Can you be saved and reject the Trinity?

[Free]

What's the matter? Have you no answers? I am not going to start over again. There is enough there that can be dealt with that isn't Oneness and anywhere there is a reference to Oneness, just replace with your doctrine. But it would be helpful if you would clarify your position so I don't make this mistake again.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

(Sorry for delay in reply…been busy and taking a break)

The notion that one had to believe in the Trinity to be saved was a method used by the church authorities who had developed the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century to control the masses.

How exactly does the doctrine of the Trinity “control the masses?†If memory servies me it was the “fire and brimstone†sermons and that little thing called indulgences that “controlled the masses†(Thankfully Martin Luther had something to say about that).

To say these men were "Trinitarian" is expressly naive of the facts or an intentional evasion of them. For example, Justin calls Jesus "another god."

Moreover, if these men were so "Trinitarian" then you also seem to presuppose such doctrine already existed. One then wonders why the Athanasians themselves did not appeal to the earlier fathers for this already existent doctrine, and not only so, why they spent so much time trying to figure out the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God as well as the Holy Spirit. Such efforts are not necessary for an already existent doctrine.

It appears to me that you have an imaginary history of your own making rather than the one that actually occurred.

I will admit I do not know a great deal about many of the people I listed but the ones I gave clearly point to the Trinity biblical doctrine [Not to mention that some of the quotes even have the word Trinity in them]. As for a doctrine not existing….no that is not correct. It is true there was no “official†doctrine spelled out but scripture clearly points to a triune God. The only reason the Trinity doctrine even need to be defined was because of the various heresies that arose:

Adoptionism - God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses - Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism - Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism - Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.

2. Your statement "ignoring what he has revealed of himself in Scripture" makes the assumption that God has revealed himself as a three person being. I have yet to find a shred of evidence for a three person God identified anywhere in the Bible. I have found lots of evidence that people imagine a three person God back into the Bible.

Considering the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is woven throughout the Bible it is quite clear that God is triune. Notice how I said biblical doctrine, I could care less if a doctrine was asserted by the Catholic Church (or any denomination for that matter) but when it comes to a doctrine found in the Bible then I care.

As for your other stuff…I will leave that to Free.

 

[Adams son]

(Sorry for delay in reply…been busy and taking a break)

[quote="Adams son":e7c0d]The notion that one had to believe in the Trinity to be saved was a method used by the church authorities who had developed the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century to control the masses.

How exactly does the doctrine of the Trinity “control the masses?†If memory servies me it was the “fire and brimstone†sermons and that little thing called indulgences that “controlled the masses†(Thankfully Martin Luther had something to say about that).
[/quote:e7c0d]

Obviously you don't know.

In 380 A.D. Emperor Theodosius rose to power and sided with the Athanasians. This particular emperor decided that all his citizens should be Christians. He also decided for them that they had to be Athanasian Christians (doctrine of the Trinity) as well as all people submitting to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Arianism and paganism was banned from the emperor as illegal. People submitted to the doctrine of the Trinity out of fear and out of necessity - you were not allowed in communion unless you accepted their newly developed doctrine.

That's how.

To say these men were "Trinitarian" is expressly naive of the facts or an intentional evasion of them. For example, Justin calls Jesus "another god."

Moreover, if these men were so "Trinitarian" then you also seem to presuppose such doctrine already existed. One then wonders why the Athanasians themselves did not appeal to the earlier fathers for this already existent doctrine, and not only so, why they spent so much time trying to figure out the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God as well as the Holy Spirit. Such efforts are not necessary for an already existent doctrine.

It appears to me that you have an imaginary history of your own making rather than the one that actually occurred.

I will admit I do not know a great deal about many of the people I listed but the ones I gave clearly point to the Trinity biblical doctrine
[/quote]

No they did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. That is nothing but a pack of lies that you have perhaps fell subject to. Yeah I used to believe it too.

[Not to mention that some of the quotes even have the word Trinity in them].

Yes the word Trinity existed long before the doctrine. IN=n fact, the word existed before Jesus. It did not mean and was not used to mean "three persons in one God."

As for a doctrine not existing….no that is not correct. It is true there was no “official†doctrine spelled out but scripture clearly points to a triune God.

No it doesn't.

The only reason the Trinity doctrine even need to be defined was because of the various heresies that arose:

You mean "developed." If you think there was a doctrine of the Trinity before the fourth century you are living in a fantasy world.

