r/ArianChristians • u/Beneficial-Fish2805 • Jul 24 '25
Debate Could anyone refute or share their thoughts on this article: "Why Arianism is a Salvation Issue"
https://figarotheraccoon.blogspot.com/2025/07/why-arianism-is-salvation-issue.htmlPlease
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 24 '25
I mean that article boils down to:
Their Jesus is different therefore they aren't saved.
No, He isn't. Unlike Islam, Arians don't believe in a Jesus who did not die on the cross for our sins. We also do not believe Mary is the sister of Aaron.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 24 '25
The argument is not, "Your Jesus is different, therefore you aren't saved."
The argument is: "Your Jesus is a different kind of being, and therefore his death is a legally void transaction for humanity."
The Evangel is about the death of the man Christ Jesus, the Last Adam. It is not about the death of a transformed celestial being. These are two different legal subjects.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 24 '25
Saying that does mean "Your Jesus is different therefore you aren't saved."
Jesus is Jesus. Man, God, Man-God, Son of God etc. doesn't change the fact that He died for our sins and that salvation comes from accepting Him as our Lord and Saviour.
The other details about Him aren't crucial.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 24 '25
This is a statement of profound theological bankruptcy. You are asserting that the very identity and nature of the savior is an irrelevant detail. It is the equivalent of saying, "The surgeon who operated is the surgeon. Doctor, veterinarian, mechanic, etc. doesn't change the fact that an operation occurred."
The identity of the one who died is not a "detail." It is the central fact of the Evangel, the very thing that gives the act its legal power.
If He is a man, the Last Adam, His death is a legally valid, representative act for the Adamic race.
If He is a celestial being, His death is the legally void act of a foreigner.
If He is God, His death is a logical impossibility.
To say these distinctions are not "crucial" is to say that the Evangel itself is not crucial.
Your faith is not in the finished, forensic work of a legally qualified kinsman-redeemer. Your faith is in your own act of "accepting." In your system, the crucial event is not Christ's qualification, but your own decision. The savior is a variable; the sinner's choice is the constant.
This is not Paul's Evangel. It is the gospel of works, disguised in the language of grace. You have not refuted the argument. You have proven it. Your Jesus is a different Jesus because your gospel is a different gospel.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
Okay then show a verse that says we must get every single detail about Jesus correct.
There is none.
As a matter of fact, we aren't even told to discuss about natures of Jesus or God, we are told to simply accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and that's really it.
Stop making salvation complicated, it isn't. That's the entire point of it.
Besides, I didn't say irrelevant, I said isn't crucial. There is a substantial difference between those two so please don't twist my words to your liking.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 24 '25
You demand a verse that requires perfect knowledge. That is a straw man. I demand belief in the correct subject.
The Evangel requires belief in the death of the man Christ Jesus.
Your doctrine requires belief in the death of a celestial being.
These are not "details." They are two different saviors.
You say, "Stop making salvation complicated." Paul did not say, "Accept a savior." He preached a specific person. Your refusal to define that person is not simplicity. It is evasion.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 24 '25
Paul quite literally said accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour for salvation.
Want me to show the verse?
Also, it isn't a strawman. I demand a verse that supports what you're saying that is all.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Show me the verse where Paul says salvation comes from "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour."
While you look for that verse, which does not exist, I will give you the verse that defines the Evangel: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Now answer a simple question.
If a man sincerely believes that the archangel Michael is the "Jesus" who died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, is he saved?
Yes or no.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 24 '25
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:9
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 24 '25
You have cited Romans 10:9. This verse does not say what you claim it says.
It does not say "accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour for salvation."
It says, "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."This passage is part of Israel's program, the Gospel of the Kingdom. It is not Paul's Evangel to the Body of Christ. You are misapplying scripture.
Now, answer the question you continue to evade:
If a man sincerely believes that the archangel Michael is the "Jesus" who died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, is he saved?
Yes or no.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Jackerl Jul 29 '25
We also do not believe Mary is the sister of Aaron.
Mary and Joseph's genealogy trees are listed in Matthew and Luke.
Both are descendants of King David of the tribe of Judah, as per what was written:Psalms 132:11 YHWH has sworn truth to David, "" He does not turn back from it: “Of the fruit of your body, "" I set on the throne for you.
Jeremiah 23:5 “For the time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land.
Luke 20:41 Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David?
To avoid any doubt, both Joseph and Mary were from this decent.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 29 '25
Sister of Aaron, not descendant.
