:

Would we be off the hook if Jesus wasn't God, but rather God decided to impute the sins of the elect (or the world, whatever) to Christ, and He died for our sins? Would He have to be God in order for His blood to cleanse us?

No. If the perfect life was lived, and God used the blood of the perfect lamb, and chose to apply it to whomever He willed, then those people could be saved.

But if Jesus was not God Himself, it would have been unjust for God to slaughter Jesus, the perfect lamb, and impute our sins to Him. Ponder this.

If Jesus was not God, then whether consentually or not, it would be unjust to impute sin to someone else. Even if Jesus said it was OK. Consent does not make something right. I could ask you to stab me in the throat, and whether I gave consent or not, you would be given life in prison. Same with Jesus. The issue is not whether Jesus gave consent. If Jesus was not God, the one whom we have actually transgressed against, then it would have been unjust for God to impute our sins on Him. ONLY if the judge, victim, and executioner whom we have personally violated against HIMSELF died, then we would be free.

So Jesus would not have to be God to let us off the hook. But if Jesus was NOT God, it would have been unjust for God to punish Jesus whether He permitted it or not. The very judge Himself would have to be the substitute.

Sorry, I was rambling. I need to get my thoughts collected into an organized manner. LOL!

Any thoughts? I'm particularly interested in those who believe that Jesus is our Savior, but is not God. TTYL Jesus loves you!

That is a very interesting point. I'd like to hear you expound on that.

Iron Metro

If Jesus was not God, then whether consentually or not, it would be unjust to impute sin to someone else. Even if Jesus said it was OK. Consent does not make something right.

Isn't that pretty much what happened to all of us? Adam & Eve's sin imputed the world and everything in it.

On imputing sin...

But, WHY was sin "imputed" to Christ? What was the purpose?

1. So that the resulting blood could act in the form of a "currency" that would "pay" God for the penalty He requires for sin? (Is such a penalty even transferrable?)

2. In order to produce a blood that is:
a) a revelation of all the ways man can be tempted AND all the ways man can bear his own sin-burden (this being a kind of death)

-and-

b) a revelation of Christ's victory by faith over all such burdens (this being a kind of resurrection)

that this kind of blood may be applied to the sanctuary (the minds of God's faithful) for the purpose of literally removing sin.


Which is it?

Is the blood a kind of currency that pays off God, thereby reconciling God TO man? Or is the blood a kind of cleansing agent, that enables man to let go of his sin, thereby reconciling man TO God?

With one "model", the problem is not our characters at all. The problem is a "penalty" God requires for sin. With the other "model" God has no such penalty, per se. The penalty stems organically from sin AS SIN IS PERCEIVED. And sin is perceived in direct proportion to the extent to which its contrast, God's holiness, is seen (see the mirror in James 1, as an example).

It is the fire of God's love that exposes our sin and God knew that sinful man could not bear the purifying, saving process without the revelation of One who took the same steps before them. When sin REALLY gets seen in its heinous light, we need the blood of Jesus in order to let it go.

Consider the following verses. Look closely at:
1. WHO is reconciled to whom.
2. WHAT the result is.

Colossians 1:19-22
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight--


Shades of gray complicate "Model 2." We are still sinners. I suggest that "God calls those things which be not as though they are" (Romans 4:17).

Romans 4:17
17 (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations"*) in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

The context is justification or the raising from the dead to newness of life. It is a process and God accounts ALL perfectly righteous who have BEGUN to partake of this process.

In the last days God will take a remnant the FULL way. The rationale is that all previous generations, had they had the light the remnant will receive, would have been perfectly cleansed from sin.

The blood saves to the uttermost, but its drinking, to a necessary fulless, IS the cup experience.

It is reserved for the end. A remnant will be baptized with His baptism and will drink of His cup. This will be done, in part, "for the dead," for all previous generations.

Hebrews 11:39-40
39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

1 Corinthians 15:
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. 29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?


Brothers and sisters, redemption is not Christ paying some penalty in order to satisfy a God who needs to be appeased.

It is Christ paying a penalty, in order to "manufacture" a blood (a revelation) that when fully applied to the mind of a sinner, literally takes away sin.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Today @ 08:34 AM post located here
Woman:

Iron Metro



Isn't that pretty much what happened to all of us? Adam & Eve's sin imputed the world and everything in it.

Hey Woman. That wasn't my post, but I"ll comment come Sunday or Monday. I have some notes on this topic but they're at home .

-God bless-

Wow, it´s looking like this will be an actual debate coming up here. It´s been forever since my last one. I´m on a public computer so I´ll print out your posts, o2Bwise, and have a response sometime during the week.

The loophole I was talking about is indeed the fact that Christadelphianism denies the substitutionary atonement.

Woman, (is there some other name I can address you by? LOL I can´t help but feel like I´m being disrespectful.), could you elaborate a bit? Adam´s sin NATURE was imputed, not the sin. Thus we´re not held accountable for the sin of one man. Plus, this is hereditary. I´m not really getting the correlation. We´re talking about the deity of Christ. I´m kinda confused.

I like your writing style o2bwise. Very professional. I´ll read it over tonight. TTYL Jesus loves you!

You´ve given me motivation to finish typing my paper on the Trinity. I´ll have it done in about a month, in much the same style as my ¨"Calvinism" chapters.

I´d be happy to oblige you, if perhaps you would be interested in reading it.

I do have a question though. Do you simply deny the Trinity, or is it part of your religion? You say Christ is literally begotten. The only religion I know that teaches that is LDS theology. Is that what you hold to?