2. Your statement "ignoring what he has revealed of himself in Scripture" makes the assumption that God has revealed himself as a three person being. I have yet to find a shred of evidence for a three person God identified anywhere in the Bible. I have found lots of evidence that people imagine a three person God back into the Bible.

Considering the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is woven throughout the Bible it is quite clear that God is triune.
[/quote]

LOL, just cuz you say so right?

Notice how I said biblical doctrine, I could care less if a doctrine was asserted by the Catholic Church (or any denomination for that matter) but when it comes to a doctrine found in the Bible then I care.

As for your other stuff…I will leave that to Free.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a complete sham. But hey if you wanna believe it go ahead. People believe all kinds of things.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Obviously you don't know.

In 380 A.D. Emperor Theodosius rose to power and sided with the Athanasians. This particular emperor decided that all his citizens should be Christians. He also decided for them that they had to be Athanasian Christians (doctrine of the Trinity) as well as all people submitting to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Arianism and paganism was banned from the emperor as illegal. People submitted to the doctrine of the Trinity out of fear and out of necessity - you were not allowed in communion unless you accepted their newly developed doctrine.

That's how.

Thanks for such a rude reply. You simply could have told me. I see you do not know how to respect people.

No they did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. That is nothing but a pack of lies that you have perhaps fell subject to. Yeah I used to believe it too.

Really then explain the following (emphasis added):

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

You mean "developed." If you think there was a doctrine of the Trinity before the fourth century you are living in a fantasy world.

No I meant what I said. Oh and if by fantasy you mean reality then yes I do.

LOL, just cuz you say so right?

No if one where to actually look through the whole of scripture one would see what I am talking about.

 

[Adams son]

[quote="Adams son":815d2]Obviously you don't know.

In 380 A.D. Emperor Theodosius rose to power and sided with the Athanasians. This particular emperor decided that all his citizens should be Christians. He also decided for them that they had to be Athanasian Christians (doctrine of the Trinity) as well as all people submitting to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Arianism and paganism was banned from the emperor as illegal. People submitted to the doctrine of the Trinity out of fear and out of necessity - you were not allowed in communion unless you accepted their newly developed doctrine.

That's how.

Thanks for such a rude reply. You simply could have told me. I see you do not know how to respect people.

No they did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. That is nothing but a pack of lies that you have perhaps fell subject to. Yeah I used to believe it too.

Really then explain the following (emphasis added):

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

You mean "developed." If you think there was a doctrine of the Trinity before the fourth century you are living in a fantasy world.

No I meant what I said. Oh and if by fantasy you mean reality then yes I do.

LOL, just cuz you say so right?

No if one where to actually look through the whole of scripture one would see what I am talking about.[/quote:815d2]

Tertullian believed there was a time when the Son was not.

Would you like to know what Origen said about John 1:1?

Or do you wish to continue pretending these men were "Trinitarians?"

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Tertullian believed there was a time when the Son was not.

Would you like to know what Origen said about John 1:1?

Sure. Oh and did Tertullian always have the belief you stated. Oh yeah also where can I get some information on the people I originally listed.

Or do you wish to continue pretending these men were "Trinitarians?"

Is this statement really necessary? Does it serve any point? This is just a guess but Jesus would not say such a thing.

I seek absolute truth. If you want to discuss the topic at hand then please try to do so in more of a kind manor because I do not have time for rude people. If you disagree with me then that is fine. If you wish to change my stance on something then please provide evidence to the contrary…I will continue to try and do the same.

 

[Free]

Adams son,

You still have not responded to my post.

 

[DivineNames]

Hence the notion that adherence to the Trinity doctrine as a requirement for salvation is quite ridiculous even if it was true, which it isn't - but that is beside the point.

I am guessing that you can't prove that there is no "ontological threeness" in God.

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

Hello all,


A belief in or rejection the Trinity is only crucial if a person leans toward the wrong side of the teaching of the Deity of Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses teach too much separation betwwen the 3, while lessoning the Deity of Christ. This is indedd very serious and a cause to say such a person is not saved. But to go the other direction as UPC (Apostolic's) do is different. They teach oneness rather than Trinity; yet they do believe in an operation of all three as God. Their error is in that they say all 3 are Jesus. Although this is indeed error, I do not think it affects salvation. I was saved in a UPC Church in the early 80's and know them to truly love God with all their heart and to live holy lives.
Even belief in the Trinity differs amongst Christians who claim it as truth. I have talked with many and read writings from many who differ, yet all claim to be Trinitarian. It seems to be a difference between believe "three in One" or "One as three". I believe the former to be true. It is easy to miss the difference; but different ideas of the Godhead are form by how they are viewed in such sayings. Whis would you claim as true?

