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

[apostoli]

What I would like you to do is itemize what you see as different - side by side.

I don't know how to render HTML rows & columns in TWEB. So I can't do a side by side comparison. Best I can offer is a sequence of your ascertions and then my observation of their defects.

I'm not opposed to discussing the differences and the whys.

An open mind is the gateway to epignosis (full and accurate knowledge).

I believe in One God which has always existed as three Persons.

Your use of the word "always" demonstrates you have fallen into the Arian trap - in short you confine God to temporal time, whereas it is taught by the majority Christian church, Jews and Muslims that God is not confined by temporal time, as he persists in eternity. By definition: there is no beginnings or ends in eternity, and thus there is no durations (ie: no time).

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is a trinity of Persons being One God.

The apostle Paul three times declares emphatically that to us (Christians) there is one God the Father, and so the Nicene and later creeds declare in the confession of faith that "I (we) believe in one God=the Father".

There is not any holy scripture which teaches "that the Son was begotten before all ages."

If so why is it that from the earliest times all the various segments of the church, including the Arians, perceived such as a point of agreement?

What is that biblical witness that you think I'm denying? We can discuss this.

Your ascertion that the Son was unbegotten! If so, then he is not Son in any true sense. In anycase you are in direct conflict with A.John's test to determine true believers.

I did not and do not deny the pre-existence of the Son. Nor do I deny that the Son was and is always God. What I affirmed that is different, I also hold that the Son was also always not God. The latter is the only difference.

? Are you advocating an innovation on the Mormon possition?

I do deny replication.

Then you deny Heb 1:3, which explicitly states that the Son is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis!!!

But hold they are one substance

Obviously you have no idea of what the Greek terms used in scripture convey ie: hypostasis, ousia & physis!!! In the West there has been a lot of confusion as Latin, English etc just don't have the vocabulary to express the terms. For instance: amoungst the latin fathers hypostasis has variously been translated substantia as has ousia, and at other times hypostases has been translated subsistere whereas ousia is translated substantia. The reality is that hypostasis refers to your concrete reality (what makes you, you) whereas ousia is your concrete reality as a member of the collective (a common explaination: what is it that causes you to be included in the category human).

God did not change. But there was a change on the part of the uncaused Cause, being the Son. Remember He was always both God (unchangeable) and the not God (changeable).

Interesting. From what scripture or even philosophy can you support such a unique opinion?

What changed was not God, but God's agency, the Son who was always both "with God" and "was God."

As any authoritive Greek grammarian will point out to you the last clause of John 1:1 is qualitative, and the translation "the Word was God" is inappropriate. Most grammarians I've encountered cite the NEB's paraphrase "what God was, the Word was" as the best translation. Personally, following the rules of translation I prefer the rendering "and the Word was as God", which accords with the majority witness throughout A.John's Gospel (eg: John 12:45; 14:9).

[37818]

I don't know how to render HTML rows & columns in TWEB. So I can't do a side by side comparison. Best I can offer is a sequence of your ascertions and then my observation of their defects.

An open mind is the gateway to epignosis (full and accurate knowledge).

Your use of the word "always" demonstrates you have fallen into the Arian trap - in short you confine God to temporal time, whereas it is taught by the majority Christian church, Jews and Muslims that God is not confined by temporal time, as he persists in eternity. By definition: there is no beginnings or ends in eternity, and thus there is no durations (ie: no time).
.

There is not point in going further, unless you get my view right. This does not mean you must fully agree with it. But you just misrepresented it! God - the Self Existent is eternal. Without beginning, without end, timeless. The terms, Father, Son are temporal terms. The the Son of God was always God - even as, in my understanding also always not God. The only difference between my view and the so-called standard orthodox view, is I hold the Son of God always had two natures prior to Him taking on the human nature in the incarnation. Post incarnation, my view should be understood to be identical to the orthodox view of the dual nature of Jesus Christ, now an immortal man as our mediator at the right hand of God (the Father).

After we straighten this out, we can deal with the other points.

[KingsGambit]

I would like to briefly interject to contest the point that 37818 has fallen into Arianism by stating that the Trinity has always existed; if one holds that God created time and exists outside of it, that would still not preclude God from always existing within time. Indeed, that would be the only consistent approach.

[apostoli]

I would like to briefly interject to contest the point that 37818 has fallen into Arianism by stating that the Trinity has always existed; if one holds that God created time and exists outside of it, that would still not preclude God from always existing within time. Indeed, that would be the only consistent approach.

In my experience, it is always beneficial to read the early church (orthodox) fathers to get a balanced view. To wit, in Athanasuis' discourses against the Arians (either the 3rd or 4th or possibly both) he proposed (paraphrased) that the Son existed eternally in potentiality (this answers the question of whether God changed in becoming Father or for that matter creator). The Arians disagreed, contending that the Son was created ex nihilo within time (or as you put it, God existing within time).

