toldailytopic: Is belief in the trinity necessary for salvation?

[Drake Shelton]

Can you imagine St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, administering a test, both essay and multiple choice, and giving out grades which determine which level you go to, between hell, purgatory and the 7 heavens. With pencil sharpeners and desks for each penitent to sit at while completing the test. Rather anthropomorphic, you might say! But then, such considerations don't trouble the "true believers."

I have tried to show you your error but you will not answer the questions I have put before you. If you would dialogue with me on these points you will see the very simple and devastating differences between Athanasian trinitarianism and your Plotinian Monad model.

 

[elohiym]

*
Here is the doctrine I believe. "I will pray the Father and He will send another comforter who the world neither sees or knows, you know Him for He dwells with you and will dwell in you"

I believe that, too.

The problem is you are telling me that the only interpretation you can see is that God has two natures and three minds. And you are telling me that the Father and Holy Spirit did not suffer on the cross in Christ. Those are fundamental points of the trinity and hypostatic union doctrines, and why I reject them.

It is sufficient to believe that Jesus, the Father, and Spirit are one God with one nature and one mind, as I do. Unfortunately, nobody who truly understands and believes the trinity doctrine can say they believe that. One has to abandon the trinity doctrine in order to believe that God is not double or triple minded and that the impeccable Christ necessarily had only a divine nature (in a human body).

You are of the world view then

In what way? :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
Yes. If the one who has atoned for your sins is not fully divine and fully human, then you remain in your sins.

AMR

Why?

Still wondering about this if anyone is interested.

 

[Jacob]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
Yes. If the one who has atoned for your sins is not fully divine and fully human, then you remain in your sins.

AMR



Still wondering about this if anyone is interested.

Jesus is the perfect man, the Son of God, and the fulness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form.

 

[kmoney]

Jesus is the perfect man, the Son of God, and the fulness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form.

I don't see how that answers my question.

 

[Jacob]

I don't see how that answers my question.

I'm interested in your question.

 

[kmoney]

I'm interested in your question.

Ah, I see. :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Why?

AMR phrased the theological point well. Until someone more qualified comes along, I'll try to help you.

A mere fallen human could never respond perfectly to God's offer of reconciliation and therefore restore what Adam lost; a fallen human could never fulfill the Old Covenant perfectly nor usher in the New.

On the other side, if Jesus was not human then it would have nothing to do with us.

 

[Krsto]

AMR phrased the theological point well. Until someone more qualified comes along, I'll try to help you.

A mere fallen human could never respond perfectly to God's offer of reconciliation and therefore restore what Adam lost; a fallen human could never fulfill the Old Covenant perfectly nor usher in the New.

Jesus has a way of breaking human rules - yours not excepted.

You underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to keep a human being from sinning.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I don't know if one's beliefs concerning God have to be totally accurate. I just know that Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life." If you put your trust in that, I think you're good to go. God will eventually clear up any misconceptions you may have.

 

[eameece]

It is not simply being conscious. Animals are conscious. Thinking is the mental activity of making judgments according to logical principles.

You can't define humans as beings who have that faculty. Humans have many other faculties.

You have misrepresented what I have said here more than once so you will have to give me a definition of what you mean by "trinity" and then let me examine it to see if that is my definition. Then you can show why its irrational instead of simply asserting your opinion arbitrarily.

Sorry; I'll do my best.

I don't know your exact views, but for example in the post below the one I'm quoting, you are defending the trinity as something Jesus and Paul taught. The trinity may be a useful symbol of a greater cosmic truth, but as a literal idea about Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit it is clearly illogical; nothing that any self-respecting rationalist would take seriously. It is something believed in, not thought about.

Are you referring to reason in the abstract or in the concrete? If the former I agree, if the latter I deny.

Humans have faculties of feeling, intuition and sensation, and those are just the main 3 others that Jung cited. We have many others too, certainly including extra-sensory perception, and creative faculties like imagination; and of course, faith. Just because we also have a thinking faculty, does not disqualify us and make us limited to the box defined by the rules of logic.

Are you referring to humans in the abstract as in human nature, or are you referring to a concreteted particular instance of a human?

I believe you were writing of humans in general, defining them as rational beings who therefore cannot be one with God.

But many mystics have experienced their oneness with God. The rational faculty was irrelevant. We cannot exist unless we are one with the very source and substance of our being. That seems to me "logic" enough.

 

[Drake Shelton]

eameece

The trinity may be a useful symbol of a greater cosmic truth, but as a literal idea about Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit it is clearly illogical; nothing that any self-respecting rationalist would take seriously. It is something believed in, not thought about.

Argue for that assertion. Show it, prove it, don't just assert your bare opinion.

Humans have faculties of feeling, intuition and sensation, and those are just the main 3 others that Jung cited. We have many others too, certainly including extra-sensory perception, and creative faculties like imagination; and of course, faith. Just because we also have a thinking faculty, does not disqualify us and make us limited to the box defined by the rules of logic.

So then you are saying that if a person has, feelings he therefore cannot think that he has feelings?

I believe you were writing of humans in general, defining them as rational beings who therefore cannot be one with God.

