Why Are Non-Trinitarian Believers Sometimes Labeled as Non-Christian?

[My Rock]

The question of why non-Trinitarian believers are sometimes labeled as non-Christian is one that touches on deep theological convictions and centuries of church history. For many, the doctrine of the Trinity—belief in one God existing in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is seen as a cornerstone of orthodox Christianity. However, there are devout believers who, while fully affirming the deity of Jesus and the authority of Scripture, do not adhere to the traditional Trinitarian formula. This raises important questions: Is belief in the Trinity a necessary criterion for being considered a true Christian? How do we define the boundaries of Christian identity and fellowship? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this—why do you think this issue is so divisive, and how should the Christian community navigate these differences?

 

[Knotical]

From what I have seen this speaks to the maturity level of those who call themselves Christian. Those who are more mature in their understanding of theology and sound doctrine have been given the knowledge of the true nature of the Trinity. Everyone is in different stages of their sanctification, so, understandably, they may not hold to a proper understanding of the Trinity, but those who have been faithful in their study of scripture (assuming they are reading an accepted translation of the Bible) will come to a biblical understanding of the Trinity. Unfortunately, when an individual does not attend a church that teaches the full counsel of God it will be difficult for them to come to this on their own without the Holy Spirit revealing this truth.

 

[My Rock]

Thanks for the input. This is important to me and for others to understand the minds of others.

 

[Free]

The question of why non-Trinitarian believers are sometimes labeled as non-Christian is one that touches on deep theological convictions and centuries of church history. For many, the doctrine of the Trinity—belief in one God existing in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is seen as a cornerstone of orthodox Christianity. However, there are devout believers who, while fully affirming the deity of Jesus and the authority of Scripture, do not adhere to the traditional Trinitarian formula. This raises important questions: Is belief in the Trinity a necessary criterion for being considered a true Christian? How do we define the boundaries of Christian identity and fellowship? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this—why do you think this issue is so divisive, and how should the Christian community navigate these differences?

The understanding of God as triune is at the heart of Christianity and makes the most sense of all of God's revelation of himself to us in Scripture. To me, among the most important questions is: "Who do you say that I am?" Who Jesus is, is central to salvation, central to the gospel, so we cannot simply believe whatever we want about him and think we are saved. We either believe in the Christ that is revealed in Scripture or we don't. I don't think that a true believer can deny the deity of Jesus.

And, I believe this applies to God as well. I don't see how we can believe whatever we want about him and think that we believe in the God of the Bible. For instance, we cannot think that there are three Gods, as a couple of members here have stated previously. Whether God is unitarian or triune is a big difference, with a unitarian view being incapable of making sense of all that God has revealed. A unitarian view makes God less than he reveals himself to be. So, while the doctrine of the Trinity is incredibly difficult to understand and ultimately incomprehensible, there is enough in Scripture to reveal a diversity within the unity of God.

 

[My Rock]

The reason for this is I want to know if similar things have happened to someone else. Someone asked this question and below was my response.

What precice names identify the 3 persons of God before Christ?

There is only One proper name of God, Jesus Christ. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not names.

What part of this information is incorrect. Someone may be a father, but Father is not their name. There name is John.

Isaiah 9:6 is a powerful declaration of the identity of Jesus Christ as the one true God manifest in flesh. This prophetic verse reveals that the child born to us—the Son given—is not merely a human figure but embodies the fullness of deity. The titles attributed to Him—Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace—are not separate roles assigned to different persons within the Godhead, but rather they all describe the singular identity of Jesus Christ. He is "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father," affirming that in Jesus, the fullness of God is present. This verse supports the Oneness belief that Jesus is the incarnation of the one God of the Old Testament, who has now revealed Himself as our Savior and Redeemer. The title "The everlasting Father" points directly to the fact that Jesus is the manifestation of the eternal God who has always been and who now, in His earthly ministry, takes on the role of Father to His people. This understanding aligns with the Oneness teaching that Jesus is the totality of the Godhead, fulfilling every divine role and title in Himself.

Please help me figure out why I was banned.

Then I get this as a response:

George95​

As you are not Trinitarian, you will not be able to post in the Christian Only forums.

So my question is why am I automatically considered non-christian on that basis alone.