Binitarianism? In theory, simply the deity of Christ would work. Re-read the post. I don´t encourage that doctrine, and I also find it highly unBiblical. I´m going to stay up tonight and see if I can finish a bunch of writing so I can get it to you. TTYL Jesus loves you!

Hi Will,

Say, thank you very much for your kind words (regarding my writing style).

Well, to be precise, I veered off a little bit. There is the Trinity and I veered off into what salvation actually is.

My point about mentioning the Holy Spirit, I hope is not missed. I am not referring to perhaps your personal conviction that the Bible clearly presents the Holy Spirit being an actual Person. My point, rather, was the following:

You gave a rationale for why you felt the Trinity is essential for salvation.

All the while your rationale didn't seem to assert why the personhood of the Holy Spirit is an essential component.

I was just relying on strict reasoning. To which I felt an obvious reply was:

What if someone were "Binitarian?" It seems to me such a view would be entirely compatible with that you asserted one must believe in order to be saved.

Will, I am a Seventh-Day Adventist. SDA is currently a Trinitarian denomination. My personal odyssey out of Trinitarianism began when I went through the entire NT so as to reference all texts that discussed WHY Jesus came and the heart-change (as I was at a crossroads in the sense that I was beginning to believe the heart-change IS salvation).

What happened is, I was seeing many terms used as inducing heart change. Terms like

the word

the truth

the love of Christ

the Holy Spirit

the message of the cross

the blood


One time I said to my best friend, in spontenaity (not really premeditated):

Sometimes I wonder if the Holy Spirit is a metaphor for the word.

To which he replied, "AMEN!"

And I was scared. Why? Because I readily saw that I echoed a non-Trinitarian concept. I was scared because of the binding cords of orthodoxy and tradition.

But, I became willing to see if this idea might be so. And I came to believe it is.

Then, I focused on Father and Son. I could say so much more, but I will say this. God is the Father and a Son is not His own Father.

I have done things like this.
1. Go through an entire NT book.
2. Reference every time THEOS is rendered.
3. Reference the times theos is rendered and it is clearly the Father only.
4. Reference times like #3, but where Jesus is mentioned AS SOMEONE OTHER THAN THEOS.

As an example, in 1 Thessalonians, theos is God the Father ONLY something like 28 times, maybe it's 38, it has been awhile. Something like fifteen times, theos is Father only while Christ is mentioned as ANOTHER THAN THEOS. ONE TIME, it is ambivalent. Could be the Father, could be Christ.. But, I believe it is the Father.

Will, the Bible is veiled and purposely so. Studies like I did with 1 Thess are not allowed to have the volume they inherently have. Absolutely, there are single texts that seem to point to Christ being "God." But, if one take scripture as a whole, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that the Father alone is God. Numerous times, He is even referred to as the God of Jesus Christ.

I could say more, but I'll stop.

John 17:3
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

1 Corinthians 8:6-7a
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge;


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Cool beans, Tony. I too noticed that you strayed away from the topic of the atonement.

Was it to satisfy God's justice, or was it to clenase our sins? Or both?

I say both. There are citadels of Scriptural support for both, more so than the first, for which I would be happy to oblige you at a later time. Right now, I'm focusing on finishing my edit of my chapters, and planning on posting them here. Perhaps you'd be interested on reading it. After that, I will start on writing on the Trinity, and Christology in general, including the doctrine of the substitutional atonement.

As for now, I bid you adieu until a later date, unless you are interested in continuing this. I am factoring in your question in your above posts into the new revised chapters. They're long, but if you have the patience I'm convinced that they will not be rebbutted. If that is a word of course.

TTYL Jesus loves you!

Hi Will,

Just a thought, bro. You mentioned:

1. Atonement as substitionary

-and-

2. Atonement as cleansing.


And this caused me to think you are assuming that an atonement that is STRICTLY for cleansing cannot possibly have a substitutionary facet. Or to put another way, what if the only possible way God could fully cleanse, is with a substitutionary element to the atonement?

Another possibility I see is that in not seeing the above as a possibility, you relegate a substitionary atonement as needing to be the satisfaction of something other than cleansing.

Will, consider...

Just consider a people (I will call them a remnant) who ultimately see all of their sin. They go all the way with Christ. They are saved to the uttermost.

Consider that God knew that NO ONE could endure seeing all of his sin without the benefit of the revelation of one who trod that very same path before him and was victorious by faith.

If this is so, consider also:
1. What if Christ did not do such a thing?

Answer: The people's experience would be one wherein they see all their sin without the benefit of the revelation of one who took the same steps before them.

Thus, their experience would be one that is very much synonymous with Christ's experience.


But, it isn't. Christ is the forerunner behind the veil. Christ bids His followers take up their cross and follow Him.

In other words, His experience is the one wherein He is not able to benefit from one blazing the very same trail before Him. And this would have been our experience without His having done so.

In other words, Christ substituted His experience for ours.

And more than that, not only is substitution compatible with a "cleansing only atonement," a cleansing only atonement, biblically-speaking, absolutely requires a substitutionary aspect to the atonement.

In order to be fully cleansed of sin, one absolutely needs the benefits of the revelation of an experience that would have been ours, had Christ not partaken of it.

He went alone. We follow. All for the purpose of cleansing.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Hi Again Will,

Oh yes, JUSTICE. (I reread your reply.)

A thought on justice. Perhaps being just is compatible with not circumventing realities innate to moral consciousness. Not detouring things like condemnation being a result of one's perception of one's own sin. And of one's perception of one's own sin stemming from one's perception of its contrast, the holiness of God.

Is transferring guilt and penalty "just?" Perhaps inclusion of the term "justice" in this discussion, may cause a person to read into the term, just WHAT justice implies and, on that basis, just what atonement is and what it satisfies.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)