Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Truth.

:first:

Who cares?

You... and countless others.

I'm truly sorry to see you unfriended me

It was quite some time ago when you started continually and condescendingly coming at me. Not cool. Despite any disparities in theology, it's not necessary between friends and brothers in any such manner.

as we still at least agree on Geocentrism.

Of course. Because heliocentricity is a modern and unproven fallacy of "science falsely so called" to dupe the modern faithless.

When you decide to leave Theology Proper in the dust and cease trying to pin some theological label on me, maybe we can find some common ground in Christ.

I thought we had done so long ago. You have recently vehemently disagreed. Not sure what to tell you, Bro.

 

[Apple7]

Too simple, and erroneous; especially in English, for in English all persons are beings (though not all beings are persons).

No need for false conceptual dilution as nominal dogma for salvific faith. The Trinity doctrine is not the threshold for salvific faith. Minutiae of theology is not the arbitrage point for salvation.

Denying the eternal uncreated deity of the Son and/or Holy Spirit would be the salvific concern. NOT the specific "how" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all being God in whatever manner.

Whether it's the alleged "simplicity" of "one being; three persons" or the exhaustive minutiae of fontal plenitude/innascibility, paternity/filiation, and spiration/procession along with all other theological points, specific doctrinal belief is not the threshold of salvation.

No.

Actually, its deceptively simple.

So simple, that even OT peoples were able to grasp it with their limited vocabulary.

In your case, however, you feel the need to invent new words to encompass what you are trying to say...of which, no one even knows...not even you can explain it clearly.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Actually, its deceptively simple.

Exactly. SO well said. It's deceptively simple.

In your case, however, you feel the need to invent new words to encompass what you are trying to say...of which, no one even knows...not even you can explain it clearly.

Phaino, phenomena/on, noumena/on, etc. are neither new words nor invented by me.

Epic fail for you.

The Trinity doctrinal formulaic, no matter how "deceptively simple", is not the threshold for salvific faith. Period.

In fact, many/most modern professing Trinitarians are functional Tritheists or Modalists. Few have any idea what the Trinity actually is, though many presume to and then grossly misrepresent it.

 

[Apple7]

Phaino, phenomena/on, noumena/on, etc. are neither new words nor invented by me.

Epic fail for you.

Your assumption is incorrect.

So....the epic fail is on you.

The Trinity doctrinal formulaic, no matter how "deceptively simple", is not the threshold for salvific faith. Period.

In fact, many/most modern professing Trinitarians are functional Tritheists or Modalists. Few have any idea what the Trinity actually is, though many presume to and then grossly misrepresent it.

A predictable reply from a scriptural ignorant.

Little wonder that you completely ignored my previous comment regarding how peoples of the OT were able to be saved with their limited vocabulary.

You don't know.

If I was to ask you to produce an OT verse on how one is saved...we would see an epic failure of the highest order.

That is where you fail, time and again.....talking to scripture.



Your only retort will be to derogatorily wordsmith some $2 words together about how you CANNOT use scripture in ANY of your discourse.


No scripture.

No position.

Simple.

 

[Cruciform]

Too simple, and erroneous; especially in English, for in English all persons are beings...

With specific reference to human beings, yes: one person per being. But God is not a man. God has revealed himself in Divine Revelation as THREE Persons in ONE Being.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No scripture.

No position.

Simple.

Right. So you, nor anyone else, has any valid position in demanding belief in the Trinity doctrinal formulaic is the salvific differentiation. You have no scripture for such.

You're likely not even an actual Trinitarian yourself, just like the vast majority of your peers.

But whether the minutiae of the formulaic are correct or not, the exact dogma of the Trinity is certainly not the scriptural standard for salvific faith.

And if you're insisting on whatever standard of providing OT examples, then very few professing Trinitarians have salvific faith.

You're so blinded by hatred and arrogance, you wouldn't know what the scriptural salvific threshold is. It sure isn't minutiae of theological dogma or knowledge thereof.

Arguing for the eternal uncreated deity of Christ and/or the Holy Spirit makes sense as a salvific foundation. Your narcissistic hate-mongering exclusionism does not.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

With specific reference to human beings, yes: one person per being. But God is not a man. God has revealed himself in Divine Revelation as THREE Persons in ONE Being.

Pure preference and opinion. You have no scriptural nor lexical proof.

Are you and all the other infant dogmatists actually going to insist that knowledge and profession of formulated theological doctrine is the foundation for salvation rather than faith?

Pathetic. And none of you even know the ontological Gospel entrusted to Paul by God.

The Latins are apostate, so your opinions are noted and dismissed.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Instead of all this opinionated ad hominem... it would be really helpful if a professing alleged Trinitarian would provide scriptural evidence that belief in the Trinity theological doctrinal formulaic is the basic standard for salvific faith.

