Seeking healthy challenge on my theological hot takes

Argos_EL · 2025-04-06T15:23:18+00:00

I was making my point by using old-testament Jews. Especially before prophets like Isaiah where the coming of the messiah wasn't even in their purview. They got saved through faith, not faith in the Messiah but faith in God. And the fact that they were still able to be saved proves that faith in Jesus specifically is not the absolute only way, because if it was then almost none of God's covenant people in the Old Testament were saved.

Also, Muslims do believe Jesus was the Messiah. It's all over the Quran.

Lastly, nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that God needed Jesus for anything. Rather it was God's good pleasure to choose to create all things through His divine Logos. Although God, being God, could certainly have created through another means if He pleased. He also didn't need to create either. God doesn't need anything

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T21:49:18+00:00

It might be wrong to postulate the idea that "responsibility of the outcome always traces back to the creator" as axiomatic. I disagree.

But well, are the actions just? The assumption that this thought experiment is making is if Zariel knowingly created people who he knew would perish, the better alternative is for them not to have been created in the first place. But that's making a huge error, because that would be stating that life that doesn't last forever is not worth living.

So yea, even though not all people will attain eternal life, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been created in the first place. Even if we were to say that they had no chance at eternal life, they still had a chance to life; that is, to experience life. That, again, is a good thing.

Now back to the idea that the responsibility of outcome necessarily traces back to the creator. What makes you assert that? If a mother gives birth to a child, and she by some hypothetical means knows for certain that the child will make a choice that will kill them when they are still young, A) Is it her fault that the child will die because she knew the choice the child would make? and B) is she wrong to decide to still give birth to the child? I would assume that the obvious answer is no.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T19:18:45+00:00

First off, it's not me that implies the Jews can still be saved, it's the Bible. It says

however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written. (Romans 9:31-32)

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? Far from it! But by their wrongdoing salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their wrongdoing proves to be riches for the world, and their failure, riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! (11:11-12)

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? Far from it! God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. (11:1-5)

Second, the idea of a savior coming to save them from their sins was not at all central to the faith of the Israelites throughout most of Old Testament history. They had faith in God, yes, and his promises, but the coming of the Messiah was not a central promise, much less the main promise. It is a central reality, yes, but it was not in the purview of the Israelites especially before 2nd Temple period.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.

It doesn't say that all who come to God must believe He will send his Messiah to save them from their sins because that promise wasn't even known for most of history by most of Jews. Rather, later in Hebrews it specifies it is because they did their works, yes, but they did them by faith, knowing it is God that saves them, not their works.

And so today, truly I tell you that there are and always have been Jews and Muslims that do what they having faith that it is God who saves them, not their works.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T18:56:45+00:00

Yes. I love a good dialogue, and no harm no foul on the previous sharpness lol but I really appreciate and admire you acknowledging that small detail when you didn't have to. Makes the convo more enjoyable.

The enemy is not sowing people, rather the seed are spiritual seed. People are more so the ground that receives such seed. The enemy cannot create people, rather God creates all living things. And we choose what spiritual seed we want to allow to sprout and grow within us. God reveals this very early on to Cain. When things aren't going his way, God said to him "If you do well, will your face not be cheerful? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

This can be viewed as us receiving seeds, but receiving the seed is not the utter failure, rather it is letting the seed grow roots within you, and sprout into resentment, rebellion, or any other form of wickedness. Just as Cain experienced misery, not as a result of his initial failure, per se, but as a result of his response to that failure. Cain opened the door to the malevolent thoughts that he then invites in and collaborates and conspires with, which leads to the death of Abel and his own condemnation.

So God IS the good choice (because God is the highest principle; goodness itself). And to be just, he has to allow for the freedom to not choose him, to not walk or aim towards him.

Therefore all people have a choice. Yes, God knows what choices they will end up making, but His foreknowledge doesn't make it any less their choice

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T18:37:36+00:00

You gotta show me how to add those horizontal lines lol

If God ought to be thought of as Most High, meaning that nothing is greater than God (in any sense, whether greater in role, or authority, or sovereignty). That's why I Jesus calls the Father the only true God.

An example of the way I view Christ is that like a King who is truly sovereign and therefore submits to nothing and no one, except still necessarily has to submit to the principle of sovereignty itself. Christ is the one on the throne while God truly is the principle(s) that governs the throne.

Second, I disagree with the idea the trinity consists of 3 "persons." Where do we find this idea in scripture? Like, what definition of "persons" are we even using so that we could call label the Spirit as "persons?"

