 Heath is wondering what Mike's thoughts are on the eternal sonship doctrine? Yeah, I think the best way to answer this is I don't believe in adoptionist Christology, so you know Godhead thinking is clear to me in the Old Testament You know you have the binatarian thing once you understand binatarianism you're gonna see places where the spirit is brought into the discussion You're gonna see the spirit talked about in similar ways that the second Yahweh figure has talked about And if we have a Godhead that means you have three persons who are co-eternal So I would be in the the eternal you know sonship I'm trying to remember what the terminology was here exactly eternal sonship because eternal sonship is related to but not the same as the eternal Subordination the subordinationism or not so without you know going down too many rabbit trails here I think the best way to just answer this question is I don't believe in adoptionist Christology Godhead thinking is clear to me in the Old Testament And if that's the case You know when it gets carried over to the New Testament where Jesus is the second Yahweh figure and then the spirit is but isn't Jesus there You have your three you have Trinitarianism you don't need an adoptionist model in the New Testament if you have Godhead thinking go all the way back into the Old Testament Heath's second question is if a Binotarian accepts the orthodox Trinitarians view of the father and son but differs on the personality of the Holy Spirit Would a Trinitarian still be able to view that binotarian as a brother in Christ Well, I'm gonna assume here that when he says differs on the personality the Holy Spirit that what he means is doesn't think the Holy Spirit Is part of the Godhead that's it That's actually a different question than whether the Holy Spirit is a person or not But I think that's probably what the question intends So let's say can a person who's binotarian and not Trinitarian Trinitarian, you know still be considered a brother in Christ or something like that. That that's what I'm hearing in the question I would say I think that failure to see the three and one in Scripture is Just that it's a failure, you know again once you understand binotarianism Trinitarianism derives from two trajectories essentially You know, you've got two powers language applied to the spirit In other words, the spirit is brought into the discussion and again not made Precisely and and totally distinct from the other two, but the spirit is talked about in the same ways in Particular as the second Yahweh figure gets talked about minus the embodiment But there's this blurring of the spirit the spirit is brought into the conversation as it as it were with the Invisible Yahweh and the visible Yahweh, you know, the anthropomorphized Yahweh and they are interchanged I mean that that's one trajectory and then second Seeing how Jesus is the second Yahweh figure the second person and then noting how the New Testament identifies the spirit with him With Jesus in certain passages, you know, and I talk about this in unseen realm a lot where at least at least I spent a couple pages on it You have passages where the spirit of God the phrase the spirit of God occurs in tandem with the spirit of Jesus or the spirit of Christ And it's the same person you have Paul say on two occasions. He refers to Jesus as the Lord who is the spirit So you have this sense that just as Jesus is but isn't God. He's the son. He's not the father, but but they're still the same You know, again, this whole Godhead talk that we're used to that is also again Used to be part of Judaism because of the two powers issue So Jesus is God, but he also isn't the father. Well, the spirit is but isn't Jesus And and once you see how, you know, Jesus is the focal point for both the father and the spirit That's where actually we're Trinitarianism derives from so I I think the failure to see that is just, you know Kind of not knowing your Bible well enough or Maybe not knowing what you're looking at might be a better way to put it because the typically the way Trinitarianism has talked about it. It's proof-texted and I think we we're much better off, you know to go beyond proof-texting But again having said all that if people can't see that they aren't damned Okay, since salvation isn't about the ability to articulate theology Not not just theology of the Trinity but theology on a whole bunch of things Romans 5-8 doesn't say that Christ died for us while we were articulating Trinitarianism correctly Or on the condition that we successfully articulated a Trinitarian theology doesn't say that at all John 3 16 doesn't say whosoever believes or it says it says whosoever believes in Christ again The one God gave to be the Savior the world, you know will be saved it doesn't say, you know That whosoever understands how to navigate adoption is an eternal sonship subordination. It doesn't say any of that You know brother in Christ Which was part of the question is a phrase used to believers Those who put their entire hope of eternal life and forgiveness of sin Integrating no merit of their own on the work of Christ on the cross that's what makes you a believer And it's an it's an exclusive thing. There are no multiple roads to salvation. Jesus said I'm the way the truth of life You know, no one comes to the father except through me, you know He he doesn't say you can get through me once I hear you successfully articulate Trinitarian theology It it just doesn't say that you can get lots of doctrines wrong and still believe that there is no other means of salvation In other words, you can believe the correct object of salvation and you can and you you can believe the necessity of believing in that object of salvation and still not be able to articulate very well how it all works or Why we need the incarnation or or or why there is a Godhead you those are related but Distinct things. Okay, they're not you can't exchange Understanding of the Trinity with belief in the gospel that you can't swap those in and out and have the same result You can have you can have someone who can articulate Trinitarianism perfectly and if they don't believe that Christ is the lone, you know way of salvation put their trust and faith in him They're not a believer They're a good theologian, but they're not a believer. These are not one-to-one exchangeable things So, you know, they're not damned I would say, you know, if you go back you can find references to the Arians again back at the Nicene controversy the losers And they denied the eternality of the Sun. You know, they believe there was a time when the Sun was not You know, they so they didn't see Jesus as fully God But nevertheless, they did see Jesus as the soul means of salvation and they get referred to as brethren I mean there are places where that happens. They're not they're not Considered non-believers. They're considered to have aberrant theology By the decision of the council and I think we need to, you know, remember this and apply it to our own situations Now, you know, somebody might think of you know, 1st John, you know, John's talk about unbelievers Not believing quote that Christ had come in the flesh. Okay. Well, that really isn't about successfully articulating Trinitarianism, it's really about rejecting that Jesus was the Christ the Messiah Okay, the Messiah come, you know, you know to deliver Israel If you look at 1st John 4 for instance verses 2 and 3 and I think about what this says By this, you know the spirit of God every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God And every spirit that does not confess Jesus Is not from God Notice the two polar opposites Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. Okay Then how do you wind up being not from God? It doesn't say That every spirit that does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh is not from God. That isn't what the verse says It says every spirit that does not confess Jesus Is not from God. So this this, you know, John's idea about Christ coming in the flesh is is is really about and ultimately about Accepting that Jesus was the Messiah again the Savior the ones who you know, who is Sacrifice who was given by God to take away the sins of the world John 3 16 if you reject that Okay, then that's not from God, you know, many Christians who would embrace the exclusivity of the gospel today wouldn't have a prayer of successfully articulating the subtleties of adoptionism Subordinationism eternal sonship etc. Hey when I became a Christian, I don't know about any of that I wouldn't have had a prayer to have an intelligent discussion About any of that But I understood what the gospel was and why I needed it And that there was no other way of salvation And I just think we need to keep some of these things in perspective. So no, they're not damned You know, I think I think they're incorrect in their theology but these Is not one to one each