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

[JonathanL]

We disagree at this important juncture, and I don't think proceeding on other lines will be fruitful if we can't find some common ground here. To read the NT texts one must be aware of the context of much of the language, the assumed knowledge, the underlying narratives and so on. One main source of this is the Old Testament.

All true of course, but I don't see how this clashes with what I said about the NT clarifying the OT.

You say that "the NT clarifies the OT, not the other way around". This is demonstrably false. Yes, the NT does clarify some part of the OT, especially certain prophecies, but OT is the basis for the claims of the NT- observe how Jesus and the apostles and the gospel writers appeal and allude to many OT texts as foundation and evidence to explain their claims and actions.

Unless you're using the term "basis" in a way that's unknown to me I don't see how that fact in anyway is an argument against the view that the NT clarifies the OT.

Of course, saying that the NT clarifies the OT might have been too hasty of me. So your comment that the NT clarifies parts of the OT instead of the whole OT is probably more correct. But I suspect that we disagree about the number of passages in the OT that gets a clarification in the NT.

Lastly, you write "OT is the basis for the claims of the NT- observe how Jesus and the apostles and the gospel writers appeal and allude to many OT texts as foundation and evidence to explain their claims and actions."

If my contention that the NT clarifies the OT is correct we should be able to get a deeper understanding of the OT texts that's being alluded in the NT text by having the NT passages that refer to these OT text in mind while reading them (I really need to work on my phrasing ).

[Paprika]

All true of course, but I don't see how this clashes with what I said about the NT clarifying the OT.

You said that "The NT clarifies the OT, not the other way around." I'm taking issue with the latter half, and not the former.

[JonathanL]

You said that "The NT clarifies the OT, not the other way around." I'm taking issue with the latter half, and not the former.

If that's the case I don't think we're much in disagreement at all. I just worded my statement poorly (I seem to do that a lot). I didn't mean to imply that the OT never, or even just rarely clarifies the NT, only that it more often than not goes the other way.

[apostoli]

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.

If you were inclined to read scripture in its entirety you'd discover that the idea "god" is an accolade not an identity statement. The idea is applied also to men and angels, anyone who has the power over your life and/or death. Also, should you read scripture in its entirety you'll discover that the idea "God" is never used by the Israelites without qualification eg: my God, our God, the God of Israel etc

"...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." The Arians definitely perceived the Son as having been formed, Trinitarianism does not, given that Trinitarianism holds to the biblical witness that the Son was begotten, born of the Father before all ages and incarnated via Mary (see: Nicene Creed advocated by all the orthodox churches). The issue in Isaiah is the gods of the nations were formed, molded, crafted wheras the God of Israel (what the Jewish Aramaic Targums describe as the Memra of YHWH = the Word of God (see Jn 1:1) was not...albeit he as scripture describes is/was distinct to the YHWH in heaven who in Genesis is described as raining down fire and brimstone...

"What is begotten has a beginning". Not if he was begotten in eternity. By definition: there are no beginnings or ends in eternity, thus no durations. The Arians proposed that the Son was created (but not as all other things were created) external to eternity (ie: within time). The Orthodox churches hold the Son was caused within eternity, thus external to time...

"No where does the word of God teach that the Son of God was begotten". Actually there are numerous texts in the NT, starting with "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him". Now the "only begotten Son of God" would need to have existed for him to be sent. Wouldn't he?

[Paprika]

If that's the case I don't think we're much in disagreement at all. I just worded my statement poorly (I seem to do that a lot). I didn't mean to imply that the OT never, or even just rarely clarifies the NT

All right then.

only that it more often than not goes the other way

But the burden is on you to show that, and that this quantitative difference must be significant to the hermeneutic used. This is needed to sustain your earlier claim that "We should not primarily read the 'personal' language describing the Spirit in the NT in light of the OT passages about the Spirit and how the Jews understood those passages, instead we should read the passages about the Spirit in the OT in the light of the 'personal' language about the Spirit in the NT."

[37818]

If you were inclined to read scripture in its entirety you'd discover that the idea "god" is an accolade not an identity statement. The idea is applied also to men and angels, anyone who has the power over your life and/or death. Also, should you read scripture in its entirety you'll discover that the idea "God" is never used by the Israelites without qualification eg: my God, our God, the God of Israel etc

"...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." The Arians definitely perceived the Son as having been formed, Trinitarianism does not, given that Trinitarianism holds to the biblical witness that the Son was begotten, born of the Father before all ages and incarnated via Mary (see: Nicene Creed advocated by all the orthodox churches). The issue in Isaiah is the gods of the nations were formed, molded, crafted wheras the God of Israel (what the Jewish Aramaic Targums describe as the Memra of YHWH = the Word of God (see Jn 1:1) was not...albeit he as scripture describes is/was distinct to the YHWH in heaven who in Genesis is described as raining down fire and brimstone...