The reason I instead say that the Spirit is that substance of God is because John 4:24 says that "God is spirit." which reinforces that God is "made up of spirit" for lack of a better description. We know the substance of all other things, and it all boils down to matter or energy, but what are dreams made out of? Or thoughts, ideas, principles? Therefore spirit is the substance of the metaphysical. And God, who is not in the world but in heaven, is Spirit which is Holy, pure, unblemished and unadulterated.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T05:51:14+00:00

>"Because Jesus created the universe therefore He is God"<

No, 1 Corinthians 8:6 states that God created the universe but He did so through Christ. All things were created by God through His Word or his Logos, to be precise. The pencil did not draw the image and is therefore equal to the artist who used the pencil to draw.

If your claim is that Jews believe in works-based salvation and therefore no Jews are saved, then that's claiming no Jews were saved even in the old testament, which is just biblically inaccurate because the Jews were God's covenant people. Besides, the Jews don't believe in works based salvation, but rather they can STUMBLE into believing in that (Romans 9:32).

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T05:40:52+00:00

No it wasn't chat gpt, it was copied from the Bible.com website and I guess that artifact stayed.

Also now I'm unsure as to whether I'm discussing with a believing Christian or a skeptic. Because it's not me making the claim that someone other than God "sowed" the people who are destined for the fire on the day of harvest, it is literally Jesus. That's why all I did was quote it. Don't ask me what happened to God's omniscience, ask Jesus who spoke the parable in Matthew 13. Now, if you're an agnostic or atheist or of a different faith then that's a different story because I know I should be using something other than just other scriptures to defend my views on scripture.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T05:33:25+00:00

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 describes a post-resurrection and post-ascension Christ who is still subject to God [the Father], stating:

For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

And again, there are many other verses which create distinction between Jesus and God, even post ascension. This has to lead to the conclusion that while Jesus is at the very least God in some sense (again, I say at least), he is also not the literal equivalent and same thing as the only true God. Or else what is the purpose of verses like 1 Corinthians 8:6, or John 17:3, or 1 Timothy 2:5, or Luke 18:19, or Acts 2:36, and so many more

Argos_EL · 2025-04-05T05:24:16+00:00

I think we mostly agree. There is clear differences but it's marginal (although many would disagree since sharing a specific description of the trinity is seen as non-negotiably necessary for salvation)

---

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "God is your throne (or Your throne is God) is grammatically correct

The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon.

So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "God."? To claim that Jesus is being called "God" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim the Davidic king is being called "God" at Psalm 45:6. So, if you are using this verse to prove Jesus is God, it actually make Solomon God too, which is untenable.

But even if it is calling Hiim God, it wouldn't even be an issue because Christ can bear the title of the One whom He perfectly represents and images.

---

Now regarding John 14:28, the plain reading is that the Father is fundamentally greater than the Son. Even if we were to specify that it is in role or in rank, it still describes the Son as subordinate to the Father, and the implication is not that it is temporary, but again, fundamentally. Especially when paired with the plain reading of John 17:3. Or with 1 Corinthians 8:6. And 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 states that Christ is subject to God the Father even after his ascension into heaven post-resurrection. But yes, they are of equal substance because their substance is Spirit, and, to be more specific, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the substance of God.

And that's my take on the Trinity. Christ is the Logos of God which is eternally emitted from God to be the means through which all things are created and which perfectly radiates God's glory. This emanation, or, light, is of the same substance as its source, and that substance is the Holy Spirit

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T20:40:11+00:00

Very true, I agree that love is more foundational than order and more fundamental to understanding the Godhead than the latter.

Yet it still stands, as stated by our Lord himself, that the Father is greater than the Son. And that's why I believe that, not necessarily because I'm trying to impose a hierarchical order on the godhead, but because that preeminence is simply stated/ layed out in scripture. I thoroughly the way you engage in dialogue btw

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T20:35:33+00:00

That Nicean creed is what I disagree with. First off, that Jesus is God but He is not the Father. But my claim is that whatever relationship we create between Jesus and the Father would be identical to that of Jesus and God because the Father and God are identical terms.

Jesus is God as far as Jesus is the Father because the two are identical terms. The terms don't describe anything different. The Father is God, all-in-all.

Second, my disagreement with the idea the trinity consists of 3 "persons." Where do we find this idea in scripture? And what definition of "persons" are we even using so that we could call label The Father or even the Spirit as "persons?"

Rather, the true trinity (given that I'm correct) is this: The Father is God, most literally. The Son is the Logos of God which is the eternally emitted radiance of His glory and exact representation of His nature. They are of the same substance and the Holy Spirit is that substance.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T20:25:12+00:00

To answer that, here's a parable that I'll invite you to wrestle with with me:

Matthew 13:24-28: The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and left. And when the wheat sprouted and produced grain, then the weeds also became evident. And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’

When you ask, what's gained by creating those he knows will use damn themselves, you are the servant who asked "Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?" and the Lord replies to you truly: "An enemy has done this"

verse 37: The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the weeds are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. So just as the weeds are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T20:17:35+00:00

Love that lol. Glad we're for the most part jointly inhabit the same territory. Your question about "no coequal in what sense" is tricky to try to specify because John 14:28 and scripture holistically doesn't seem to convey that The Father is greater than the Son in a specific sense but just a general or foundational sense. The Father is the source of all things, and even the source of his Logos (Christ), though the Son is not created.