 

[Free]

The reason for this is I want to know if similar things have happened to someone else. Someone asked this question and below was my response.


There is only One proper name of God, Jesus Christ. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not names.

What part of this information is incorrect. Someone may be a father, but Father is not their name. There name is John.

Isaiah 9:6 is a powerful declaration of the identity of Jesus Christ as the one true God manifest in flesh. This prophetic verse reveals that the child born to us—the Son given—is not merely a human figure but embodies the fullness of deity. The titles attributed to Him—Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace—are not separate roles assigned to different persons within the Godhead, but rather they all describe the singular identity of Jesus Christ. He is "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father," affirming that in Jesus, the fullness of God is present. This verse supports the Oneness belief that Jesus is the incarnation of the one God of the Old Testament, who has now revealed Himself as our Savior and Redeemer. The title "The everlasting Father" points directly to the fact that Jesus is the manifestation of the eternal God who has always been and who now, in His earthly ministry, takes on the role of Father to His people. This understanding aligns with the Oneness teaching that Jesus is the totality of the Godhead, fulfilling every divine role and title in Himself.

Please help me figure out why I was banned.

Then I get this as a response:

George95​

As you are not Trinitarian, you will not be able to post in the Christian Only forums.

So my question is why am I automatically considered non-christian on that basis alone.

What exactly are you asking, as this seems to be from another forum that has different rules than here?

 

[My Rock]

What exactly are you asking, as this seems to be from another forum that has different rules than here?

I am reaching out to inquire whether others have encountered situations where they were told, either by individuals in secular settings or within Christian forums, that not believing in the doctrine of the Trinity automatically categorizes them as non-Christian. My intention is to determine whether this perspective is a common sentiment across various groups or if it is primarily confined to this one specific individual or forum. Understanding the prevalence of this viewpoint will help gauge the broader attitudes within the Christian community regarding doctrinal differences.

 

[Knotical]

I am reaching out to inquire whether others have encountered situations where they were told, either by individuals in secular settings or within Christian forums, that not believing in the doctrine of the Trinity automatically categorizes them as non-Christian. My intention is to determine whether this perspective is a common sentiment across various groups or if it is primarily confined to this one specific individual or forum. Understanding the prevalence of this viewpoint will help gauge the broader attitudes within the Christian community regarding doctrinal differences.

It does not necessarily categorize them as non-Christian, per se, however, it could be evidence that they are either not a Christian, or simply an immature Christian. In the case they are immature Christians it is just a matter of time before they embrace this truth.

 

[electedbyHim]

The understanding of God as triune is at the heart of Christianity and makes the most sense of all of God's revelation of himself to us in Scripture. To me, among the most important questions is: "Who do you say that I am?" Who Jesus is, is central to salvation, central to the gospel, so we cannot simply believe whatever we want about him and think we are saved. We either believe in the Christ that is revealed in Scripture or we don't. I don't think that a true believer can deny the deity of Jesus.

And, I believe this applies to God as well. I don't see how we can believe whatever we want about him and think that we believe in the God of the Bible. For instance, we cannot think that there are three Gods, as a couple of members here have stated previously. Whether God is unitarian or triune is a big difference, with a unitarian view being incapable of making sense of all that God has revealed. A unitarian view makes God less than he reveals himself to be. So, while the doctrine of the Trinity is incredibly difficult to understand and ultimately incomprehensible, there is enough in Scripture to reveal a diversity within the unity of God.

Excellent.

 

[jasonc]

It does not necessarily categorize them as non-Christian, per se, however, it could be evidence that they are either not a Christian, or simply an immature Christian. In the case they are immature Christians it is just a matter of time before they embrace this truth.

There are whole demonations of modalist,oneness that are out there.

 

[My Rock]

There are whole demonations of modalist,oneness that are out there.

Would you automatically call them non-christian because they have a different view of the Nature of God.

 

[jasonc]

Would you automatically call them non-christian because they have a different view of the Nature of God.

I am a former jw .I was a non trinitarian .

So yes I do

 

[jasonc]

No matter of debating changed me.just God revealed it to me and I accepted.

You can't grasp the nature of God fully .it's hard to understand.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Would you automatically call them non-christian because they have a different view of the Nature of God.

