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

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thanks for proving my point, in real time.

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

...he arrogantly and ignorantly chides without scripture or lexicography... or anything else.

 

[Apple7]

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

Show us.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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,

Wow. So none of the Apostles or earliest Patristics were saved.

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.

Even the earliest formulaic would be after the death of the Apostles, so it can't possibly be the Trinity formulaic.

It would be exactly as I said. It's not difficult. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all eternal, uncreated, and divine.

Do you have a problem with that?

Wait... It has to be according to minutiae of a later post-Apostolic pre-RCC formulaic for you and your apostate cult.

Ad Hominem Fallacy. Try again.

No and no need. The Latins are apostate, especially since Vatican II. You current Pope is the spirit of antichrist, as is the entire hierarchy.

"Faith" in what, exactly? :think:

Yes, I well know you don't know.

Post your proof.

I'll just let you stay in your ignorance. It's what you want.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

We call you PPSBS for a reason...

No. You call others whatever you call them because of your own lack of character.

The entire purpose of my posts was to demonstrate that you'll berate anyone you can any time you can for any reason you can; and then you'll attempt to justify it as a theological position with egregious and constant ad hominem and bulverism.

You'll never convince Arians, Sabellians, Unitarians, or any others; and it's not because of doctrine. It's because you're... YOU.

That's because you're not IN Christ. You don't even know what that means.

Sad. I pity you, maybe above all others of your peers.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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.

Appearances are deceiving. I don't affirm Sola Scriptura, as you well know.

Prima Scriptura.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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

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+

The Latins and Easterns (though they paradoxically differ) are the only ones who can say what you say. In this, you are different than the Protestants who cannot embrace tradition for their alleged proofs.

Protestants cannot validly appeal to tradition as you and other Latins do.

That leaves this as a Catholic versus non-Catholic topic.

For Latins, the salvific threshold is not the Trinity doctrine, so stop pretending it is. The Latin standard for salvation includes much more than Theology Proper dogma.

 

[Apple7]

Show us.

Waiting...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Waiting...

Use the search feature.

 

[RevTestament]

No. You call others whatever you call them because of your own lack of character.

The entire purpose of my posts was to demonstrate that you'll berate anyone you can any time you can for any reason you can; and the you'll attempt to justify it as a theological position with egregious snd constant ad hominem and bulverism.

You'll never convince Arians, Sabellians, Unitarians, or any others; and it's not because of doctrine. It's because you're... YOU.

Bingo.
That is because he is Apple - the only person to "correctly" interpret the Koran as being based on a Christian document!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Not one human, living or dead, could ever make a scriptural case that salvation is dependent upon belief in the historical theological formulaic of the Trinity doctrine (in any of its many differing forms).

Anyone who says so is utterly delusional and sychophantic.

 

[RevTestament]

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

You are referring to this:

I would say that one cannot knowingly deny or reject the Trinity and be considered a "Christian."

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.

So where was this tradition when the first converts were called "Christians" in Antioch?
(let me help u - still some 100-250 yrs into the future)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

But the Nicene Creed did anathematize all those who would not agree that the Son was begotten before all ages or worlds.

Yes. But many debated what that meant. Thus the Constantinopolitan Creed in 381AD.

Wasn't the creed written up my Athanasius and his cronies[I'm not really sure]?

He contributed greatly and participated. But he specifically didn't consider Semi-Arians and Semi-Sabellians to be anathema.

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?

That's exactly what he's admitting. Besides... Catholics have many more prerequisites to salvific faith than Theology Proper formulac.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are referring to this:

So where was this tradition when the first converts were called "Christians" in Antioch?
(let me help u - still some 100-250 yrs into the future)

Correct. No Trinity formulaic of multiple "persons" until Tertullian in the early 200s AD.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were predominantly referred to as God, His Word, and His Wisdom; and before persona/ae, they were referred to as forms, modes, or aspects.

As a Trinitarian, I find it alarming that I have to agree with Arians, Sabellians, Unitarians, Binitarians, Adoptionists, and LDSers about the false claims of professing Trinitarians who are mostly functional Tritheists or Modalists anyway.

It's pathetic.

 

[Cruciform]

So where was this tradition when the first converts were called "Christians" in Antioch?

It was right there in the teachings of the apostles and bishops of the early Christian Church [source], although it grew and developed over the following centuries, as doctrine often does [source].



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Wow. So none of the Apostles or earliest Patristics were saved.

Non Sequitur Fallacy. Try again.

Even the earliest formulaic would be after the death of the Apostles...

Rather, the canonical writings of the apostles themselves assume a plural-personal view of God [source].

Wait... It has to be according to minutiae of a later post-Apostolic pre-RCC formulaic for you and your apostate cult.

Here you merely place your utter lack of intellectual credibility---not to mention your glaring ignorance of the subject matter---on public display. Noted.

No and no need. The Latins are apostate, especially since Vatican II. You current Pope is the spirit of antichrist, as is the entire hierarchy.

Once again, go ahead and post your proof for these latest unsubstantiated anti-Catholic assertions.

Yes, I well know you don't know.

Are you able to actually answer the question, or not?

I'll just let you stay in your ignorance. It's what you want.

Pot, meet Kettle. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Appearances are deceiving. I don't affirm Sola Scriptura, as you well know. Prima Scriptura.

"po-tay-to"/"po-tah-to"

 

[RevTestament]

It was right there in the teachings of the apostles and bishops of the early Christian Church [source], although it grew and developed over the following centuries, as doctrine often does [source].

Well let me take a page from your source then to address your claim that your church "understands" God through the traditions of the "trinity."

God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25 - 27; John 1:18

There you have it. I don't believe the 318 or so bishops out of the some odd 1200 bishops of the church who showed up in Nicea at the behest of the emperor to vote on the subject were the ones to whom "God" was known by His Son.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Non Sequitur Fallacy. Try again.


Rather, the canonical writings of the apostles themselves assume a plural-personal view of God [source].


Here you merely place your utter lack of intellectual credibility---not to mention your glaring ignorance of the subject matter---on public display. Noted.


Once again, go ahead and post your proof for these latest unsubstantiated anti-Catholic assertions.


Are you able to actually answer the question, or not?


Pot, meet Kettle. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

More desperate sychophantic nothingness from you. Nothing new.

Why can you not admit that the Latin threshold for salvation is much more than Theology Proper formulaic?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

"po-tay-to"/"po-tah-to"

Of course you have to say that.

Your Catholic fallacies are noted and appropriately dismissed.

 

[Cruciform]

The Latins and Easterns (though they paradoxically differ) are the only ones who can say what you say. In this, you are different than the Protestants who cannot embrace tradition for their alleged proofs.

In fact, they---and you---have their own traditions which they hold, and which guide their frequent (mis)understandings of the Bible.

Protestants cannot validly appeal to tradition as you and other Latins do.

And yet, they have them just the same.

For Latins, the salvific threshold is not the Trinity doctrine, so stop pretending it is.

I never said it was, so stop pretending that I did. (Back to Post #3.)

The Latin standard for salvation includes much more than Theology Proper dogma.

Nor does it necessarily include that, nor have I ever claimed that it did. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+