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

[37818]

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

I understood you to be trinitarian in your answer.

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.

Jesus referred to Himself as another person from the Father representing the Father. Jesus called Him self the son of man. He taught about Himself as the Son of God. The young ruler did not see Him as God. That is why Jesus asked him that question and explained only God is good. Jesus truly being a man. We know He was also God (John 1:1, 14, 18; John 5:18; John 14:9; John 20:28).

[The Remonstrant]

I will have to touch upon this later. There's more to be said. I believe you (Chrawnus and KingsGambit) are vastly underestimating the position of those who call the Spirit's personhood into question. Of course we may view texts which speak of the Spirit as being quick and easy proof of his distinctness as a a person. So it may seem glaringly "obvious" that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity to us when we read these texts for the simple reason that we are already biased at the outset due to our being raised in trinitarian Christian households and/or attending trinitarian Christian churches throughout our lives.

[JonathanL]

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.

As a whole? I don't know. But it seems to me that the proto-orthodox (and I really have a problem calling them proto-orthodox since I believe that it gives the impression of a distinction between orthodox and proto-orthodox that I do not see as existing, given that I believe that the "proto-orthodox" already held to all teachings relevant to orthodoxy even if they didn't have them in a fully developed form yet./end of gripe) stream definitely did. And since I believe the proto-orthodox Christians to be the true followers of Christ during the first and seconds centuries after His birth whatever any heretical groups claiming the name of Christians for themselves believed about the personhood of the Spirit is, quite frankly, of no interest to me whatsoever.

[The Remonstrant]

As a whole? I don't know. But it seems to me that the proto-orthodox (and I really have a problem calling them proto-orthodox since I believe that it gives the impression of a distinction between orthodox and proto-orthodox that I do not see as existing, given that I believe that the "proto-orthodox" already held to all teachings relevant to orthodoxy even if they didn't have them in a fully developed form yet./end of gripe) stream definitely did. And since I believe the proto-orthodox Christians to be the true followers of Christ during the first and seconds centuries after His birth whatever any heretical groups claiming the name of Christians for themselves believed about the personhood of the Spirit is, quite frankly, of no interest to me whatsoever.

I appreciate you admitting your bias at the outset. I am not nearly as dogmatic as you are, however. I believe there's much more for me to learn and explore.

[Paprika]

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.

One important aspect that needs to be discussed is 'person'. What does it mean? What kind of ideas did they have about this concept of 'person'? What are necessary and sufficient characteristics of 'persons'?

[The Remonstrant]

One important aspect that needs to be discussed is 'person'. What does it mean? What kind of ideas did they have about this concept of 'person'?

That's a good question.

One thing I have some concern over is that we do not seem to have clear evidence of the early Christians praying to or worshiping the Holy Spirit. The NT canon doesn't either. This is not an argument for or against anything, but simply an observation.

[The Remonstrant]

In short, I do not wish to be controlled by dogmatics. I want to be as honest with the evidence as possible. There is much, much to examine, to think, to ponder over. If we're going to learn, we need to retain a degree of openness (so to speak). What if we're wrong? We might not be, but if we're not open to being wrong at a certain point maybe we're not open to learning. Most Christians have never probed this issue in any depth.

Again, I think we find it incredibly easy to just discover teachings in the Bible we always assumed were there. So we have to (or rather should) be honest with our trinitarian bias and not seek to shut down further inquiry by appealing to this or that church council.

[Paprika]

That's a good question.

One thing I have some concern over is that we do not seem to have clear evidence of the early Christians praying to or worshiping the Holy Spirit. The NT canon doesn't either. This is not an argument for or against anything, but simply an observation.

Defining key terms is very important, else the discussion tends to go nowhere.

Let me sharpen the question: what marks out the Spirit as a person as opposed to a synecdoche of God and God's acting in creation (which occurs in the OT)?

[JonathanL]

I will have to touch upon this later. There's more to be said. I believe you (Chrawnus and KingsGambit) are vastly underestimating the position of those who call the Spirit's personhood into question. Of course we may view texts which speak of the Spirit as being quick and easy proof of his distinctness as a a person. So it may seem glaringly "obvious" that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity to us when we read these texts for the simple reason that we are already biased at the outset due to our being raised in trinitarian Christian households and/or attending trinitarian Christian churches throughout our lives.

The accusation of bias is all to readily thrown around in discussions like these. I will readily admit that I have a bias towards trinitarianism, and for mostly the reasons you provide. What I will not admit however, is that this is the main reason (or that it even is a reason) that I read the passages I provided in such a way that they support the personhood of the Spirit. The simple fact of the matter is that these passages taken together make such a strong cumulative case for the personhood of the Spirit that anyone who wants to deny this teaching while being aware of these passages has to engage in some serious feats of mental and exegetical acrobatics.

[The Remonstrant]

Defining key terms is very important, else the discussion tends to go nowhere.

Let me sharpen the question: what marks out the Spirit as a person as opposed to a synecdoche of God and God's acting in creation (which occurs in the OT)?

Great question.

[The Remonstrant]

The accusation of bias is all to readily thrown around in discussions like these.

It's more of a reminder or an observation than an "accusation". You have made it quite clear you are far from neutral on this issue. That's okay, but I will need to discuss this with individuals who are not so immovable in their position.

[Paprika]

Great question.

Let's say we admit that both Father and Son are distinct "persons" (yet to be defined). Now, we may have texts denoting that the Spirit has certain characteristics of a person. Given that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (and of the Son), can we be certain that the person-language is not supposed to refer to the Father (or the Son), since the Spirit is (supposedly) one main way through which the Father (and the Son) act and are known?

[JonathanL]

I appreciate you admitting your bias at the outset. I am not nearly as dogmatic as you are, however. I believe there's much more for me to learn and explore.

I see no problem with being dogmatic.

And it's not so much a question about learning and exploring as it is a question of which of the early groups of people calling themselves Christians that we should trust when it comes to understanding the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. And since I believe that the Scriptures that we have in our possession now came into being at the hands of the very first people of the group of Christians that we call "proto-orthodox" the decision is quite easy for me to make.

[The Remonstrant]

Let's say we admit that both Father and Son are distinct "persons" (yet to be defined). Now, we may have texts denoting that the Spirit has certain characteristics of a person. Given that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (and of the Son), can we be certain that the person-language is not supposed to refer to the Father (or the Son), since the Spirit is (supposedly) one main way through which the Father (and the Son) act and are known?

In Matthew 12:28 Jesus speaks of himself casting out demons by the Spirit of God. Couldn't this be God's power and active presence in the world, not a distinct person of the Trinity (at least in this text)? In v.18b, Matthew quotes Isaiah: "I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles" (ESV).

[JonathanL]

It's more of a reminder or an observation than an "accusation". You have made it quite clear you are far from neutral on this issue. That's okay, but I will need to discuss this with individuals who are not so immovable in their position.

I believe that there's no one who is neutral on this issue, apart from those who are so far removed from the subject that their input is practically worthless due to lack of knowledge. As for being immovable, what exactly is the problem? Entertaining the thought of shifting from a position that you believe has vast amount of support is not something that will enable anyone to have a more fruitful discussion. In fact, I'd say that it would be quite impractical and time-wasting to do this, and that thoughts like these should be entertained only when enough support for a contrarian position has been mounted that it seems that it could function as a serious contender against the view one is currently holding. And currently, when it comes to the personhood of the Spirit, I know of no teaching with enough biblical support that it could hold it's own against the orthodox teaching.