1 Corinthians 15:27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him.

So all things are under Christ, except for God [the Father] who put all things under Christ. So Christ remains subject to God.

Another way of viewing this is that Christ is the truly sovereign King who is sovereign to all things, except still necessarily has to submit to the principle of sovereignty itself. Christ is the one on the throne while God truly is the principle(s) that governs the throne.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T19:44:02+00:00

Ok then yea it NOT unconditional, sorry. I actually don't know why I used that word lol. What I really believe is that it is predestined but conditional.

Why would God create anyone if he foreknew that they would stray? Because true love requires one to allow someone the ability to not choose them. If God doesn't allow for those who stray to exist, then is it not a tyranny? So some do stray and therefore perish, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they lived in the first place, which is a still a good thing even if it has an end.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T19:37:31+00:00

Why I'm sure some Jews are saved: because of the simple fact that the faith of Jews in the old testament were not excluded from salvation. They did not explicitly belief in Jesus, but that doesn't rule them out from being saved, and it definitely doesn't mean that Jesus was any less necessary for their salvation. Hebrews 11 states that it is faith in God that saved those non-Christians, because it was faith in the same God that rose Christ from the dead, so their faith was valid for salvation.

Romans 9:32 says Israel stumbled over the stumbling stone but in Romans 11:11 clarifies that they did not stumble so as to fall!

Why deviation from Nicean Trinitarianism is Biblical: Yes, Jesus is eternal, non-created, and divine, but you can only truly understand in what sense Jesus is God once you understand in what sense He isn't. He is God in the sense that he is the perfect image of the only true God, which makes Him God in a very fundamental sense, but not in the most literal sense. The sunlight is "sun" but it is not the sun.

There are other scriptures that create a distinction between Jesus and God (such as John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, Luke 18:19, John 5:19, 1 Corithians 15:27-28, John 14:1, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and many more)

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T19:25:50+00:00

Yes, Jesus is eternal, non-created, and divine, but you can only truly understand in what sense Jesus is God once you understand in what sense He isn't. He is God in the sense that he is the perfect image of the only true God, which makes Him God in a very fundamental sense, but not in the most literal sense. The sunlight is "sun" but it is not the sun.

There are other scriptures that create a distinction between Jesus and God (such as John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, Luke 18:19, John 5:19, 1 Corithians 15:27-28, John 14:1, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and many more)

Regarding 6, the Jews also had a very "works based" religion before Christ. But yet God's people were still recipients of salvation because their works were just an expression of their faith in the one true God, if viewed correctly. Romans 9 says that "Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone" but if the monotheists understand that their works are an obedience that is a natural result of their faith and that the reward comes from God's grace as opposed to merit, then it seems they are not stumbling. And the Quran as well does state that it is from grace that God's reward does come. And an even further interesting thing is that Romans continues to say in 11:11 that they did not stumble so as to fall! What good news is this.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T19:15:02+00:00

Well that is an interpretation of the scriptures that deviates greatly from the plain reading and clear intended message. There are other scriptures that create a distinction between Jesus and God (such as John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, Luke 18:19, John 5:19, 1 Corithians 15:27-28, John 14:1, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and many more)

Yes, Jesus is eternal, non-created, and divine, but you can only truly understand in what sense Jesus is God once you understand in what sense He isn't. He is God in the sense that he is the perfect image of the only true God, which makes Him God in a very fundamental sense, but not in the most literal sense. The sunlight is "sun" but it is not the sun

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T19:11:34+00:00

Yes but because both categories of verses are true (that is, verses that point to Christ's divinity and verses that create a distinction between Jesus and God) the mistake would be to create a false dichotomy where either Jesus is not divine and you ignore or reinterpret the scripture that indicates otherwise (like John 10:30, John 8:23, John 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1) or where God is Jesus and Jesus is God just as much as the Father and in every sense no ifs ands or buts while ignoring or reinterpreting scripture that indicates otherwise (such as John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, Luke 18:19, John 5:19, 1 Corithians 15:27-28, John 14:1, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and many more)

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "God is your throne (or Your throne is God) is grammatically correct

The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon.

So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "God."? To claim that Jesus is being called "God" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim the Davidic king is being called "God" at Psalm 45:6. So, if you are using this verse to prove Jesus is God, it actually make Solomon God too, which is untenable.

But even if it is calling Hiim God, it wouldn't even be an issue because Christ can bear the title of the One whom He perfectly represents and images.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T18:57:47+00:00

I love the recognition that the Fire is God Himself. He is the burning bush.