"What is begotten has a beginning". Not if he was begotten in eternity. By definition: there are no beginnings or ends in eternity, thus no durations. The Arians proposed that the Son was created (but not as all other things were created) external to eternity (ie: within time). The Orthodox churches hold the Son was caused within eternity, thus external to time...

"No where does the word of God teach that the Son of God was begotten". Actually there are numerous texts in the NT, starting with "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him". Now the "only begotten Son of God" would need to have existed for him to be sent. Wouldn't he?

I hold that God is one. And that there are three Persons who are that God.

I am not a tri-theist. Tri-theists deny that there is only one God.

Arianism denies the true and full deity of the man Jesus Christ. I do not.

Modalist such as Sabellianis and Oneness Pentecostals deny that the three Persons who are God are Persons. I do not. I affirm, that God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are three Persons, and as God are co-equal and co-eternal, being they are the one and the same God.

Now where you have a problem where I differ in with your understanding this we can discuss. But stop trying to make me out to believe things I DO NOT.

[The Remonstrant]

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...

Excellent observations, apostoli. You seem to be in essential agreement with Arminius, actually. I plan to scrounge up a quote of his where he addressed this issue.

[37818]

If you were inclined to read scripture in its entirety you'd discover that the idea "god" is an accolade not an identity statement. The idea is applied also to men and angels, anyone who has the power over your life and/or death. Also, should you read scripture in its entirety you'll discover that the idea "God" is never used by the Israelites without qualification eg: my God, our God, the God of Israel etc.

Yes. And the God of Israel has a real identity. The true God is not just an abstract belief.

"...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." The Arians definitely perceived the Son as having been formed, Trinitarianism does not, given that Trinitarianism holds to the biblical witness that the Son was begotten, born of the Father before all ages and incarnated via Mary (see: Nicene Creed advocated by all the orthodox churches). The issue in Isaiah is the gods of the nations were formed, molded, crafted wheras the God of Israel (what the Jewish Aramaic Targums describe as the Memra of YHWH = the Word of God (see Jn 1:1) was not...albeit he as scripture describes is/was distinct to the YHWH in heaven who in Genesis is described as raining down fire and brimstone...

You are making statements, ". . . the biblical witness that the Son was begotten, born of the Father before all ages . . . ." which as a teaching does not exist in the Bible. But there are trinitarians who deny eternal Sonship, as not being biblical, such as Dr. Walter Martian, in his book, "The Kingdom of the Cults." It was after I studied his arguments that I concluded from holy scripture that eternal Sonship of the Son of God is true.

"What is begotten has a beginning". Not if he was begotten in eternity. By definition: there are no beginnings or ends in eternity, thus no durations. The Arians proposed that the Son was created (but not as all other things were created) external to eternity (ie: within time). The Orthodox churches hold the Son was caused within eternity, thus external to time...

I hold that the only-begotten Son of God was always the only-begotten Son of God. Has no beginning. Was neither begotten nor made to become the only-begotten. The Son of God is the uncaused Cause, as God our Creator.

"No where does the word of God teach that the Son of God was begotten". Actually there are numerous texts in the NT, starting with "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him". Now the "only begotten Son of God" would need to have existed for him to be sent. Wouldn't he?

Numerous texts refer to the Son of God as the only-begotten. But there are no texts which teach that the Son of God has any kind of origin,such as becoming the Son by being begotten. You think you have such a text. Cite it. And let us find out how and why our understandings differ on it.

[JonathanL]

But the burden is on you to show that, and that this quantitative difference must be significant to the hermeneutic used. This is needed to sustain your earlier claim that "We should not primarily read the 'personal' language describing the Spirit in the NT in light of the OT passages about the Spirit and how the Jews understood those passages, instead we should read the passages about the Spirit in the OT in the light of the 'personal' language about the Spirit in the NT."