If you get into the minutia of the "Nature of God" you may fine 1000s of characteristics for which one could disagree. The fascinating question is: Which characteristics of the "Nature of God" can one get wrong and still be a Christian where "Christian" is defined as someone who is going or is in heaven... an adopted son of God.

If two people have a different opinion as to whether God has a "succession of moments" then I would say the difference does not matter to whether they are Christian or not.
If two people disagree as to whether Jesus is God then I think you may have identified a non-Christian in the person who does not think Jesus is God.

So, the fun part is to figure out what facts that make up your faith are critical to salvation. Good luck getting agreement on that.

So if the Arminian doctrines are correct your salvation depends on you getting it all correct (luck?); if the reformed doctrines are correct then your salvation depends on God (predestination).

 

[Runningman]

The question of why non-Trinitarian believers are sometimes labeled as non-Christian is one that touches on deep theological convictions and centuries of church history. For many, the doctrine of the Trinity—belief in one God existing in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is seen as a cornerstone of orthodox Christianity. However, there are devout believers who, while fully affirming the deity of Jesus and the authority of Scripture, do not adhere to the traditional Trinitarian formula. This raises important questions: Is belief in the Trinity a necessary criterion for being considered a true Christian? How do we define the boundaries of Christian identity and fellowship? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this—why do you think this issue is so divisive, and how should the Christian community navigate these differences?

There is nothing stated in Scripture about the requirement to believe in the Trinity. Since I have observed there are Reformed theologians in this thread, I would also like to note that Calvin never said anything regarding a required belief in the Trinity either, to the best of my knowledge, and I did research this before.

As both a Christian and a non-Trinitarian, I believe what is defining of what a Christian is if the alleged Christian is actually believing in and practicing the teachings that Jesus gave. With something as important and critical as Who (or what) God may be then it would have been necessary to at least describe God as consisting of a three-member Trinity or Godhead.

Yet, whether in his teachings or by example, we consistently see that Jesus didn't teach anything about it and that he himself was a man with a one-person God he called Father. He worshipped Him, prayed to Him, loved Him, obeyed Him, and died for Him. Jesus said He is the only true God (John 17:3) and that He is his God and the God of the disciples (John 20:17.)

Therefore, since Jesus and the disciples only had a one-person God they called Father, the best and earliest example of how to be a practicing Christian is to have the same one-person God known as the Father.

However, accurate belief and/or understanding about who God is isn't necessarily the defining thing of who or what a Christian is, though it's a big one. I believe that both Trinitarians and Unitarians can be real Christians or fake Christians and ultimately you will know what kind of tree you're dealing with by the fruit it bears. We are all going to be judged and I fully believe God can pardon the post-mortem sin and still extend mercy and grace to the humble and repentant; for those who humble themselves will be exalted, and those who exalt themselves will be humbled. In other words, it will not benefit anyone, regardless of their God theology, to be self-righteous about this before God.

 

[Fastfredy0]

There is nothing stated in Scripture about the requirement to believe in the Trinity. Since I have observed there are Reformed theologians in this thread, I would also like to note that Calvin never said anything regarding a required belief in the Trinity either, to the best of my knowledge, and I did research this before.

Hmmmm...
If by "required belief" you mean "some fact one must "believe"/"assent to" as being true in order to be saved
and ....
if part of the definition of the Trinity is that Jesus is "God"
and ...
if part of the definition of non-trinitarians is the Jesus is NOT GOD
and...
if IMO one goes to hell if they believes Jesus is NOT GOD.

then, if one goes through all that minutia above agreeing to the various points ... then belief in a Trinitarian God is a requirement of salvation.


Aside:
... consider ... if one worships Jesus and Jesus in not God then one is worshiping and idol.

 

[electedbyHim]

Hmmmm...
If by "required belief" you mean "some fact one must "believe"/"assent to" as being true in order to be saved
and ....
if part of the definition of the Trinity is that Jesus is "God"
and ...
if part of the definition of non-trinitarians is the Jesus is NOT GOT
and...
if IMO one goes to hell if they believes Jesus is NOT GOD.

then, if one goes through all that minutia above agreeing to the various points ... then belief in a Trinitarian God is a requirement of salvation.


