"Explaining and Defending the Trinity and the Person of Christ."
http://ichthys.com  
Question #1:  
Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I continue to enjoy your site and learn from you, and for that I say thank you and pray the Lords blessings on you. I have a few questions (as I always do for you).

I have difficulty really understanding the Trinity.  I know that God is one essence but three persons.  Would that be in very simplistic terms be explained that I am one person, but I am a nurse, a mother and a wife?  So I am me but have three different roles or is this way off the mark?  If this is the case then how can Jesus sit at the right hand of the Father?  I could not as a nurse sit next to me the wife since I am but one person.  Am I making sense in asking this question?  I can say yes I understand the Trinity but I get hung up on the Son sitting next to the Father.

I also have reread the section in the Tribulation about receiving the Mark of the Beast and wonder if for example someone were a Christian all their life and when they were older had Alzheimer's and were forced to take the mark for whatever reason be it to stay in a nursing home or receive health care benefits or whatever the False Prophet may decide,  would they not go to God's kingdom since all who receive the mark don't?

And lastly, if our government were to make it mandatory for everyone to get a National ID card and/or need to have a RFID implanted for whatever reason they deem necessary for America's security would you get/do either of these? Would either of these be like taking the Mark or like you say in your series about the Beast a person would need to receive it with full knowledge and decision for the Antichrist's one world religion?

Thank you as always for your response.

Response #1:  
Good to hear from you.  Thanks so much for your encouraging comments!  On the Trinity, in your example, you are one person with three roles.  God is three Persons with one role per Person.  God's essence is divine, and all three members of the Trinity share it equally.  Your essence is human, and you share that essence equally with everyone else who has ever been born as a true human being.  But that analogy can only be pressed so far since, clearly, the Persons of the Trinity are so close that there is no difference in their will, and that cannot be true of the saved portion of the human race until after the resurrection (so to completely and fully understand this point we will have to wait).  There are a number of analogies in the natural world that people have found helpful, and I plug them in here from BB1 Theology (and I recommend and suggest reading  the whole section: "Definition of the Trinity: God is One in Essence, Three in Person"):

1. Light is one yet distinct: (1Jn.1:5)

Radio is heard

Visible light is seen

Infra-red is felt

2. The universe is one yet distinct:

Time

Space

Matter

3. Time is one yet distinct:

past

present

future

4. Space is one yet distinct:

length

breadth

height

5. Matter is one yet distinct:

Energy

Matter

Phenomena

God is of course very different from any of these.  The fact that He exists with a single essence and in three separate persons is difficult for us to comprehend and has been at the root of many church controversies, heresies, and general misunderstandings of the scripture.  It is important to accept both parts of this proposition and not to over or under emphasize either one, even though to human logic they may seem to some degree mutually exclusive.  In fact, they are not, but it can be hard to come to an appreciation of this truth.  Imagine that you were one of three triplets and that together you ran a hospital.  One of you was the doctor, one of you was the nurse, and one of you was the administrator.  The roles you had agreed to undertake help to explain that you are three separate persons (which of course you are), but the fact that you look and sound so much alike, and that you are all working so closely for the same goal of helping people in this way, tends to blur the distinction between you as individuals in the minds of those who observe you.  I think that twins and triplets probably get this sort of treatment a lot, but they are in fact completely separate persons, even though they share the same [human] essence (along with all the rest of us), and even though they seem to those on the outside to be very close in terms of their personality – in spite of the closeness, there is still a separation.

On the Alzheimer example, one can imagine other circumstances too where it would certainly be possible to put the mark on someone against their will.  What matters to God is what is in the heart.  Just as it does no good whatsoever to profess verbally faith in Christ if that is not really what is in the heart (and conversely if one does indeed believe in the heart a formal public profession is not necessary for salvation), so also in this case God knows who is His and who is not.  If the forces of the beast strap a person down and place the mark on them against their will, that is not at all the same as "receiving the mark", and conversely there will no doubt be those who while they avoid the actual mark itself have nonetheless gone along in great measure with the underlying satanic philosophy of antichrist, rejecting the true Lord Jesus Christ:  such will not be saved, even though they do not have the mark.  I am no expert on Alzheimer's, but it seems to me that people who contract extreme forms of it are "not themselves" and really do have the function of normal free will as we understand it but resemble more those of reduced mental capacity (whom God does not hold responsible in the same way He does the rest of us).