 

[Khristeeanos]

Hello all,

Hello Pastor Lyndon!

I love you brother!

Jake

 

[Free]

Good post Pastor Lyndon and welcome to the forums. :D



Bump to you Adams son.

 

[evanman]

Oneness teachers tell us that Jesus was PARTLY God and PARTLY man. That there was a part of Jesus that wasn't God and a part that wasn't human.

They tell us that when Jesus prayed to the Father, it was his Humanity that was praying but not His Divinity.

This is clearly false as even now in Heaven Jesus Christ intercedes on our behalf.

 Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. [quote][/quote]

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

Hey Jake!

Busy forum here! I will never be able to keep up with all the posts. I have a hard time keeping up with a single thread. But it is good to see all that is happening.

Evanman,

Oneness teachers tell us that Jesus was PARTLY God and PARTLY man. That there was a part of Jesus that wasn't God and a part that wasn't human.

They tell us that when Jesus prayed to the Father, it was his Humanity that was praying but not His Divinity.

I agree with the latter statement. I am not sure about the former. How would you differ from this statement? Jesus was 100% man and 100% God; while being limited in His divine power by the flesh - willingly. Being limited as in Philippians 2 does not make Him any less God; and being in the flesh does not make him a different God from the Father. The two are one God in two manifestations. There is only one God, but three manifestations of the one. Would you differ from this view at all? Oneness believes that all are Jesus. They still believe in one God, but are thus called "Jesus only" people. This idea was argued in the late third and fourth centuries. It was conviened at the Council of Nicene in 325 A.D. and decided that the Triniyt was truth and the idea of Oneness was false teaching. Oneness was taught by the Noetians, Montanists, and also by the Nicolations, who were mentioned in Revelation 2 as the Ephesian Church stood against their teachings. Unfortunately, over the centuries there has been alot of mixtures of understandings concerning the Trinity. Most Christians today do not have a clear understanding about what they believe on this issue, other than what they have heard. I see the greatest importance being in the Deity of Christ. Is He God; less than God the Father; or a god? If He is taught to be anything less than God then such teaching is great error and considered heresy.

 

[evanman]

I believe that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man at the same time. I do not believe that Jesus had two separate natures.

When Jesus spoke God spoke.

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

Evanman,

Thank you. I agree! Unfortunately, many who claim Trinty do not.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Evanman,

Thank you. I agree! Unfortunately, many who claim Trinty do not.

Well I believe as Evanman does just so everyone knows. So I join in Pastor Lyndon's thanks...thank you Evanman.

 

[Free]

I don't really agree with 100% man and 100% God since that is a contradiction. Jesus simply is the God-man, the Spirit-filled God-man.

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

Free,

So was Jesus 50/50; 60/40; 40/60; 80/20 or something else? Yes He was God/man. But He in all ways experienced what we experience as a man, being flesh and blood, and even limited by the flesh. At the same time the Bible says in Collosians 2:9 that He was all of God in one body - 100% God. Not a part of God! God was manifest in the Flesh - not a part of God. He was limited according to Philippians 2, but in His resurrection and glorification was not longer limted by the flesh, showing to be all God. Isee no problem in saying He was 100% God and 100% man. I know it does not add up with human dlogic. But when does God ever really add up with human logic? 50/50 would make him only half God, which does not work with scripture. It is not like being half mexican and half Chinese - 50/50. It is more like being 100% Jew and 100% Christian. There is no reason one cannot be 100% of both - 100/100.

 

[evanman]

The Word--(LOGOS) BECAME flesh.

Jesus of Nazareth was the embodiment of all that God is.

He always was God, He became a man, and now exists as God/man.

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

Yes Jesus was God/Man. Some might assume that if He was part of one, then He could not be all of the other. They look at it like a glass of sugar water. A certain percentage of the glass is made up of pure water, and the other part is sugar. But the glass can never be 100% of either. But this is not how the deity of Christ works. Christ was limited in power while in the flesh, but was in no way made to be less God. All of God was poured into a body of flesh. Any misture between God and man was not a lessoning of His deity, but only a humbling of His authority while in the flesh. He was all God and all man at the same time.