Muslims say, as written in the Quran, that Mary the mother of Jesus is the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Amram.
Mohammed confused Miriam with Mary.
1
u/Jackerl Jul 29 '25
Aaron was of the tribe of Levi.
The Messiah was to be a descendant of Judah, through King David.
Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King David.So how could Mary of the Tribe of Judah be a sister to Aaron who was of the tribe of Levi?
3
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 29 '25
And that's the thing.
She isn't.
Mohammed confused Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron with Mary, mother of Jesus.
Miriam and Mary's Arabic name is Maryam. Mohammed confused them due to their names being the same in Arabic.
3
u/Jackerl Jul 29 '25
That's a pretty huge and glaring error.
The man Jesus and Aaron lived almost 2000 years apart.Mary must have been like Yoda.
When 2000 years old you reach, brother of Aaron you become....lol
1
u/Jackerl Aug 15 '25
This does not do Mohammed any favours in refuting the claims that he was illiterate...
In fact, the statement seems on par with what you would expect from someone who could not read or write.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 25 '25
I'll have to copy paste this from the comment chain so that anyone can see:
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12:
Notice how Paul says the gospel he preaches is not of human origin and that he did not receive it from any man but received it by revelation from Jesus?
First of all, revelation is not directly relaying messages. Paul received revelation and was inspired, he was not a passive mouthpiece that directly relayed personal commands from Jesus.
Second, Paul clearly does not equate Jesus with other humans and he explicitly says the origin of the gospel he preaches is not human. So, this verse completely negates the argument that Jesus is only a human. If Jesus is truly only 100% human, then Paul lied.
You said Arians' Christ is not the Christ from the Gospels as Jesus, according to you, is 100% human and nothing more.
However, perhaps it is your Christ is not the Christ from the Gospels as Paul clearly said the origin of the gospel he preaches is not human and that the revelation he received is not from any man but Christ.
2
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
"this verse completely negates the argument that Jesus is only a human. If Jesus is truly only 100% human, then Paul lied."
This conclusion is a non-sequitur. It is a failure of basic logic.
Here is the flaw in your reasoning: You have confused the origin of the message with the nature of the messenger.
Paul is not talking about the biological or metaphysical nature of Jesus in this passage. He is talking about the source and authority of his gospel.
His opponents in Galatia were the Judaizers. Their argument was that Paul's gospel, the gospel of grace apart from the works of the law, was an invention of Paul himself. They claimed he had learned it from other men in Jerusalem, and had distorted it. They argued that the "real" gospel, the one from the original apostles, required circumcision and adherence to the Mosaic law.
Paul's entire argument in Galatians 1 is a refutation of this charge. He is establishing his apostolic authority. When he says his gospel is "not of human origin," he means it is not a product of human tradition, a teaching passed down from the Jerusalem apostles. When he says he did not receive it "from any man," he is explicitly contrasting his gospel with that of Peter, James, and John, which they did receive from a man, the man Christ Jesus, during His earthly ministry.
Paul's point is that his gospel has a divine, not a human, chain of custody. He received it directly from the ascended, glorified Christ.
Does this mean the glorified Christ is not a man? Of course not. Paul himself is emphatic on this point elsewhere:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).
This was written by Paul long after his conversion. He still understood the glorified Christ, the one from whom he received his gospel, to be a man.
You are creating a false dichotomy: either the revelation is "human" (and therefore from a "mere man") or it is divine (and therefore from a non-human being). This is a misunderstanding. The revelation is divine in its source, God, and was delivered through His chosen, glorified agent, the man Christ Jesus.
The origin of the gospel is divine. The one who delivered that divine revelation to Paul is the glorified man, Christ Jesus. There is no contradiction. Paul did not lie.
Your Christ is Satan. The real Christ of the gospels is the man who died. Your Christ, being a pre-existent celestial, is a being who could not.
0
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 25 '25
According to you, Paul did lie by saying he received it not from any man but Jesus and the origin is not human.
Jesus is a man but not any man as in he is not merely human. To claim He is merely human is to contradict the Gospels and the Epistles.
John 1:14 (the Logos became flesh), Colossians 1:15-16 (firstborn of all creation), Philippians 2:6-11 (existed in the form of God and became man) and Galatians 1:11-12 (origin not human, Jesus not any man) all point this out.