As to the mark, as I say in CT 4, "The mark will take the form of a permanent, visible tattoo".  Therefore, technically speaking, neither of these things would or could constitute "the mark" to my way of thinking.  That is not to say that either is a good idea.  To be honest, I am less concerned about the former than the latter, and find it difficult to imagine circumstances under which I would willingly allow something like this to be placed in my body.  No one can say for sure, but it seems to me that, given the closeness of the Tribulation, the latter of these measures which concern you is not likely to be at issue until antichrist is in control.  At that point, discriminating Christians will have had plenty of lead time and advanced information (like that in the CT series) in order to cope with the specifics of the situation as it develops.  One or either of these measures may well lead into the biblical concern:  the taking of the mark.  In either case, I would have to say that it is the taking of the mark that constitutes the breaking of faith against which scripture warns.  Since even the invasive second example you give is not specifically forbidden by scripture (although I would think that basic spiritual common sense would cause any Christian to be resistant to such a thing), a person who for whatever reason found themselves going along would not automatically be lost (though it might help to reduce their resistance, and that is dangerous).  We shall have to wait and see what transpires, but scripture seems to indicate pretty clearly that the mark will be a clear departure from past practice and entail a very straightforward "pledge of allegiance", so to speak, to antichrist.  It is doubtful if anyone will enter into this compact unwittingly and unwillingly (although there will definitely be a large degree of deception as to who the beast really is, and the coercion of will will be extreme).

Hope this helps -- as always, feel free to write back for clarification on any point.

In our Lord Jesus who has marked us with His Holy Spirit forever.

Bob L.
 
Question #2:  
Dear Robert

We have been working on the complex issue of Trinity in our Bible study. However never before has there been disagreements of this magnitude as a result. Most members are now sitting on the fence as they don't know what to believe. The problem is the people who dispute Trinity do it with some scripture references. One Church member has written the following:

    On whether Jesus is equal to God consider what Jesus said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.” (John 5:19) Paul added: “The head of the Christ is God.”—1 Corinthians 11:3.

    Consider these questions carefully: Does Jehovah have a God? Obviously not, he is supreme, the Almighty. Does Jesus have a God? After his resurrection Jesus said to Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” The apostle Peter wrote: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—John 20:17; 1 Peter 1:3.

    Has God ever died? Of course not. God is immortal. The prophet Habakkuk said of Jehovah: “My Holy One, you do not die.” (Habakkuk 1:12) In contrast, Jesus did die. Then who raised him from the dead? Said Peter: “God raised [Christ] up from the dead.” It becomes evident, then, that Jesus is not the Supreme Being.—Acts 3:15; Romans 5:8.

    You can go further. Has God ever been seen? “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) Yet thousands saw Jesus on earth. Has God ever prayed to anyone? To whom could he pray? He is the great “Hearer of prayer.” (Psalm 65:2) And Jesus? He frequently prayed to his Father, even spending a whole night in prayer. Is God a priest? Obviously not. Is Jesus? Paul wrote: “Consider the apostle and high priest whom we confess—Jesus.”—Hebrews 3:1.

I am praying for wisdom but can I hear your views?
 
Response #2:  
This sort of assault on the Trinity has been going on since the earliest days of the Church, and it has in common with those earlier assaults a stubborn refusal to look at the entire Bible, choosing instead to "cherry-pick" certain passages and then – what is worse and most dangerous of all – defend the heretical interpretation by means of human logic supported by rhetoric.  First of all, rhetoric is persuasive, but it is not proof.  The series of rhetorical questions this person asks are, without apologetic training, difficult for the average believer to answer immediately, and so they are emotionally disruptive.  That, after all, is the purpose of rhetoric, namely, to attack an opponent verbally and throw him off balance in order to win an argument.  This is exactly the sort of thing that the apostle Paul, a man very well trained in the art of speaking, deliberately avoided in his ministry (cf. 1Cor.2:1-2; cf. 1Cor.1:17). As true believers in Jesus Christ, our goal is to learn the truth, not to win an argument even at the cost of leading others into falsehood.  And so we are right to suspect that anyone who uses this sort of device more appropriate to politics than theology has something else in mind other than a genuine and humble search for the truth.  Therefore in such matters the use of rhetorical argumentation, tone, and attitude should be for true Christians a warning bell that induces suspicion rather than a reason to doubt what they believe.  Secondly, human logic often fails when trying to explain God and His ways.  He is the one, after all, who confutes and refuses the wisdom of the wise (1Cor.3:18-20).  For example, God gives us free will but He also has decreed all that we will do with it.  These two things are, by the lights of human logic, irreconcilable, but both things are equally true whatever mankind may wish to think.  So it is in this particular case.  All the criticisms leveled by this person can be answered in essence by one statement:  since the incarnation, Jesus Christ is both human and divine.  Therefore in His humanity and in the role He has taken on in human history, He is indeed subordinate, visible, and responsive to the Father.  In His deity, however, He is coequal and co-eternal.  Reconciling this and understanding it requires faith over logic, but not that much faith – only the grain of a mustard seed's worth – because all of this is clearly spelled out in scripture.  I invite and encourage you to read the studies and letters at the following links:

