[OUTDATED] This version is outdated. Please refer to the updated proof here
I would like to present my simple yet very controversial proof that Arianism is a salvation issue because its Christ is a legal alien with no standing to act as humanity's federal head.
The Legal Standard of the Evangel: Paul's Evangel is a forensic argument. It addresses a legal sentence of condemnation passed upon the Adamic race through the transgression of its first federal head, the man Adam (Romans 5:18). The solution must also be legal. It requires a new federal head from that same legal family, a kinsman, to reverse the sentence through an act of obedience. This kinsman must be the man Christ Jesus, the Last Adam (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Corinthians 15:45). His legal membership in the Adamic race is his non-negotiable qualification. The Arian Candidate: A Legal Alien. The Arian Christ is, by their own definition, a created celestial being. This is his origin, his nature, his race. He is, in the legal framework of the cosmos, a foreigner to the Adamic race. The Irrelevance of the Incarnation Process: The Arian will protest, "But he was born of Mary, so he is human!" This is a confusion of process with origin, of maternal hosting with legal identity. A foreign prince, born in a different kingdom, who is later adopted by a king, does not become a member of the royal bloodline. He is an heir by decree, not by nature. He is not a kinsman. Likewise, a celestial being, whose origin is not of Adam, who is then born through a human woman, does not become a member of the Adamic race. He remains a legal alien who has taken on a human form. The Consequence: A Void Transaction. Because the Arian Christ is a legal alien, he has no standing to act as our federal head. He cannot legally represent a race to which he does not belong. His death is the death of a foreigner. It is a noble act, but it is a legally void transaction. It has no power to reverse the sentence passed on the sons of Adam. The entire legal parallel of Romans 5 is annihilated.
Wow! A very persuasive argument! The problem is you are making the wrong argument. It is not for us to determine who is or is not a member of the body. And, you not able to know what someone else believes. I understand the contradiction. I agree with your points about the contradiction. But, just because you think someone believes something, doesn’t mean they do. These points would be great, if used to prove specific points cannot be true. But, to attempt to prove whether or not Father chose someone to be in the body? For that intention, all human arguments are meaningless.
ReplyDelete> "It is not for us to determine who is or is not a member of the body."
DeleteI agree that we cannot read a man's heart. However, we are explicitly commanded by Paul to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17). How are we to obey this command if we are forbidden from judging a doctrine against the standard of the Evangel?
> "you are not able to know what someone else believes."
We know what a man believes by what he publicly and repeatedly teaches. If a man professes a belief in a pre-existent celestial Christ, we are to take him at his word. To do otherwise is to ignore his testimony.
God has given us the standard in 1 Corinthians 15. An argument that measures a doctrine against that standard is not a "human argument." It is the work of a Berean, searching the scriptures to see if these things are so.
The argument does not determine whom God has chosen in some abstract sense. It determines whether a stated doctrine meets the scriptural requirements for inclusion in the body of Christ. The logic shows that Arianism does not.
To accept the logic but refuse its conclusion is to prioritize the comfort of fellowship over the integrity of the Evangel.