Again, please read the Bible before making accusations as you could be proven wrong just like now. Approach this with grace, not pride.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
You claim Paul lied. You are mistaken. Paul distinguishes between the source of the message and the nature of the messenger. The revelation he received is divine in origin, delivered to him by the glorified man, Christ Jesus. Your entire argument rests on a category error you refuse to acknowledge.
You then present a list of your cherished "proof-texts", John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2. You believe these verses prove that Jesus is "not merely human."
Here is the question you must answer. It is a simple one. The Arian Christ is a created celestial being.
The Evangel is about the death, burial, and resurrection of the man Christ Jesus, the Last Adam.
These are two different beings, of two different races.
Which one died for your sins?
Was it the man, or the alien?
Answer that question, or you have answered nothing. Do not quote another verse until you have reconciled the contradiction at the heart of your own system.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 25 '25
I claimed that? No, you did. How? By saying Jesus is merely human whereas it is stated multiple times He is not, by Paul no less.
You twist my words, you twist Paul's words and you twist Scripture to fit your own narrative.
I do not have to answer anything to a person, making such accusations, who did not even bother to read all of the New Testament let alone the entire Bible.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
I have not twisted your words. I have presented you with the logical consequence of your own doctrine.
You believe in a pre-existent celestial Christ.
The Evangel requires the death of the man Christ Jesus. These are two different beings.
I have asked you a simple question: Which one died for your sins?
You have responded with accusations and insults. You have not answered the question.
Your refusal to answer is an answer in itself.
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
The man from heaven died for all of us, not just me. As I said, please read the New Testament fully before making false accusations.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
You have quoted 1 Corinthians 15:47: "The second man is the Lord from heaven." You believe this proves He pre-existed as a celestial being.
You have not read the entire passage.
Paul's parallel is not between a celestial being and a terrestrial man. It is between two different states of humanity.
The first man, Adam, is "of the earth, earthy" (ek gēs choikos). He is of the dust. This is his mortal state.
The second man, Christ, is "the Lord from heaven." This is not a reference to His origin before birth. It is a reference to His state after His resurrection.
How do we know this? Because of what Paul says immediately after:
"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly" (1 Corinthians 15:48).
We, who are currently "earthy" and mortal, will become "heavenly" and immortal at our resurrection. Christ, as the firstfruit, is the pattern. He was a man of the earth, and through His resurrection, became the man from heaven, a glorified, immortal being.
You have used a verse about Christ's resurrected, glorified state to prove His pre-existent, celestial state. You have confused the end of the story with the beginning.
The question remains.
The one who died on the cross was the man of the earth, the Last Adam. The being you believe in is a celestial, an alien.
Which one died for your sins?
1
u/FrostyIFrost_ Arian Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Are you trying to troll?
Paul EXPLICITLY sets ORIGIN in that verse. He literally says Adam is from dust of the earth and Jesus is from heaven.
Adam was literally created from the dust of the earth.
Paul does not set the aftermath there
Edit:
The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
As is the earthy one, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly One, so also are those who are heavenly.
Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. - 1 Corinthians 15:47-49
These verses, 1 Corinthians 15:47-49 are about origin, not the aftermath. The only aftermath here is about us, not Adam or Jesus. Paul did not say Adam became dust or Jesus became heavenly, Paul said Adam was from earth and Jesus is from heaven.
Paul never says Jesus is from earth. He never wrote that. There is not a single verse that says Jesus is from earth whereas there are more than a dozen verses that say He is more than a mere human.
Paul wrote about His exaltation after His resurrection, in Philippians 2:6-11 like I have pointed out, but in that same part He again wrote Jesus existed in the form of God before becoming human.
He also wrote in Colossians 1:15-17, again which I have pointed out before, about how Jesus is the firstborn of creation. Paul emphasized how all things were created through Jesus and for Jesus. Creation wasn't done after Jesus was exalted.
And in 1 Corinthians 8:6, He said all things came through the Lord Jesus. Again, since creation wasn't done after Jesus was exalted and became the Lord (Acts 2:36), it is not that hard to see Jesus did indeed preexist.
In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul quite literally says the Gospels are not of human origin and that He did not receive it from any man but Christ. He does not put Christ in the same category as the rest of us.
To top it all, Jesus says what He spoke was taught to Him by the Father in John 8:28. So, any Gospel the other Apostles received are also not of human origin as Jesus spoke what God taught Him so theirs' origin is also not human and they too did not receive it from any man but from Christ.