I do not believe I have to show that the NT clarifies the OT more often than the OT clarifies the NT to argue that we should let the passages in the NT describing the Spirit in a personal way influence our reading of the OT passages about the Spirit rather than the other way around, atleast when it comes to the personhood of the Spirit. All I believe I have to do is point out that the OT doesn't say much on the issue (other than Isaiah 63:10 if you're inclined to interpret it in a literal way) and that it subsequently would be a mistake to make a judgement on what the NT passages about the personhood of the Spirit mean by referring to OT passages. However, in the NT the Spirit leads people, has a name (shared with the Father and the Son: Matt 28:19) speaks, comforts, teaches, reveals things to people, bears witness about Christ, glorifies Christ, was witness to the exaltation of Christ as the Leader and Saviour (Acts 5:32), forbids/prevents (Acts 16:6), appoints leaders in the Church (Acts 20:28), has a mind (Rom 8:26-27), apportions His gifts according to His will (1 Cor 12:10-11), can be outraged (Heb 10:29), can be grieved, can be lied to, can be resisted etc. In other words, the NT is practically overflowing with personal language about the Spirit, while the OT has sparsely anything to say about the matter, except for one possible exception (and that one possible exception lends support to the view that the Spirit is a person), which means that it would be completely backwards to interpret the personal language in the NT in light of what the OT says about the matter, given that the OT hardly says anything about the matter at all (that I can see).

In other words, while I would have the burden to support the general statement that the NT clarifies the OT more than the other way around if that was what we were discussing right now, I don't have to show that to be a fact in order to argue that in least this case the proper way to approach things is to let the NT shed light on the OT, I only have to point out that it's not possible for the OT to clarify the issue, given that there are no relevant passages that could shed light on the issue (except for the aforementioned exception). Which means that the only remaining option is to let the NT clarify the OT.

[Paprika]

. All I believe I have to do is point out that the OT doesn't say much on the issue (other than Isaiah 63:10 if you're inclined to interpret it in a literal way)

Excuse me? It's all right to intepret the personal language in the NT in a 'literal' way and not the Isaianic quote?

and that it subsequently would be a mistake to make a judgement on what the NT passages about the personhood of the Spirit mean by referring to OT passages.

That of course assumes that the NT passages in question cannot be quotations or allusions to parts of the OT.

In other words, the NT is practically overflowing with personal language about the Spirit, while the OT has sparsely anything to say about the matter, except for one possible exception (and that one possible exception lends support to the view that the Spirit is a person), which means that it would be completely backwards to interpret the personal language in the NT in light of what the OT says about the matter, given that the OT hardly says anything about the matter at all (that I can see).

No. NT texts are Jewish texts, and much be understood as such. Why the OT is important is because the OT was one main source for Jewish understanding. Is Isaiah 63:10 to be understood as making a statement about a personal statement about the Spirit, making it a distinct person? If yes, why didn't the Jews understand it as such, as far as we can tell? If no, why then should we interpret the 'personhood' extracts about the Spirit in the NT in a different way?

In other words, while I would have the burden to support the general statement that the NT clarifies the OT more than the other way around if that was what we were discussing right now, I don't have to show that to be a fact in order to argue that in least this case the proper way to approach things is to let the NT shed light on the OT, I only have to point out that it's not possible for the OT to clarify the issue, given that there are no relevant passages that could shed light on the issue (except for the aforementioned exception). Which means that the only remaining option is to let the NT clarify the OT.

Sure, handwaving it away is an option

[JonathanL]

Excuse me? It's all right to intepret the personal language in the NT in a 'literal' way and not the Isaianic quote?

I never said anything of the sort. As far as I know interpreting 63:10 in a literal way could very well be the correct interpretation. But one reason I can think of that one might use would be that Isaiah is prophetic literature which is full of imagery and symbolism, while many of the passages are simply straightforward narrative and epistolary writings, writings that lend themselves more easily to a literal reading than what prophetic literature does.

That of course assumes that the NT passages in question cannot be quotations or allusions to parts of the OT.

You're free to demonstrate that any of the NT passages that uses personal language to describe the Spirit is a quotation or allusion to the OT if you want to. I believe you'll have the most luck with the passages that speak of the Spirit talking through the prophets, or Ephesians 4:30, which when reading it in English atleast, reminds me of Isaiah 63:10.

No. NT texts are Jewish texts, and much be understood as such. Why the OT is important is because the OT was one main source for Jewish understanding. Is Isaiah 63:10 to be understood as making a statement about a personal statement about the Spirit, making it a distinct person? If yes, why didn't the Jews understand it as such, as far as we can tell? If no, why then should we interpret the 'personhood' extracts about the Spirit in the NT in a different way?