As a Trinitarian myself, I would never misrepresent scripture and demand such belief over the scriptural standard for salvation.

And since there was no formulated Trinity doctrine until an arguable onset of such in church history, then the earliest Patristics weren't saved.

What a pathetic man-made false standard to demand adherance to a Latin theological doctrinal formulaic rather than basic scriptural components that would accomplish the same thing.

Even Athanasius didn't anathematize Semi-Arians and Semi-Sabellians. And the Miaphysites weren't excluded.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Your assumption is incorrect.

So....the epic fail is on you.

Ummm... It isn't an assumption to say phaino, etc. aren't new words or words invented by me.

So the epic fail is not in me at all. But thanks for the confidence in me.

 

[Cruciform]

Pure preference and opinion. You have no scriptural nor lexical proof.

The plural-person understanding of God has been the doctrinal "preference and opinion" of the Christian Church from the time that Jesus Christ founded it, and from the time when the apostles handed on their teachings to the early Christians. It is the only position that faithfully accounts for ALL of the biblical data on the subject of the nature of God. See this and this.

Are you and all the other infant dogmatists...

Ad Hominem Fallacy. Try again.

...actually going to insist that knowledge and profession of formulated theological doctrine is the foundation for salvation rather than faith?

"Faith" in what, exactly? :think:

The Latins are apostate, so your opinions are noted and dismissed.

Post your proof.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Apple7]

Right. So you, nor anyone else, has any valid position in demanding belief in the Trinity doctrinal formulaic is the salvific differentiation. You have no scripture for such.

You're likely not even an actual Trinitarian yourself, just like the vast majority of your peers.

But whether the minutiae of the formulaic are correct or not, the exact dogma of the Trinity is certainly not the scriptural standard for salvific faith.

And if you're insisting on whatever standard of providing OT examples, then very few professing Trinitarians have salvific faith.

You're so blinded by hatred and arrogance, you wouldn't know what the scriptural salvific threshold is. It sure isn't minutiae of theological dogma or knowledge thereof.

Arguing for the eternal uncreated deity of Christ and/or the Holy Spirit makes sense as a salvific foundation. Your narcissistic hate-mongering exclusionism does not.

Thanks for proving my point, in real time.

As I already stated...you run from discussing scripture at all costs!

 

[glorydaz]

Thanks for proving my point, in real time.

As I already stated...you run from discussing scripture at all costs!

:chuckle:

 

[Apple7]

Pure preference and opinion. You have no scriptural nor lexical proof.

Can we say hypocrisy...?

Since when do YOU ever reference scripture or lexicography?

Like....never...

 

[Apple7]

We call you PPSBS for a reason...

 

[Cruciform]

What a pathetic man-made false standard to demand adherance to a Latin theological doctrinal formulaic rather than basic scriptural components...

Your position also appears to rely upon an assumption of the validity of the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, a doctrine which is itself nowhere taught in "Scripture alone," and which therefore merely refutes itself.

 

[RevTestament]

Instead of all this opinionated ad hominem... it would be really helpful if a professing alleged Trinitarian would provide scriptural evidence that belief in the Trinity theological doctrinal formulaic is the basic standard for salvific faith.

As a Trinitarian myself, I would never misrepresent scripture and demand such belief over the scriptural standard for salvation.

And since there was no formulated Trinity doctrine until an arguable onset of such in church history, then the earliest Patristics weren't saved.

What a pathetic man-made false standard to demand adherance to a Latin theological doctrinal formulaic rather than basic scriptural components that would accomplish the same thing.

Even Athanasius didn't anathematize Semi-Arians and Semi-Sabellians. And the Miaphysites weren't excluded.

But the Nicene Creed did anathematize all those who would not agree that the Son was begotten before all ages or worlds. Wasn't the creed written up my Athanasius and his cronies[I'm not really sure]?

 

[RevTestament]

Your position also appears to rely upon an assumption of the validity of the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, a doctrine which is itself nowhere taught in "Scripture alone," and which therefore merely refutes itself.

So you are admitting PPS position that the scriptures of the Bible do not demand belief in the doctrines of the trinity to be saved?
That comes from outside the scriptures... with the traditions and other canon of your church?

 

[Cruciform]

So you are admitting PPS position that the scriptures of the Bible do not demand belief in the doctrines of the trinity to be saved?

My own position is concisely stated way back in Post #3.

That comes from outside the scriptures... with the traditions and other canon of your Church?

The twin aspects of Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition) cannot be set against one another, since they are complimentary rather than contradictory. What is implicit in Scripture (the Trinity, for instance) is often found more explicitly in Tradition, and vice versa. For more, see this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ktoyou]

I agree about tradition

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Can we say hypocrisy...?

Since when do YOU ever reference scripture or lexicography?

Like....never...

Constantly, actually. Too bad you don't know lexicography.