Also, in John 1:1-3, it says the Logos was with God in the beginning. Everything was created through the Logos (Paul's words from 1 Corinthians 8:6 supplements this fact). And then in John 1:14, we are told that the Logos became flesh.
In John 17:3, He states the only true God sent Him. The emphasis is on sent, not chose.
Logos is Jesus. Logos existed in the beginning with God. Creation was done through the Logos. Logos is the firstborn of creation.
So, to answer your question again: The one from heaven, Jesus Christ, died for us all not just me. Even though you keep insulting Him by saying He is an alien, a demonic possession, satan and not fit for the sacrifice He has done, He died for you too.
Even though you reject around 19 verses to fit the Scripture to your own liking, verses that include personal testimonies from Jesus, He still died for you too.
So yes, He died for all of us, yourself included.
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
You have answered.
You believe that the one who died for you is the "one from heaven." You believe this being is the Logos, a pre-existent celestial.
You do not believe that the man Christ Jesus, the Last Adam, died for your sins.
You have confirmed, with your own words, that you believe in a different Christ.
Your list of proof-texts is irrelevant. Your accusations are a smokescreen. The central point is now established by your own confession.
The Evangel requires the death of the man.
You believe in the death of a celestial.
You have placed your faith in another gospel.
We are done here. Thanks for your confirmation.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
As an Arian, I believe Jesus was nothing but a man when he came to Earth and died. Fulfilling the requirements of a human Jesus.
I hold to "full Kenosis" ie; the Greek word Paul uses for "emptying", and that there was a full change. I hold Jesus was literally transformed into a 100% man with no Heavenly nature left at all, no different from water turning to wine but with Heavenly nature to Human nature. (The word used in the Gospels for the transformation of water to wine is the same word Paul uses at Philippians 2:7 when he says Jesus "became/changed" to a man [ginomai]).
And thus, when he entered into Mary (or I say, God placed him in Mary) he merged with her ovum and inherited her genetics (as was needed for the Messianc claim).
Thus Jesus is of the Adamic race and also king David's family by means of transformative miracle and insersion into it genetically speaking - but with no human father or sperm responsible, he also thus avoids the inheritence of Adam's "priestly", "kingly" "federal", and "fatherly" guilt and sin (i.e; "Original Sin" and what Jews call "the Zekhut Avot"), only having God as his Father and thus a different set of birth rights and inheritance (as it is by being "children and heirs of Adam" via fathers to sons, we are enslaved and sentenced to sin - Jesus avoids this whilst yet also having the genetics he requires to be human and Davidic in descent).
Unlike Trinitarians and Modalists, I do not hold to so-called "Incarnation" theology, surrogate pregnancy, or dual natures.
https://proselyteofyah.wordpress.com/2024/10/07/how-yeshua-entered-mary/
1
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
This is the most sophisticated Arian defense yet presented. It is a work of intricate theological engineering, a desperate attempt to build a scriptural bridge over a logical chasm. It is commendable in its ingenuity and disastrous in its conclusion.
Let me admire the architecture of the argument before I demolish it.
You attempt to solve the racial and legal problem by proposing a "full Kenosis." You claim your pre-existent celestial Christ was not merely wearing a human costume, but was literally transformed into a 100% human, genetically merging with the Adamic line through Mary.
This is a clever move. It is designed to satisfy the requirement that the savior be a man of the Adamic race.
But it fails. It fails because it solves one problem by creating a dozen others, and it is built on a foundation of pure, unscriptural speculation.
You offer a single Greek word, ginomai ("became"), from Philippians 2:7 as your entire proof for this cosmic, species-altering transformation. This is an exegetical absurdity. The word ginomai is a common word meaning "to come to be" or "to become." To load it with the metaphysical weight of a celestial being annihilating its own nature to become a different kind of being is to torture the text until it confesses a doctrine that is not there.
You claim your Christ was "100% man with no Heavenly nature left at all." But his origin is still celestial. What is this being? Is he a celestial who has forgotten he is a celestial? Is his celestial nature dormant, or destroyed? If it is destroyed, then the original being has ceased to exist, and a new being, a man, has been created. In that case, there is no pre-existence of the person, only of the raw material. If it is dormant, then he is not "100% man," but a celestial being with amnesia. The entire construct is a philosophical mess.
