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

[37818]

God is a Spirit and not a man (John 4:24; Numbers 23:19).
That we must believe somethings correctly about Jesus (John 8:24; 2 John 9).
Jesus is the Son of God, and not the same person as God (John 1:2; John 8:17, 18; Mark 13:32).
Jesus was a sinless man because He was also God (Mark 10:18).
And the bodily resurrected Jesus at the right hand of God is still a man (1 Timothy 2:5).
That Jesus is our sole access to God (John 14:6).

[KingsGambit]

(Incidentally, "run ahead" in 2 John 9 is generally thought of as a play on words on what the Gnostics believed, right?)

I'll have to check I.H. Marshall's commentary on the epistles to John when I get home; I'm at my parents' house right now.

[The Remonstrant]

God is a Spirit and not a man (John 4:24; Numbers 23:19).
That we must believe somethings correctly about Jesus (John 8:24; 2 John 9).
Jesus is the Son of God, and not the same person as God (John 1:2; John 8:17, 18; Mark 13:32).
Jesus was a sinless man because He was also God (Mark 10:18).
And the bodily resurrected Jesus at the right hand of God is still a man (1 Timothy 2:5).
That Jesus is our sole access to God (John 14:6).

To say "Jesus is the Son of God, and not the same person as God" does not come across well if one wishes to affirm a trinitarian concept of God. Better, "Jesus is the Son of God, distinct from the Father. The Father and the Son comprise two of the three persons of the God who is one." (A unitarian would despise such a statement of course.)

As for Mark 10:18, this text can be taken a totally different direction than I believe you wish it to go.

[37818]

(Incidentally, "run ahead" in 2 John 9 is generally thought of as a play on words on what the Gnostics believed, right?)

I'll have to check I.H. Marshall's commentary on the epistles to John when I get home; I'm at my parents' house right now.

That translation isn't, it is an interpretation of what that interpreter takes what it means as to not remain in Christ. (see John 15:6).

[The Remonstrant]

(Incidentally, "run ahead" in 2 John 9 is generally thought of as a play on words on what the Gnostics believed, right?)

I'll have to check I.H. Marshall's commentary on the epistles to John when I get home; I'm at my parents' house right now.

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. (2 John 9 ESV)

Second John 9 may work toward a binitarian understanding of God's nature, but is of little help in establishing the trinitarian doctrine. I do not know why anyone would use this text for the latter purpose. There is not even the mention of the Holy Spirit in this verse.

[KingsGambit]

Second John 9 may work toward a binitarian understanding of God's nature, but is of little help in establishing the trinitarian doctrine. I do not know why anyone would use this text for the latter purpose.

He wasn't using it to bolster trinitarianism per se; he was using it to demonstrate the importance of correct doctrine about Christ.

[37818]

To say "Jesus is the Son of God, and not the same person as God" does not come across well if one wishes to affirm a trinitarian concept of God. Better, "Jesus is the Son of God, distinct from the Father. The Father and the Son comprise two of the three persons of the God who is one." (A unitarian would despise such a statement of course.)

They are the same God, not the same persons, though the the Son fully represents His Father (John 14:9).

As for Mark 10:18, this text can be taken a totally different direction than I believe you wish it to go.

Jesus makes the point only God is good. And Jesus was truly and fully a man. (Romans 3:10 in mind.)

[The Remonstrant]

He wasn't using it to bolster trinitarianism per se; he was using it to demonstrate the importance of correct doctrine about Christ.

[KingsGambit]

This is one area where I don't know a whole lot about the ECFs; was this a significant debate within the early church? Who were some of the major participants?

[Cerebrum123]

The Tektonics site might have something on binitarianism, let me check. I saw a reference to it in the "Tryouts for the Trinity" video.

[The Remonstrant]

They are the same God, not the same persons, though the the Son fully represents His Father (John 14:9).

Yes, I did not intend to insinuate anything akin to modalism.

Jesus makes the point only God is good. And Jesus was truly and fully a man. (Romans 3:10 in mind.)

Jesus does not refer to himself as a "God-man" in Mark 10:18. You may deduce this is what Jesus was driving at, but this idea is not made explicit.

[The Remonstrant]

This is one area where I don't know a whole lot about the ECFs; was this a significant debate within the early church? Who were some of the major participants?

