I believe both doctrines of the Trinity and Substitutionary Atonement are fundamental. While I’m not an apologist for either, and can’t debate each doctrine backing it up with Scripture off the top of my head, from what I’ve read in Scripture, they are both vitally important to understanding who God is and what He’s done in all His fullness through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

There are times when I’ve read parts of John and elsewhere where it’s hard for me to believe that there are those who don’t believe in the doctrine (teaching) of the Trinity, although this is somewhat understandable as much as I would disagree with those who don’t.

Substitutionary Atonement, or Penal Substitution (or Cosmic Child Abuse according to Steve Chalke), where Christ took on the punishment for our sins in our place seems even more clear to me in Scripture.

The reason I’m writing this post is to ask why some people can believe that one doctrine is absolutely foundational and non-negotiable but the other isn’t. It can go both ways, some believing only the Trinity and others substitution.

I’m not asking, “How could you think that?!” I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious and would like to learn about what other people believe.

If there aren’t many responses and you’d like to speak for others, please make sure you are representing them accurately. ! I’m not looking for misrepresentations or caricatures. That’s the last thing we need in this day and age.

Thanks.

Brian talks about the Trinity on his blog and links to Dr. Derek Vreeland.

As somewhat of an aside, Michael Horton’s Christless Christianity is mentioned above and there is also a post at Baker Book House’s blog related to a visit by the author.

John MacArthur writes about the Trinity at Shepherd’s Fellowship blog.

Pitchford’s Ramblings has a good, concise article on the Biblical basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity:
Treasuring the Trinity