       The Trinity (in part 1 of Bible Basics)

       The Trinity in Scripture

       Questioning the Trinity

       The Trinity in Isaiah 63

       The One True God and the Trinity in the Old Testament

Please feel free to write me back about any of this as I am more than happy to discuss it further.    Keep on fighting the good fight of faith!

In Him who though divine took on flesh to die for us that we might live forever, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.
 
Question #3:  
For your consideration, please read the following information at the link below about the true nature of the Trinity (link: The Truth about the Trinity).
  
In His Name,

Response #3:  
Dear Friend,

It is fair to say that even an atheist reading the New Testament would form the impression that Jesus Christ, while clearly portrayed as a true human being, is also portrayed as genuinely God.  Not being an atheist, but rather being a believer, I drop the word "portray" from my objective analysis and say "the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is a true human being while at the same time also being God".

Clearly, you have a different view.  However, you should know that, judging from your analysis of the passages below, this view is based upon an insufficient knowledge of Greek (and Hebrew) and a variety of "logical assumptions" which are not appropriate to orthodox theology.

You certainly do not need to read any further to see where this is going, however, you might want to do so anyway.  John tells us very clearly that "No one who denies the Son has the Father" (1Jn.2:23).  Now what does it mean to "deny the Son" if not to deny either His Person or His work?  Therefore if someone accepts the totality of Jesus' Person, but does not accept the fact that He died on the cross for all sin, that individual is not saved, just because he/she does accept the totality of who Jesus is – for he/she is unwilling to appropriate the grace and forgiveness that comes from acknowledging Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf.  Likewise, if someone is willing to accept that Jesus died for sin, but denies the reality of His humanity (as in docetic gnosticism, e.g.), that individual is not saved, because if one wrongly assumes the sacrifice for sin was only apparent, there can be little appreciation for what our Lord actually did for us.  Finally, accepting the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross and recognizing that He was indeed a genuine human being (and is), is wonderful, but by denying His divinity, how are you not also denying His true Person and the fact that only God could live a perfect life?  And if you are denying who He is in His essential divinity, how are you not also denying the Father, failing to understand the true nature of the Father's sacrifice as well?  And if you deny Him His divinity when He is divine, how are not diminishing Him in every way, especially in terms of what bearing our sins on the cross entailed for the God-Man?  Furthermore, Jesus told us, "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30), so that belief in who Jesus is (undiminished deity and true humanity in One Person forever) and what He has done for us (dying for all sin on the cross that we might be saved) are inextricable from genuine and saving faith in God the Father as well.  For, "even the demons believe" in the existence of God (Jas.2:19), but believers have given over their will to the WILL of God by accepting the truth He has given us in scripture about Himself and His Son.  To deny that truth is to deny the TRUTH; Jesus is "the truth" and failing to accept either His work, or His humanity, or His deity is to deny, is to willfully refuse the essential truth about Him clearly provided by scripture – and by that denial to choose death over life. 