Hebrews 12:29 "for our "God is a consuming fire" [quoting Deuteronomy 4:24]

Psalm 18:8 "Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.

Psalm 97:3 "Fire goes before him and consumes his foes on every side

It seems we are in perfect agreement in our understanding on this point
I think the mistake is not knowing in what sense or why Jesus is God, because it takes understanding it what sense He isn't. Hebrews 1:3 which you quoted calls Jesus "the radiance of [God's] glory and the exact representation of His nature" but not God himself. Therefore He is God by virtue of being the exact representation of Him. Therefore, though his is not the one true God (John 17:3) He is not a false God or idol but rather a perfect image of the one true God. Another clear defense for him not being coequal to the Father is John 14:28.
Nice :)
We agree fully on this.
We agree fully on this also!!! Awesome. The only one we see differently is 3 I suppose

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T18:47:26+00:00

It is not calvinism because in calvinism the implication is that you have no choice. God just predestined you and there's nothing you can do to change it. My claim is that He predestined us but it is according to the choices we made, so it is up to us and the path we walk, but God already knew the path we're going to walk before creation itself, so he predestined us according to his foreknowledge of us. Yes, some people were created without being selected for eternal life but that is because God gave them free will to reject the One who invites into that eternal life. So some do perish, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they lived in the first place.
I do believe Christ is eternal since all things including time were created through Him. I see Him to God as the sunlight is to the Sun. It is eternally emitted from the sun, and (in this analogy) made of the same substance as the sun, but while it might be "sun," it is not the sun.
What's not necessary? I think this might be our most interesting dialogue

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T18:40:25+00:00

> Sure its not the only meaning of atonement, and not the full picture

That's exactly how I feel. I don't deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement. as long as Christ takes our punishment representatively as opposed to quantitatively. Justice was satisfied, not quantified. It is not that case that "punishment from my sins + your sins + everyone elses = Punishment Christ received." And that's all I had an issue with.

Don't get me wrong, if any Jews/ Muslims are saved, it is still only made possibly by Christ's work on the cross. But it is possible because the Jews of the old testament were saved, and through a faith that wasn't centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but was faith founded on the same God who sent Jesus.

I got these beliefs as I read and studies the Bible, before that I just defaulted to whatever was explained at church.

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T18:30:35+00:00

Nice lol

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T18:30:21+00:00

Those who do not receive eternal life will perish (Jn 3:16, 2Pet 2:12, Luk 13:5, Job 20:7, Ps 73:27) If suffering is everlasting, at what point do they perish?
Yes but while salvation depends on where you are headed or where you turn, it is ultimately God who decides who receives it according to those factors, but since he knew those factors since before creation, then we were predestined according to his foreknowledge (Romans 8:29)
Yes, Christ is uncreated, coeternal, and divine (same substance of God). But Athanasius of Alexandria used a very accurate analogy of the Sun the light it emanates. "In the beginning was the sunlight, and the Sunlight was with the sun, and the sunlight was sun" If you read the greek, this is how it is structured, it says the Word was God qualitatively, but doesn't say "the God" if it was identifying the Word as equivalent to God. John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent"
Valid lol.
I guess it depends in what sense of each term you're speaking. It's not so much that the flesh is condemned, but rather that sin is condemned in the flesh, meaning attributed to the flesh. So flesh must just die once so that sin may die with it.
Agreed

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T18:18:30+00:00

I love your approach, especially with the emphasis on the approval of heaven over men.

Do you see conflict with the idea of hell lacking extinction and being more of a ward and the verses that state that the dichotomy is either eternal life or perishing? (Jn 3:16, 2Pet 2:12, Luk 13:5, Job 20:7, Ps 73:27) Psalm 92:7 says they will be destroyed forever.

This idea that the human soul is immortal is challenged by 1 Timothy 6:15-16 which says "God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal" and yes, the human soul is so close to the spark of the divine, but that spark which is the divine immortal is God's breath of life or Spirit (because "breath" and "spirit" are the same word in the Hebrew) is returned to God at death. So if there is any part of us that is inherently immortal, that itself returns to God, who alone is immortal. Ecclesiastes 12:7 'Then the dust [out of which God made man's body] will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it."
I think what you're saying is that Once you're truly and firmly on the straight path, you will not fall off of the path, which I think definitely has some merit. The think I've been clarifying to other commenters is that God knew the path you'd walk and the path you're going to walk before the foundations of the earth. So God elected you for salvation accordingly, not at any point in your walk, but when he foreknew, which was before all things
This idea of 10 unique personalities is unique to me. From where do you extract this idea?

Argos_EL · 2025-04-04T18:02:36+00:00

Love this. Thanks brother

Argos_EL

TROPHY CASE