Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Must One Believe the Doctrine of the Trinity in Order to be Saved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
    Were they somewhat resistant to studying doctrine or simply disinterested? There are actually some really well-studied adherents of unitarianism on the internet.
    Unitarians are not likely to "make disciples" -- especially not likely to "lead someone to Christ".
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      The Trinity was a compromise drawn up by a standards committee. One is not required to believe in that compromise as the final word on the nature of God, the Trinity was drawn up because the people on the committee noticed that:

      The God of Israel,
      Jesus Christ,
      and the Holy Spirit, recently seen and felt via Pentecost,

      could all be safely and morally worshiped by humans who knew of or directly experienced them.

      In a way that, say, angels, demons, great men, great musicians, and so on down the line could not. The language is vague because the experience is limited, but the concept is extremely useful when evaluating who exactly someone is claiming to worship when claims of a new supernatural phenomena comes about.

      Uncivilized or isolated Christians can get on fine without it, but if you're up for real evangelism, you'll be up against real people with competing claims of reality, and will need ways of evaluating those claims according to the most rigorous experiences of Divine and human reality.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        The implications that we'd all be in trouble if it was required that we understand the Trinity in order to have Salvation? You think there are those who believe that it IS required that we understand Salvation in order to be saved?
        I'm thinking more in terms of how far we are to press trinitarianism as one of the definitive marks or signs of Christian orthodoxy and if one denies it he or she is considered outside God's salvation in some way.
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
          I'm thinking more in terms of how far we are to press trinitarianism as one of the definitive marks or signs of Christian orthodoxy and if one denies it he or she is considered outside God's salvation in some way.
          I guess I don't travel in those circles.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Unitarians are not likely to "make disciples" -- especially not likely to "lead someone to Christ".
            There are many different kinds of unitarians. They are not all of the same stripe. There are Socinian unitarians who deny Jesus' preexistence (such as Anthony Buzzard) and Arian unitarians who deny Jesus' deity but affirm his preexistence (such as David Barron). Jehovah's Witnesses subscribe to a form of Arianism as well. They are extremely zealous in spreading their doctrinal message of the kingdom. (In the case of JWs especially we may argue they proclaim a "false Christ", but the point remains.)
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I guess I don't travel in those circles.
              Me neither. I don't feel I can legitimately draw all these lines and say who's "in" and who's "out".
              Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-21-2014, 12:09 PM.
              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

              Comment


              • #22
                Nothing in Scripture says a legitimate theological error results in the loss of salvation - or prevents salvation. Jesus didn't discuss theology with the thief - it was sufficient that he believed that Jesus was 'coming into His kingdom' (which is incredible, given that Jesus' own disciples had fled and they were both on crosses at the time - that's some kind of faith, if you think about it). So no, understanding the Trinity is clearly not a salvic issue in the foremost sense.

                Where it does come into play is the 'working out' thing Paul talks about. When we respond to the awesome grace we've been given and start to lead others to Christ it's incredibly important that we know what we're talking about and that we don't teach falsely. To spread the Good News we have to teach it correctly - otherwise we destroy the very message we're tasked with imparting. So, yes, doctrine, including the Trinity, is important as we 'work out our salvation' but it is not critical to salvation itself.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                  Me neither. I don't feel I can legitimately draw all these lines and say who's "in" and who's "out".

                  I can!






                  Oh wait, we're not choosing sides for baseball? Never mind then...
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I agree with CP. You can be ignorant of the trinity and be saved. You just don't have all the information. However once someone learns about the doctrine of the trinity I don't think they can be ANTI-Trinitarian and be saved (Like the Jehovah's witnesses) - mainly because they are believing in a different God than what the bible teaches. I could be wrong, but that is my take on it.
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    I don't think so. In the New Testament, the emphasis is on the claim that "Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, crucified and raised" rather than"Jesus of Nazareth was in some way equal to God". However, in the epistle to the Romans, Paul does write that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (κύριον Ἰησοῦν) and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." One can argue that κύριον is to be understood as YHWH here.
                    These are good observations. God alone knows who is saved, and who is not. Since we don't have access to that information, a better question to ask for our creaturely purposes is, "Whom should the Church treat as saved?" Since the finalization of the Nicene Creed in the late fourth century, the Church has enjoyed broad consensus that confession of the Trinity is a necessary condition of a profession of Christian faith. None of us can understand fully what the Trinity (or any other aspect of God) is, but we can understand truly, to the extent that God has revealed these matters in Scripture.