My feet are not wet enough to say much at this point. I have actually made a solicitation for information in the "Unorthodox Theology 201" forum. So far I have only heard crickets. The issue comes down to whether the early church considered the Holy Spirit to be a distinct person. Did they consider God to be "di-une" (the Father and the Son) or "tri-une" (the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit)?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...or-Information

[JonathanL]

My feet are not wet enough to say much at this point. I have actually made a solicitation for information in the "Unorthodox Theology 201" forum. So far I have only heard crickets. The issue comes down to whether the early church considered the Holy Spirit to be a distinct person. Did they consider God to be "di-une" (the Father and the Son) or "tri-une" (the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit)?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...or-Information

Given the vast amount of testimony of the personhood of the Spirit in the New Testament I'd say that anyone who denies that the Bible teaches the personhood of the Spirit is either speaking against better judgement, or reads his Bible extremely selectively. In fact, if we're only talking about the number of occurrences where the personhood of the Spirit is implied or a strict requirement for the passage to even make sense, it seems to me that such passages easily outnumbers similar passages about the deity of Jesus, which is also clearly taught in the NT. Doing a quick search for "Spirit" on biblegateway.com and limiting the scope to the New Testament, here's a small list of passages that seem to imply and/or require that the Spirit is a person:

Matt 4:1 / Mark 1:12 / Luke 4:1

Matt 28:19

Mark 13:11 / Luke 12:11-12

Luke 2:25-26

John 14:15-17

John 14:26

John 15:26

John 16:12-14

Acts 1:16

Acts 4:25

Acts 5:3 and 9

Acts 5:32

Acts 7:51

Acts 8:39

Acts 10:19

Acts 11:12

Acts 13:2 and 4

Acts 15:28

Acts 16:6

Acts 20:22-23

Acts 20:28

Acts 21:11

Acts 28:25

Rom 8:14-16

Rom 8:26-27

1 Cor 2:10-13

1 Cor 12:11

Eph 4:30

Philippians 1:19

1 Tim 3:16

1 Tim 4:1

Heb 3:7-8

Heb 9:8

Heb 10:15-16

Heb 10:29

1 Pet 1:11-12

2 Pet 1:21

1 John 4:1-3

Rev 2:7, 11, 17 and 29 - Rev 3:6, 13 and 22

Rev 14:13

Rev 22:17


EDIT - Of course, this would also imply that the teaching that the Holy Spirit was a distinct person from the Father and the Son had been established very early in the history of proto-orthodoxy. In fact, one could (on the presupposition that the Bible is truthful, which I'm quite certain you will agree with me on) argue that since Jesus himself spoke about the Spirit as a person in Joh 14 that this was believed right from the very beginning while Christ was still performing his earthly ministry.

[KingsGambit]

Given the vast amount of testimony of the personhood of the Spirit in the New Testament I'd say that anyone who denies that the Bible teaches the personhood of the Spirit is either speaking against better judgement, or reads his Bible extremely selectively. In fact, if we're only talking about the number of occurences where the personhood of the Spirit is implied or a strict requirement for the passage to even make sense, it seems to me that such passages easily outnumbers similar passages about the deity of Jesus, which is also clearly taught in the NT. Doing a quick search for "Spirit" on biblegateway.com and limiting the scope to the New Testament, here's a small list of passages that seem to imply and/or require that the Spirit is a person:

Matt 4:1 / Mark 1:12 / Luke 4:1

Matt 28:19

Mark 13:11 / Luke 12:11-12

Luke 2:25-26

John 14:15-17

John 14:26

John 15:26

John 16:12-14

Acts 1:16

Acts 4:25

Acts 5:3 and 9

Acts 5:32

Acts 7:51

Acts 8:39

Acts 10:19

Acts 11:12

Acts 13:2 and 4

Acts 15:28

Acts 16:6

Acts 20:22-23

Acts 20:28

Acts 21:11

Acts 28:25

Rom 8:14-16

Rom 8:26-27

1 Cor 2:10-13

1 Cor 12:11

Eph 4:30

Philippians 1:19

1 Tim 3:16

1 Tim 4:1

Heb 3:7-8

Heb 9:8

Heb 10:15-16

Heb 10:29

1 Pet 1:11-12

2 Pet 1:21

1 John 4:1-3

Rev 2:7, 11, 17 and 29 - Rev 3:6, 13 and 22

Rev 14:13

Rev 22:17

Excellent post. Hebrews 3:7-8 was the first that came to mind for me as well.

[The Remonstrant]

Chrawnus:

Did the first and second century Christians as a whole understand the Spirit to be a separate or distinct person within the godhead? That is the question.