Imu, the Orthodox view is though God (from our perspective) operates within time, he (being omnipotent and thus omnipresent & omniscient) is not constrained by time, and therefore does not have his persistence within time. Which is the only consistent approach, and one supported by all the major Abrahamic religions (especially Orthodox Christianity)!!!

[apostoli]

I would like to briefly interject to contest the point that 37818 has fallen into Arianism by stating that the Trinity has always existed...

ps:

37818 advocates through his opinion of three unbegotten beings, tri-theism and a very pagan flavour at that...Basically, 37818 visits (probably unbeknown to him) a huge number of heresies that were rejected by the early church in its formation. For a start, if the Son is unbegotten, then the only way he can be Son is by adoption, thus he is not truely Son - which is a blatent contradiction of scripture...

The Arians conceived that the Son was created by the Father as perfect God, and the Spirit was created by the Son - another form of tri-theism, which unlike 37818's opinion is not based exclusively on pagan myth...

Orthodoxy teaches a tri-unity (Trinity) where the Father alone is unbegotten, the Son being true son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is received by us through the Son...each person functioning in perfect accord...

[Obsidian]

The only difference between my view and the so-called standard orthodox view, is I hold the Son of God always had two natures prior to Him taking on the human nature in the incarnation.

Why would you say this? Not only does it not make any sense, but there is no Bible verse to support it.

[37818]

ps:

37818 advocates through his opinion of three unbegotten beings, tri-theism . . .

Three Persons who are One God is NOT tritheism!

[37818]

Why would you say this? Not only does it not make any sense, but there is no Bible verse to support it.

John 1:1, 2, ". . . with God . . . the same was in the beginning with God." The one in the presence facing God is not the one being faced/being with. In other words the one with/facing God is not said to be God. Yet, "was God" v.1. Was both.

[apostoli]

Three Persons who are One God is NOT tritheism!

If you have three unbegotten persons you advocate tri-theism. If you hold that there are three faces (prosopon=persons) which reveal the one God (hypostasis=the concrete reality of a singularity), you have Sabellianism. Both varieties of heresy were considered and rejected by the very early church. The alternative is the Tri-unity: one unbegotten entity (the Father as the only true God), the Son begotten by the Father within eternity, begotten not made as true son and therefore ontologically true God from the true God, homoousious, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father within eternity and is received by us in time...

Take your pick...

[37818]

If you have three unbegotten persons you advocate tri-theism. If you hold that there are three faces (prosopon=persons) which reveal the one God (hypostasis=the concrete reality of a singularity), you have Sabellianism. Both varieties of heresy were considered and rejected by the very early church. The alternative is the Tri-unity: one unbegotten entity (the Father as the only true God), the Son begotten by the Father within eternity, begotten not made as true son and therefore ontologically true God from the true God, homoousious, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father within eternity and is received by us in time...

Take your pick...

I beleive God not you. ". . . saith the LORD, . . . that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." -- Isaiah 43:10.

God is not a begotten being. Begotten beings as begotten beings are never God.

What is begotten has a beginning. So arguing "not made" does not change that. The phrase "only begotten" refers to relationship, does not need to refer to origin. Which you and Arius suppose.

No where does the word of God teach that the Son of God was begotten in order to be the only begotten.

[Obsidian]

The one in the presence facing God is not the one being faced/being with. In other words the one with/facing God is not said to be God. Yet, "was God" v.1. Was both.

I don't see how that amounts to two natures. When people talk about "nature," they usually are referring to humanity versus divinity.

[37818]

I don't see how that amounts to two natures. When people talk about "nature," they usually are referring to humanity versus divinity.

God's nature, among other points, is unchangable
being eternal. A change is a temporal nature. Those are two different natures. A cause of creation required a change. The incarnation was a change. Acts are change. Both were acts of the Son of God who always has had both an eternal and a temporal nature.

[Obsidian]

God's nature, amoug other points, is unchangable
being eternal.

No where does the Bible say that God is unchangeable, in the sense you are using it. No where does the Bible say that God the Father lacks a temporal nature. Furthermore, your subdivision of different characteristics of Jesus into different "natures" is misleading and confusing.

[KingsGambit]

Yes, the Incarnation is a good analogy for why we can refer to God existing within our current temporal framework. Incarnation is not the "usual" state of Jesus but that does not prevent us from accurately stating that Jesus did become flesh (within our temporal framework, even). Even when we grant that God exists outside this framework we can still affirm that at least phenomenologically, we can affirm God's existence within it even if God simultaneously exists outside of it.

[Paprika]

Yes, the Incarnation is a good analogy for why we can refer to God existing within our current temporal framework. Incarnation is not the "usual" state of Jesus but that does not prevent us from accurately stating that Jesus did become flesh (within our temporal framework, even).

Given, of course, that Jesus was raised bodily, it doesn't make sense to say that being incarnated is not His "usual" state. Before He incarnated, sure, but afterwards He has never stopped being a man.