But many mystics have experienced their oneness with God. The rational faculty was irrelevant. We cannot exist unless we are one with the very source and substance of our being. That seems to me "logic" enough.

So do people BECOME one or are they always one with God?

 

[Totton Linnet]

I believe that, too.

The problem is you are telling me that the only interpretation you can see is that God has two natures and three minds. And you are telling me that the Father and Holy Spirit did not suffer on the cross in Christ. Those are fundamental points of the trinity and hypostatic union doctrines, and why I reject them.

It is sufficient to believe that Jesus, the Father, and Spirit are one God with one nature and one mind, as I do. Unfortunately, nobody who truly understands and believes the trinity doctrine can say they believe that. One has to abandon the trinity doctrine in order to believe that God is not double or triple minded and that the impeccable Christ necessarily had only a divine nature (in a human body).



In what way? :idunno:

*
Where have I said any of that? I never try to explain the triune nature of God...except to point out that man is a triune being.

 

[meshak]

It is so strange that trin believers fight so much about this doctrine but they dont care Jesus' teachings and commandments.

Just amazing.

It proves their God is trinity, not Jesus nor His Father because Jesus says if you love Me keep My commandments.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I don't know if one's beliefs concerning God have to be totally accurate. I just know that Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life." If you put your trust in that, I think you're good to go. God will eventually clear up any misconceptions you may have.

*
Yes this is so. [I think some carry the misconceptions to their graves]

But whether we KNOW the facts or not does not change the facts or the absolute neccesity of for instance that Christ is God and if we know the truth we have to speak the truth and refute error.

But I know what you mean.

 

[eameece]

eameece



Argue for that assertion. Show it, prove it, don't just assert your bare opinion.

It is clearly illogical. Premise: There is one God. Argument: there are three Gods. Conclusion: the argument is false.

So then you are saying that if a person has, feelings he therefore cannot think that he has feelings?

Why would you ask me that if you understood what I said?
I am saying humans have many faculties; you can't define "man" according to what "his" faculties are.

So do people BECOME one or are they always one with God?

Always one.

 

[kmoney]

AMR phrased the theological point well. Until someone more qualified comes along, I'll try to help you.

"More" qualified? That assumes you have at least a modicum of qualification. Don't be so generous to yourself. lain:
Thanks for responding. :e4e:

A mere fallen human could never respond perfectly to God's offer of reconciliation and therefore restore what Adam lost; a fallen human could never fulfill the Old Covenant perfectly nor usher in the New.

On the other side, if Jesus was not human then it would have nothing to do with us.

I didn't think AMR meant that (Jesus had to be divine to be sinless). In that view, the divinity is kinda secondary. In theory, a sinless non-divine being could still fill the role. I thought AMR was saying the divinity played a more primary role. For our sins to be wiped away, the sacrifice had to be divine, regardless of sinlessness.

And a quick second note - I'm not sure the only two options are a god-man and a "mere fallen human".

 

[zippy2006]

"More" qualified? That assumes you have at least a modicum of qualification. Don't be so generous to yourself. lain:

:IA:

I didn't think AMR meant that (Jesus had to be divine to be sinless). In that view, the divinity is kinda secondary. In theory, a sinless non-divine being could still fill the role. I thought AMR was saying the divinity played a more primary role. For our sins to be wiped away, the sacrifice had to be divine, regardless of sinlessness.

Same difference (I never used the word sinlessness).

And a quick second note - I'm not sure the only two options are a god-man and a "mere fallen human".

What else could raise up human nature from within?

 

[kmoney]

:IA:

:noid:

Same difference

I believe I've heard that there is something about divinity beyond just being able to be perfect. I'll have to look it up. Anselm comes to mind but that could be wrong. If I'm wrong and all it really means is that divinity is needed to be perfect, then I can understand that to some extent, but again, I don't think the options are limited to what you are saying.

(I never used the word sinlessness).

Did you mean something other than sinlessness?

What else could raise up human nature from within?

The Spirit of God?

Do you think Jesus could have sinned?

 

[zippy2006]

I believe I've heard that there is something about divinity beyond just being able to be perfect. I'll have to look it up. Anselm comes to mind but that could be wrong. If I'm wrong and all it really means is that divinity is needed to be perfect, then I can understand that to some extent, but again, I don't think the options are limited to what you are saying.

A mere fallen human could never respond perfectly to God's offer of reconciliation and therefore restore what Adam lost; a fallen human could never fulfill the Old Covenant perfectly nor usher in the New.

Did you mean something other than sinlessness?

Jesus needs to be holy, He needs to be "sanctified." If He is these things then He will be perfect, He will be sinless, He will be obedient, but only because of that primary relationship with the Godhead. And who is holy but God?

If Jesus was a man then it is at best diversionary. A man cannot save us, a man cannot sanctify us, a man cannot wash away our sins. And maybe God could use a mere man to do these things, except for the fact of the Fall and the need for salvation. It's bad theology. We cannot pull ourselves up, we cannot rise up from our Fall without external help. God must take the initiative. God must become the focal point, not man. It must be the opposite of the Fall from paradise. And what better way?