Before examining the passages you offer and critiquing your analysis, here are just a few of some of the more important passages which clearly teach the divinity of Jesus Christ (please see also the following link:  part 1 of Bible Basics, section II, "The Persons of God: The Trinity"):

1. Jesus is explicitly called God: (He is "Immanuel", "God [present] with us", Matt.1:23; and also Rom.9:5; Tit.2:13; Heb.1:8; 1Jn.5:20)
2. Jesus is worshiped as God (Matt.28:9; Phil.2:10)
3. Jesus is the Creator (Jn.1:3; Col.1:16; Heb.1:1-3; 1:10 - and God created the world: Gen.1-2)
4. Jesus is One with God (Jn.10:30)
5. Jesus has always been "face to face with God" (Jn.1:1; cf. Jn.1:18)
6. Jesus is the only Son of God (Matt.17:5; Heb.1:5-9), entering the world for us from His prior presence with God (Jn.1:14)
7. Jesus has all the divine attributes of God (cf. Matt.28:18; Jn.1:48; 14:6)
8. Jesus is the exact image of God (Col.15; cf. 2Cor.4:4; Heb.1:3)
9. Jesus is eternal like God (Jn.8:58; Heb.13:8)
10. Jesus is equal to God (Jn.5:18)      [please see also, "Where does the Bible teach that Jesus is God?"]

So regardless of any logical structure you think you have constructed to prove the opposite, beyond all reasonable argument any objective person, even a complete materialist, would have to say from the start that the divinity of Jesus Christ is a "theme" undeniably found in the Bible, believe it or not.

I will attempt to address your proofs seriatim using your numbering system:

1) "In the Beginning":  Actually, there is no "the" in the Greek phrase en archei.  And that, as it happens, is a faithful rendering of the Hebrew phrase in Genesis 1:1 bereshith, also occurring without a "the".  By deliberately avoiding the use of the article, both Moses and John make an important point that runs counter to your entire analysis, namely that this is not "THE beginning", but rather the first thing that God does in respect to a creation in Genesis (action verb bara') and reflects the state of affairs at the point of creation in John (i.e., before anything was created "the Word was").  Thus this combination of passages clearly teaches in the original languages what most people would figure out anyway from the average, un-doctored English translation, namely, that the Word preexists original creation, thus the Word must be divine.  [note: re: Jn.7:29 et al., these passages have nothing to do with the issue at hand as they are speaking of the coming of the Son into the world, that is, the incarnation of the Word, and there is no argument that Jesus' humanity clearly is "of the Father" –  but His divinity is co-equal and co-eternal]. 

2) Coming/Going from God:  How could divinity "go to God"?  Clearly, Jesus, in His humanity, is telling the disciples in John 13:3 et al. about the imminent ascension of His resurrected human body.  Again, we expect all passages wherein He addresses His humanity to be put in these terms;  this does not refute the fact that along with His human nature He also has a divine nature which has always been "face to face" with the Father (Jn.1:1-2; 1Jn.1:2).  See note under pt.1.
Also see 1Jn.4:2 and 4:10 etc.: since Jesus is “sent” into the world, He had to exist before the time of His birth; as all human beings are immediately created at birth (through God's imparting of the human spirit).  Therefore Jesus had to be more than a human being; not being an angel (Heb.1), He must of necessity be divine.  Finally, the fact that Jesus has “COME in the flesh”, a statement which is part of the gospel (2Jn.1:7), shows that accepting both the divinity of Jesus (He couldn't be said to have come were He not divine) and His humanity (“in the flesh”) are inextricably connected.

3) John 1:1:  You are wrong about the Greek here.  When one has two nominatives with the copula, one is the subject and one is the predicate.  The one with the definite article is almost always the subject, regardless of its position (and it usually is not first in Greek word order as English speakers would expect).  Therefore, "and the Word was God" is in fact correct, just as is reflected in all major translations. 

Philippians 2:6:  Your purpose here seems to me to remove this critical passage from consideration by reducing it to gibberish.  After all, your rendering, "Who in the form of God beginning below, not robbery considered", is incomprehensible in English, regardless of your point of view.  Since your efforts at translation are clearly flawed prima facie, rather than critiquing your technique I offer you here my translation of this passage, a passage that clearly teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ, if translated in anything resembling the English language:

    You too should have this attitude which Christ Jesus had. Since He already existed in the very form of God, equality with God was [certainly] not something He thought He had to grasp for. Yet in spite of this [co-equal divinity He already possessed], He deprived Himself of His status and took on the form of a slave, [and was] born in the likeness of men. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even [His] death on [the] cross [for us all].
        Philippians 2:5-8

4) Colossians 1:15 actually expresses the two aspects of our Lord Jesus' unique Person, divine and human.  For He is both "the exact image of the unseen God" (i.e., He is divine even though that divinity is like all divinity impossible for human eyes to see), and also "the firstborn of all creation" (i.e., He is human, and not only human, but the "Last Adam", the unique and perfect Savior of the world).  Thus the "beginning" part only applies to His humanity, and that did have a definite beginning as no one would disagree.