Aside:
... consider ... if one worships Jesus and Jesus in not God then one is worshiping and idol.

Excellent

 

[My Rock]

if one worships Jesus and Jesus in not God then one is worshiping and idol.

Excellent

 

[Runningman]

Hmmmm...
If by "required belief" you mean "some fact one must "believe"/"assent to" as being true in order to be saved
and ....
if part of the definition of the Trinity is that Jesus is "God"
and ...
if part of the definition of non-trinitarians is the Jesus is NOT GOD
and...
if IMO one goes to hell if they believes Jesus is NOT GOD.

then, if one goes through all that minutia above agreeing to the various points ... then belief in a Trinitarian God is a requirement of salvation.


Aside:
... consider ... if one worships Jesus and Jesus in not God then one is worshiping and idol.

You're attempting to turn salvation into a conditional statement where believing Jesus is God is a prerequisite for salvation. What you have created is just another theological argument where according to the rules you made people go to hell for not believing what you do. That isn't Scripture though and thank you full admitting it's your opinion. I would have to disagree with you.

The matter is Calvin and the Bible don't say you need to believe Jesus is God or in the Trinity. With something as important as salvation, wouldn't you think they would have at least mentioned it one time? They didn't say anything about it because they are false ideas and pose a serious problem for unconditional election. Actually, if this is true, then what you have presented is a false gospel that cannot save. The weakness of your argument is that it actually isn't stated in the Bible.

 

[My Rock]

You're attempting to turn salvation into a conditional statement where believing Jesus is God is a prerequisite for salvation. What you have created is just another theological argument where according to the rules you made people go to hell for not believing what you do. That isn't Scripture though and thank you full admitting it's your opinion. I would have to disagree with you.

The belief that Jesus is God is foundational to the Christian faith because it directly relates to the core of the gospel—the incarnation and the work of the cross. The claim that believing Jesus is God is a "theological argument" misunderstands the significance of this truth in the context of salvation. The Bible consistently presents the identity of Jesus as essential to understanding the nature of salvation itself.

In John 8:24, Jesus declares, "For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." This verse is a clear statement that belief in the true identity of Jesus is not optional but necessary for salvation. Jesus is not just a prophet, teacher, or a good man; He is God in flesh. The incarnation is the very act of God taking on human nature to accomplish what humanity could not—reconciliation with God. Colossians 2:9 further affirms, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Understanding and believing in the true nature of Christ as both fully God and fully man is integral to grasping the depth of what was accomplished on the cross.

The incarnation—the Father tabernacling Himself in flesh—was necessary because the problem of sin required a perfect, sinless sacrifice Hebrews 10:4-5, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he (The Self Expressive Eternal Word which is God) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body (God in Flesh with His greatest revealed name Jesus Christ) hast thou prepared me." (emphasis mine.) No human could meet this requirement; therefore, God Himself became our Redeemer Isaiah 43:11, “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”

The cross was not merely an act of a human dying for humanity, but it was the act of God Himself taking on our sins, providing the only means of atonement. The sacrifice was divine because it had to be sufficient to satisfy the justice of a holy God, and it was human because it had to be representative of humanity. Jesus, being fully God and fully man, fulfilled both aspects perfectly 2 Corinthians 5:19, “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” To deny that Jesus is God undermines the entire reason for the cross. It diminishes the significance of the sacrifice, reducing it to the death of a mere human rather than the ultimate, redemptive act of God. The cross is the central event of Christian faith because it is where God’s love and justice meet. If Jesus were not God, the cross would be insufficient for salvation, as no created being could bridge the infinite gap between sinful humanity and a holy God.

John 14:6 states, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." This exclusive claim underscores that access to the Father is only through Jesus, who is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). To know Jesus is to know the Father (John 14:9), and to believe in Him as God is to accept the fullness of God’s revelation and plan for salvation.

Believing in the divinity of Jesus is not merely a theological opinion; it is a foundational truth that is woven into the very fabric of the gospel message. The incarnation and the cross lose their true meaning if Jesus is not recognized as God. Salvation, therefore, hinges on the recognition of Jesus as the God who came to save us, and to deny this is to reject the Salvation of the gospel.