genuineoriginal
New member
That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Do you believe that the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection has
the power to save? Do you believe Christ is divine?
Your beliefs and words probably gave you away.
You are speaking the truth about the adoption of Trinity concepts by believers in Jesus after he left, concepts that were already in existence in various forms in other religions. But this development didn't come about out of thin air, it's a conceptual development within Christian theology in response to the things Jesus said about himself as well as things that he did.
Jesus stretched minds as far as he could away from fasts and forms. There was a great deal about the truth of his identity that he did not reveal publically. He even told the apostles NOT to reveal his true identity until after he retuned to heaven.
So Trinity believers are sincere people, they aren't just making things up and neither did the early church.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It would certainly help if you would clearly and succinctly state what your position is on Theology Proper.
Since you're not a Unitarian or Trinitarian, and you allegedly affirm the "deity" of Christ; how would you "label" yourself in some kind of shorthand term for others to begin understanding your position.
Thanks.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Correct again. So what this thread is all about, is not what the O.P. ask's; its about what we believe about Apostolic teaching authority. Because no matter what a Protestant Trinitarian say's about the doctrine within Scripture, the historical fact is that the teaching come's from outside Scripture.
Does Apostolic teaching authority extend beyond the bound's of Scripture? If it does not, then we all need to see where, in Scripture, the Apostle's taught that. And I can't find it.
If we accept that Apostolic teaching authority is only contained within Scripture, then the Trinity doctrine must remain a mystery, and the doctrine as it is now taught by the papacy must be regarded as merely an opinion. The doctrine is supported by Scripture, but He is not taught in Scripture, any more than the Scripture teach's who Caesar Augustus is (Luke 2:1 KJV).
Well, somewhat more than that.
But we don't get a detailed, organized account of either of them in Scripture, but they are both mentioned by name (Matthew 28:19 KJV).For my part, I read in Scripture where Jesus gave His Apostle's teaching authority, and I don't see Him limiting it to what they wrote down, and I don't see any Apostle's writing that there teaching authority is bound by what they wrote down, so assuming Sola Scriptura is true, Sola Scriptura necessarily through force of logic lead's to non-Sola Scriptura, which means', that Sola Scriptura is false, because it lead's to contradiction.
And that mean's that I believe in the Trinity because I believe in Scripture, where it says' that Jesus gave His Apostle's teaching authority over His Church, and that mean's further that I believe in Jesus and what He said, and I believe in the Apostle's as teaching authority's over the Church.
I learned to read what is written.
Daniel
Dan Emanuel
Active member
My answer to the question in the O.P. is no. Because, its really, underneath it, the question, "Do you have to believe in Apostolic teaching authority to be a Christian?" And the answer to that question, according to the papacy, who definitely does believe in and teach Apostolic teaching authority, is no. You have to believe in Jesus Christ and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be a Christian. Nothing about the Trinity or about Apostolic teaching authority.
Daniel
Daniel
Let's all be clear and honest. Concepts like the Trinity, the virgin birth, messiah, the divinity of Jesus are all nothing more or less than ancient theological terms or phrases that were applied to Jesus' life AFTER HIS DEATH. They are all faith statements and do not reflect biographical or historical facts.
Again (*sigh*) the gospel accounts were all written some 40 to 60 years following the crucifixion. Like it or not, we do not possess the original texts. The earliest bit of gospel we have right now is only a tiny fragment from the Gospel of John dated to the Fourth Century or earlier.
I do not mean to be either disruptive or blasphemous with this information. Any first-year student of the New Testament is exposed to these facts. The point that most traditional believers have either not heard of this--or else the information has been deliberately kept from them--probably accounts for the alarm and defensiveness provoked by such evidence.
A major mistake was made during the last 30 years or so, in my view. The Jesuit Seminar was a group of scholars who collected all of the sayings of Jesus from the New Testament and elsewhere. The mistake and problem comes from the fact that they published their results out in the open and many folks learned of them from the media--in my opinion of course.
Again (*sigh*) the gospel accounts were all written some 40 to 60 years following the crucifixion. Like it or not, we do not possess the original texts. The earliest bit of gospel we have right now is only a tiny fragment from the Gospel of John dated to the Fourth Century or earlier.
I do not mean to be either disruptive or blasphemous with this information. Any first-year student of the New Testament is exposed to these facts. The point that most traditional believers have either not heard of this--or else the information has been deliberately kept from them--probably accounts for the alarm and defensiveness provoked by such evidence.
A major mistake was made during the last 30 years or so, in my view. The Jesuit Seminar was a group of scholars who collected all of the sayings of Jesus from the New Testament and elsewhere. The mistake and problem comes from the fact that they published their results out in the open and many folks learned of them from the media--in my opinion of course.
genuineoriginal
New member
genuineoriginal
New member
More likely your inability to comprehend what I have been saying has led you to a false conclusion.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, you are correct.
I never said Trinity believers are not sincere people.
I did state that the doctrine of the Trinity was either a doctrine created by men or came from Divine Revelation outside the scriptures.
Believe whichever one you think is most accurate.
genuineoriginal
New member
I don't think that would help my argument.
My position is that belief or disbelief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation.
The proof of the validity of my argument comes from scriptural statements that confuse the issue of whether there is a Trinity or not.
This is misunderstood by Trinity believers since I end up using the exact same scriptures used by people that reject the doctrine of the Trinity, so they have a knee-jerk response and start arguing for something I am not arguing against.
For my argument, it does not matter whether I personally believe in the Trinity, the Binity, the Unity, or even the Noninity.
(There is scriptural support for each of these beliefs, as you are probably already aware.)
My argument is about what is actually taught in scripture in regards to whether you must believe in the Trinity to be saved or whether you can be saved without believing in the Trinity.
All the responses that have attempted to address my argument end up falling short for a very good reason: There is nothing in the Bible that states or even suggests that it is necessary to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved.
Never, never, never take ANYONE's comment here for granted.
Instead of blaming the messenger or falling back into belief, check out the actual HISTORY of out Christian tradition.
Become curious and try to cultivate wide-ranging reading skills. Use what you have discovered and by all means, have back at me! Don't you find it curious that most Christians turn away from evidence, real data and facts?
What might be the problem--in your opinion--why this is so?
All the intermediate reader of the New Testament needs to do is to line up Matthew and Luke's birth and infancy narratives side by side and make careful note of what you find.
If you are unable to actually do this, then just admit to that instead of judging the worth of something and condemning it out of hand.
Be honest at least.
genuineoriginal
New member
Very good.
genuineoriginal
New member
Do you have to understand the nature of God to be a Christian?
genuineoriginal
New member
Maybe not, if the scriptures are to be believed.
Acts 8:35-37 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. |
To me it seemed to be an attempt to explain Matthew and Luke's historical and theological errors and discrepancies by blaming the Jews.
Is that what you yourself got out of it?
So you do not have to understand who God is to be saved by Him?