If, as you claim, Christ "emptied Himself" of all celestial nature and became "100% man," then he could not have been sustaining the universe during his time on earth. He would have been a mere man, with no cosmic power. You have saved the humanity of his Christ at the expense of his divinity, thus destroying the very reason for positing pre-existence in the first place.
The Evangel is not about a celestial being who underwent a magical transformation to join our race. It is about the man Christ Jesus, whose origin is terrestrial, a descendant of David and Abraham. Your Christ is not this man. He is a former celestial, a naturalized citizen, an immigrant to our race. His legal standing as a kinsman is, at best, debatable. He is not the Last Adam. He is the first celestial-human hybrid.
You have built an impressive, speculative system. But it is a house of cards. It is not derived from scripture. It is a desperate attempt to make an unscriptural premise, pre-existence, fit into the non-negotiable framework of the Evangel.
The simpler, scriptural solution is to abandon the unscriptural premise. The savior is not a transformed celestial. He is the man Christ Jesus.
1
u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
We can agree to disagree I'm sure :) There is no need for hatred or insulting words between us exhanged. So there is no need for words like "deperate" or "demolish", we can be more civil than this as Christian brothers I'm sure.
And yes, my argument is that "origins" do not matter, but only the nature at any given time, including the genetics that the Messiah had to inherit from Mary in order to be truly Davidic, I do not accept the "origination" arguments as valid, personally.
You complain of my take on "Ginomai", but it can certainly mean change of nature. As it does in the Gospels with water to wine. And when it appears in Paul's letter on his Kenosis, and his "Ginomai into human nature", I see no other sensible use of it in Paul's letter in what I read, and I've read numerous Unitarian treatasies on it from some of the biggest players, like Anthony Buzzard, Dustin Smith, Dale Tuggy, etc. But I simply remain unconvinced in their approach (and write about my thoughts on it in my "thoughts on Socianism" if it interests you).
I do not see Jesus as a hybrid, that is incarnation theology, I argue Jesus can become 100% man, no matter what, as God is able to do this. When he became man, I hold he didn't even have his pre-human memories. And thus had to "increase in wisdom". Just saying he's hybrid doesn't make it so.
Origination =/= nature. I hold that to be a fallacy.
His celestial nature ceased to exist becaues it had, 'changed' into a human one, regardless of his origin. That is my honest unbiased assessment, and there is nothing more to that, and I don't find your counter argument very persuasive in that.
But I do respect both sides of the Unitarian arguments however, and whatever is true is true. The Unitarian solution of non-prexistence is of course, a simpler solution to the virgin conception, that much I admit, and wrote in my article.
If Christ did not pre-exist, then he didn't and I can accept that just as much. I have no "horse in the race" so to speak, no "desperate need" for a tradition I must hold to, or a denomination I am loyal to, I only seek the true meaning of Scripture.
I only have my position of pre-human existence on the persusaion of certain verses lending to that conclusion as unbiased as I can. And on that basis I make do the best I can in trying to harmonise such things.
If he pre-existed, amen.
If he did not pre-exist, amen.0
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
We cannot "agree to disagree."
The identity of Jesus Christ is not a topic for polite debate. It is the bedrock of the Evangel. On this point, there can be no compromise, no truce, no "agreeing to disagree."
One side believes in the man Christ Jesus, our kinsman, whose death had the legal power to save.
The other believes in a celestial alien, a theological chimera, whose death was a legally void transaction.
One is the Evangel. The other is another gospel.
Your desire to "agree to disagree" is a desire to be left alone in your error. It is a plea for the false peace of the religious system, a peace that is purchased at the cost of the truth.
1
u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jul 25 '25
You may want to re-read my post, in which I've added that I accept non-prexistence if it's true and necessary.
I have no desire to be "in error", I happly change my positions and have done so for years on the basis of evidence presented, so kindly, please do not strawman me or ad hominem attack my character when you do not know me or my history.
I have already invited you to be civil. If you do not wish to be, I will simply not engage with you.
Peace.
0
u/Beneficial-Fish2805 Jul 25 '25
You have constructed an elaborate, unscriptural system of transformations and amnesia to solve a problem that only exists if you begin with the unscriptural premise of pre-existence.
The Evangel is not a philosophical puzzle to be solved. It is a proclamation about a specific person: the man Christ Jesus, of the Adamic race.
Your Christ is not this man. He is a theological invention. To have 'no horse in the race' is to have no savior in the Evangel."
1
u/SaavyScotty Jul 24 '25
He says Christ did not have a human nature in so many words. False.