                    Various non-Trinitarian sects have had their brief day in the sun over the centuries, including the Arians in the days of Nicea. The Socinians of the 16th Century were characterized by Unitarianism, Open Theism, and Annihilationism. On the previous incarnation of this board, I had wondered whether the Remonstrant, having taken on Open Theism and Annihilationism, was headed for Unitarianism as well.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I'm very reluctant to draw lines in the sand that the Bible itself does not explicitly draw. On the other hand, I'm also reluctant to pre-empt the final judgment of God.

                      One thing I found interesting was how it apparently took the early church awhile to work out its Christology. According to Roger Olson, the early second-century Shepherd of Hermas (which he says came closer to making it into the Bible than any other book) taught that Jesus was the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, which would of course later be condemned as heresy. If the early church wasn't as dogmatic about it as we are at that point, it at least makes me pause momentarily. But I think I'll stick with pausing, because on the other hand, Jesus is clear that we are held responsible for what we know, and now that the church has fully worked out the doctrine of the Trinity, I don't know what excuse we have now for not holding to it.
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        now that the church has fully worked out the doctrine of the Trinity, I don't know what excuse we have now for not holding to it.
                        I know you're serious, but I couldn't help an incredulous laugh when I read this.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          I know you're serious, but I couldn't help an incredulous laugh when I read this.
                          I'm too cynical to laugh, but I share your distrust, Paprika.
                          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                            Various non-Trinitarian sects have had their brief day in the sun over the centuries, including the Arians in the days of Nicea. The Socinians of the 16th Century were characterized by Unitarianism, Open Theism, and Annihilationism. On the previous incarnation of this board, I had wondered whether the Remonstrant, having taken on Open Theism and Annihilationism, was headed for Unitarianism as well.
                            To be clear, I am neither an open theist or a unitarian; I am an Arminian and an annihilationist.

                            (Note: Those who apply the label "open theist" to themselves are usually trinitarian. Gregory A. Boyd, Thomas J. Oord, Clark H. Pinnock and John E. Sanders are a few examples. Socinians are/were unitarians who denied exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Open theists such as Boyd and Sanders are not unitarian. They affirm the Trinity, but deny absolute omniscience. There's a difference. I was tentatively an open theist in the past, but technically still sitting on the fence. Ultimately I was not convinced. I am sympathetic to open theists, however, which should be evident whenever I take up the subject on T-Web at any length.)
                            Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-21-2014, 01:46 PM.
                            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                              To be clear, I am neither an open theist or a unitarian; I am an Arminian and an annihilationist.

                              (Note: Those who apply the label "open theist" to themselves are usually trinitarian. Gregory A. Boyd, Thomas J. Oord, Clark H. Pinnock and John E. Sanders are a few examples. Socinians are/were unitarians who denied exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Open theists such as Boyd and Sanders are not unitarian. They affirm the Trinity, but deny absolute omniscience. There's a difference. I was tentatively an open theist in the past, but technically still sitting on the fence. Ultimately I was not convinced. I am sympathetic to open theists, however, which should be evident whenever I take up the subject on T-Web at any length.)
                              I stand corrected; I thought you had fully embraced Open Theism already.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                                I stand corrected; I thought you had fully embraced Open Theism already.
                                No; in 2007 I had tentatively labeled myself an open theist on my T-Web profile page under the category "Soteriology". I was never fully committed, but entertained this line of thought until I found openness explanations for texts such as Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 untenable exegetically.

                                I have written a few posts on the recent "Open Theism" thread on the Theology 201 forum where my sympathies for the basic theological framework are made evident. Today I find the foreknowledge debate rather insipid and can only seem to handle the discussion in very small doses. I've pretty much moved onward.

                                http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...25-Open-Theism
                                Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-21-2014, 02:03 PM.
                                For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X