He would be admitting that his historic roman catholic church is apostate if he did...and he knows it.
Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
He would be admitting that his historic roman catholic church is apostate if he did...and he knows it.
Cruciform
New member
...as is your complete lack of proof for a single one of your posted anti-Catholic claims (including the one recorded above). We're all still waiting... :yawn:
Cruciform
New member
So, then, no documentary proof whatsoever for your entirely unsubstantiated anti-Catholic claims in Post #1103 above. That's what I thought.
Cruciform
New member
Proof, please. Here's your chance to actually do what PPS has thus far been utterly unable to do. Post your proof for the above bare claim.
Cruciform
New member
Categorically refuted in Post #3 above.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Then there's no real reason for you to be posting in this thread other than to affirm that the salvific threshold is NOT belief in the Trinity doctrine.
Simplez.
Cruciform
New member
- First, you have no objective basis for your "belief" on this point, rendering it irrational at best, and bare human opinion at most.
- Second, the bishops at Nicea did not discuss the Trinity, which wasn't a main topic of conciliar deliberation until the Councils of Rome and Hippo. So your assumption that the Nicean bishops "voted on the Trinity" is entirely false.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The Protestants have divorced the Latins. Stop unbiblically trying to proselytize them as a converted Evangelical to remarry the unfaithful RCC and become adulterers and fornicators.
Cruciform
New member
As soon as the hackneyed and stereotypical anti-Catholic rhetoric stops, I'll be glad to move on.
Post #1122.
Cruciform
New member
Still Post #1122. :yawn:
RevTestament
New member
In a sense you are right, but it only goes to show that the doctrines of the trinity come out of traditions which arose after the scriptures were written. Your source for the "traditions of the trinity" listed a bunch of scriptures of which I quoted one. If that is the basis for concluding that one must believe in the doctrines of the trinity to be a Christian, you would think that one of those scriptures would be on point... but alas there are none.
The Nicene Creed was an essential cog in the doctrine of the trinity with its declaration that the Father and the Son are homoousios or "one substance." It was also the first to declare that the Son is "begotten before all ages/worlds." This became an essential cog of the doctrine of the trinity as the state church used it to throw out and squash any arian Christians as "heretics." Your church later changed it to declare that the Son is eternally begotten. But you see I have a "little" problem with that as the scriptures declare "this day I have begotten thee." But don't let me dissuade you from your man-made altered wording of "little" things like that....they must not be very important as they are only in the scriptures about 4 times....
vs probably dozens of times the "new" man-inspired "eternally begotten" version appears in your church traditions, creeds mumbled by congregations, etc...the scriptures are clearly outnumbered (sorry about the touch of facetiousness)
Cruciform
New member
On the contrary, the inner life of God was assumed to be tri-personal in the canonical teachings of the apostles themselves, as has already been demonstrated here.
I have never claimed that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved (back to Post #3).
The focus of the Council of Nicea was Christology (who/what is Jesus Christ?), not Theology proper.
The was never any such thing as an "Arian Christian," any more than there were ever "Pelagian Christians" or "Sabellian Christians" (or "atheist Christians"). The one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail (Mt. 16:18), authoritatively condemned Arianism as a formal heresy, as the Church was (and is) duty-bound to do (Mt. 16:19; Ac. 5:1-11; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15).
You're kidding, right? One could hardly find a more "man-made" sectarian invention than the LDS "church," traceable in history only back to 1830 when Joseph Smith concocted it out of the doctrinal fragments and favored texts of various Protestant sects that had preceded it. Mormonism is as "man-made" as it is possible to be.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
genuineoriginal
New member
If you want to refer to the Hebrew, use the correct verse.
Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of יהוה shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as יהוה hath said, and in the remnant whom יהוה shall call. |
No, the Greek translation was deliberately changed to omit the 'name'.
Because of this, it is hard to find any Christian that calls upon the name of יהוה, since most Christians have never heard the name.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
This is a lie.
In post #1080, I made a comment that had nothing to do with "hackneyed and stereotypical anti-Catholic rhetoric"; to which you began responding and asserting.
Since you don't consider belief in the Trinity doctrine as essential for salvation, then that simple answer addresses the OP topic.
It is you who are attempting to bully your Catholic way into subjects beyond thread topics to assert a Catholic v. Protestant agenda everywhere you go.
It's your way of justifying being a Latin convert, but with an Evangelical mindset. "Cradle" Latins and Orthodox don't do such things.
Your motives are obvious. You feel you must leverage some sense of superiority over those who represent all you chose to leave behind. We get it.
Few Protestants will ever want to remarry the Latin whore whom they divorced.
But you've addressed the OP, and I agree with your answer on that subject. Belief in the Trinity dogma is not the threshold of salvific faith.
The rest for you is just futile sycophantic rambling relative to this thread, St. Nobody.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Nobody cares. The Latin institution of men is a divorced whore by the Protestants. That much is over. You've been put away WITH a writ.
Protestants are married to Christ alone. Stop attempting to get everyone to become adulterers/adulteresses.
Go buy some indulgences and hoard some relics or something.
Cruciform
New member
I provided precisely that answer way back in Post #3. However, yourself, lifeisgood, etc. chose to go on to post various unsubstantiated anti-Catholic claims, so here we are. If you don't want to hear from me, I recommend not making a public display of your ignorance of the Catholic faith. Up to you.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Those readers who are genuinely and honestly interested in understanding what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches will care. Others, like yourself, who are interested only in propagating the long-discredited, wildly uninformed, and willfully ignorant anti-Catholic propaganda fed to them by their preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects will of course not care. Their chosen anti-Catholic sect will simply not allow them to. You can lead a man to Peter, but you can't make him think.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
The Catholic church gives heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.
Protestants have heaped to themselves many teachers and cannot withstand sound doctrine either.
I've been indoctrinated by neither, so consequently yer silly antics have nothing to say of me or to me.
I find it quite stupid when folks try to hang a handle on me, especially when you all have a pet handle for yourselves.
There is only one handle whereby men may be saved.
Yeshua Messiah.
Jesus Christ for those who don't know where the root is.
Apple7
New member
lol....!
lol....!
That's right....make sure to reference the original OT passage so that we can all see that Yahweh is mentioned thrice!
Thanks for Proving my point, bro! :first:
Nope.
lol....!
That's right....make sure to reference the original OT passage so that we can all see that Yahweh is mentioned thrice!
Thanks for Proving my point, bro! :first:
Nope.
Apple7
New member
tardly...
tardly...
Indeed...
And we see that circa 2.5 years ago you lambasted the usage of lexicons as being unreliable and 'biased'...arty:
But now...you are paying lip-service only to the term...not that you actually use one, obviously.
Oh...and you promised us 2.5 years ago that you would present your thesis to us in an organized fashion.
Never happened.
Looks like that was yet another lie.
You remind me of the profs that think they have all the academic answers - but don't have ANY real-world experience to back it up.
Just hot air that needs lampooning every so often...
tardly...
Indeed...
And we see that circa 2.5 years ago you lambasted the usage of lexicons as being unreliable and 'biased'...
arty:But now...you are paying lip-service only to the term...not that you actually use one, obviously.
Oh...and you promised us 2.5 years ago that you would present your thesis to us in an organized fashion.
Never happened.
Looks like that was yet another lie.
You remind me of the profs that think they have all the academic answers - but don't have ANY real-world experience to back it up.
Just hot air that needs lampooning every so often...