Hebrews 1:6:  Your misapplication of the word "again" (Greek palin) is critical.  The passage reads in the Greek "When He (i.e., the Father) brings His Firstborn into the world again".  That is to say, this passage where all the angels will worship Him is referring to the 2nd Advent – that after all was the primary point of reference for the Messiah for the vast majority of Old Testament prophecies, and the failure of Jesus contemporaries to appreciate that a first advent and the cross were necessary is well-known.

Revelation 3:14:  Jesus is rather "the origin of God's creation" (the meaning of arche here).  This is what is also said other places in scripture notably in Colossians:

    Everything in the heavens and on the earth was created by Him (Jesus Christ), things invisible as well as those visible – whether thrones, authorities, rulers or powers, everything was created through Him and for Him. And He Himself is before everything, and everything subsists in Him.
    Colossians 1:16-17

Now if Jesus is the One "through whom [the Father] made the ages" (Heb.1:2), would He not then have to exist before creation, given that He is the Agent of that creation?

5) Arguing about whether the world was made "by" or "through" Jesus is a red-herring.  If I do something "by you" or "through you", either way, YOU are involved, yes?  Now if Jesus is the One "through whom [the Father] made the ages" (Heb.1:2), rather than "by whom" as you prefer, even so, how can He not exist before creation, given that He is the Agent of creation or Channel of creation or whatever term you prefer?  Either way, He would have to exist before creation, which means He is divine.

6) John 5:6-8:  I don't know of any doctrinal Bible teacher who would use these verses as a primary source of evidence for the Trinity.  That said, I do think one finds the Trinity here, with the "blood" referring to the Son (His work); the "water" to the Father (the truth precedes from Him, water being a common biblical metaphor for truth); and the Spirit being the Spirit.  However, your translation of verse 8 "and these three IN THE ONE ARE", leaves me shaking my head.  I would have flunk any of my Greek students who turned in an assignment of such poor quality.  One fundamental rule of translation is that the end product cannot be gibberish in the target language.  After all, whatever you think the Greek text means, it means something, whereas these words you provide as a putative English translation mean nothing.  It is a common characteristic of all cult behavior to reduce their fundamental teachings to "secret knowledge" that is know only to a few and controlled by the few – the better to manipulate the many, changing whatever needs to be changed whenever it needs to be changed without fear of contradiction since "no one else has the truth".

7) John 5:19:  This is another instance of your taking a passage that describes Jesus' actions in His humanity as the Messiah in attempt to show that He is not God too.  Once and for all, if being a true human being meant ipso facto that Jesus could not for that very reason be divine, then you would scarcely need to make an argument at all.  But since that is clearly not the case, lobbing up example after example where Jesus acts in His humanity, speaks in His humanity, or describes Himself, His actions, His relationship to His Father in terms of His humanity do nothing to prove your case.  In His humanity, Jesus is subordinate.  In His deity, He is co-equal and co-eternal.  This is blessed, because only God could ever live a perfect life, and only a sinless human being could ever die in sacrifice for our sins.  He needed to be both, is both, and both are critical aspects of His person without which the truth of the gospel is fatally obscured.

Matthew 4:3-10:  Apart from the obvious fact that the devil is a poor source of authority, if I am not mistaken you do not deny that Jesus is "the Son of God", which is the only hypothesis Satan puts down here.  So for this passage to provide any support for your argument, you would have somehow to deny the Sonship of Jesus as well as the divinity of Jesus (something about which, by the way, the devil has no illusions).

8) "Jesus had to learn"; in His humanity (i.e., refutation the same as above):  Note, however, what He did for us!  Many people think that because Jesus was God, He had it easy on earth.  In fact, even though in His deity He is the Word, in His humanity He had to learn, to prepare, to suffer, like as we do, only on a scale we cannot imagine and in ways we will never appreciate this side of eternity.

9) Your assumption that proskyneo does not mean "to worship" is a canard.  Check any Greek dictionary, even your beloved "Strong's", and you will see that this argument does not begin to hold water.  Jesus is "worshiped" as men worship God and does not refuse it since He is God and worthy of worship.

    When He (i.e., the Father) brings His Firstborn into the world again, He says, "Let all the angels of God worship Him (the verb is proskyneo)."
    Hebrews 1:6

Jesus is worthy of worship befitting deity, regardless of the vocabulary:

    Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the Name that is above every name that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
    Philippians 2:9-11

10) "I and the Father are One" (Jn.10:30).  If this statement means nothing, I ask you, would you dare to insert your name here?  And if you did make this statement about yourself, do you honestly think that those listening to you would not think you were putting yourself on the same level with God the Father?  And are you telling us that because we who believe will on that blessed day be an integral and inseparable part of the Body of Christ, "one with Him", that this is the exact same thing as Jesus being "One" with the Father as in "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One" (Deut.6:4)?  Surely, the Jews listening to Jesus understood what He meant.  And all of us in the true Church understand that we are not on the level of the Father and the Son, no matter how much we rejoice in our "oneness" with Jesus positionally now and as His Bride in the very near future.  If God were as concerned with rhetoric as you are eager to employ it, perhaps He would have given the Bible footnotes (i.e., "by 'One', here I mean co-divine"; and "by 'one' here I do not mean an equal member of the Trinity").  But since this is patently obvious to any reasonable person and certainly to any genuine seeker of the truth, no footnotes are needed.  The sense of both these things is clear on the surface, and no one would accidentally confuse the two ideas – without being deliberately led astray at any rate.

11) Jesus is not an "idol", nor is the proper appreciation and worship of His deity "idolatry".  Understanding correctly and precisely who "He is" is critical to being a Christian.  In fact, it is not hard at all to comprehend the fact of His divinity and humanity in One Person forever, even though the means and the details are beyond our human ken at present.  What is impossible to understand is how the clear statements given to show His deity could be accidentally misunderstood.  Indeed, it seems it is no accident.  The evil one is intent upon deceiving just as many wavering Christians as he can, and this has historically proven an excellent way to sow doubt in the hearts of those whose faith has not been confirmed and who have not bothered to make a habit of searching and of learning the scriptures (cf. Heb.5:14).

12) "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Rom.10:9 etc.).  Amen!  Therefore honor Him as Lord and worship Him as Lord, for Lord He is, the Lord God our Savior, Son of the Father, eternal God made man to die for us in our place.

13) Thomas' statement:  The Greek text of John 20:28 is unmistakable, irrefutable, and incapable of alternative interpretation:  Thomas remarks of Jesus, "My Lord and my God", and that should be clear enough.  On worship, see above.  On "Sonship" see above, and note again that Sonship and divinity are not contradictory as Jesus is both God and man.

14) There is indeed "One God" -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the identical essence, and at the same time they are three in Person.  This is the fundamental truth of the Trinity, and you can read more about that at the following link already provided above:  part 1 of Bible Basics, section II, "The Persons of God: The Trinity").

Finally, this is an issue of no small moment.  As pointed out above, it is not a light thing or an unimportant thing to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.  For by denying Him His divinity (in your thinking), you reduce Him, the importance of Him, and the monumental nature of the sacrifice He made of Himself and the Father made of Him.  Even more crucially in terms of your own spiritual welfare, knocking out this critical underpinning of the essential truth of the gospel renders it null and void in your case.  For without fully accepting in faith who Jesus is and what He has done, you cannot be saved. 

    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
    John 20:31  KJV

Written in the hope of your eternal life.

In our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill
 
Question #4:
Dear Bob,

Thank you for the thoroughness of your response. Although a bit overwhelmed at first, I will pay careful attention to all that you have written.  I only want to follow the truth and I am certainly open for correction and direction by teachers more learned than myself.

I belong to no organized, or unorganized, religious group, church or cult. Much of this paper was written while I ran my cleaning business. I cleaned bathtubs and toilets; I am no scholar, save for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the study of this topic.

Jesus, the only begotten of God before the foundation of the world; the word of God made flesh; the perfect Lamb though tempted, is my Lord and savior through his shed blood. I am thrilled and blessed to be both inspired and excited by this weighty doctrine.

See you on the way up… 
 
Response #4:
Thank you for clearing this up.  I did, as you can tell, assume that this was coming at the behest of some organized group, although as you have also discerned, I try to make these responses personal in the hopes of guiding any and all to the truth.

You have my sincerest of apologies in case you found anything in my previous response to be of an overly adversarial tone.

Hold on to your pure and sincere faith in Jesus Christ -- for He is who He is, God and man in One Person forever.

In the Name of the One who died for us that we might live together with Him forever.

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com