Let me suggest that if the OT was as full of personal statements about the Spirit as the NT was, relative to it's length, the ancient Jewish interpretation of these passages would be wholly different. But one other possible explanation I could think of if that's not a good enough explanation, is that given the strongly monotheistic language of the OT (And that's not to suggest that the language in the NT isn't monotheistic), interpreting Isaiah 63:10 in a literal way would have been a bit too risky for Jewish sensibilities. The Targum on Isaiah, by Jonathan ben Uzziel is interesting for example, given how it replaces "the Holy Spirit" with "the word of His holy spirit", and excises the word "grieved" altogether.

Targum Isaiah on Google Books (Go to page 213 for the relevant passage)

Sure, handwaving it away is an option

I don't see any handwaving. You're making the claim that I have to support the general and far reaching statement that the NT clarifies the OT more than the other way around in order for my specific claim that the NT clarifies the OT on the matter of the personhood of the Spirit to be valid. But you've yourself acknowledged that the NT clarifies the OT in atleast some instances, which means that you've left the door open for me to try and argue for my specific claim about how we should view the relationship between the NT and the OT when it comes to the question of the personhood of the Spirit without having to engage in the herculean task of trying to support the far weightier claim that the NT in general clarifies the OT. And I believe I've argued that sufficiently now, by showing that the OT is pretty much silent on the issue (You can't clarify something if you don't speak about the issue) while the authors of the NT, compared to the OT atleast, do not seem to be able to stop speaking about the Spirit in a personal way. I've also given two explanations as to why the Jews did not understand the Spirit to be a person, the first being that they never thought it an issue in the first place, given how the OT is almost silent on the question, and a second alternative possibility being that their strong monotheistic sensibilities, fashioned by the strongly monotheistic language of the OT prevented them from reading passages like Isaiah 63:10 in a straightforward fashion. So far I'm leaning more towards the second explanation.

[apostoli]

I hold that God is one. And that there are three Persons who are that God...Modalist such as Sabellianis and Oneness Pentecostals deny that the three Persons who are God are Persons. I do not. I affirm, that God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are three Persons, and as God are co-equal and co-eternal, being they are the one and the same God.

So, I take it in your hostle argument, that you in fact advocate the Sabellian viewpoint (rejected by the church in the 3rd century) = that there is one individual that is "God" who manifests himself as three persons - much like an ancient actor on a stage who changes masks to depict whatever character the script requires - after all that is what the Greek word "prosopon" which directly translates as "person" means=the actors mask!

Hypostasis, which is a biblical term is, in English, generally translated as substance and in modern times is often inappropriately translated "person" (given English has no comparable term, apart from the Latin Substantia = substance). Thus we read at Hebrews 1:3 (in the Greek), that the Son is an exact replica of his Father's hypostasis. I understand you reject such biblical testimony, I just wonder why. Could it be because your various opinions have no support from scripture? Which your current arguments portray...

I am not a tri-theist. Tri-theists deny that there is only one God.

Not neccessarily. For instance, amoungst the Indian religions, there are those that worship a multitude of gods, but hold there is the one God Brahman/Brahma who rules over all...

Arianism denies the true and full deity of the man Jesus Christ. I do not.

Arius, in writing, declared that the Son was perfect God. So your ascertian simply demonstrates your total ignorance not only of scripture but also of historical fact...

Now where you have a problem where I differ in with your understanding this we can discuss. But stop trying to make me out to believe things I DO NOT.

I've made no attack upon you. Possibly you simply are plagued by a guilty conscious which is trying to get through to you that you have no social, church within the conservative (and majority) faction or biblical support for your weird and wonderful personal conclusions.

ps: I note with some aggrevation that at no time have you addressed any of the points I have raised in my posts. Instead you rant away with irrelevancies attempting distraction. Try to be at the least credible in your replies to me. At the moment you are just making yourself out to be a fool, deceived by his own billiance - despite your ignorance of scripture, history or theology.

With that scolding I assume you will skulk away or chuck a juvenile temper tantrum. Remember, I am not your judge, Jesus in his testimony indicates we each judge ourselves, although others will observe what we say and do and come to their own conclusions (lots of those here at TWEB).

[The Remonstrant]

apostoli:

Is 37818 maintaining that the Son and Holy Spirit are autotheos (i.e., self-existent) along with the Father?

[Paprika]

But one reason I can think of that one might use would be that Isaiah is prophetic literature which is full of imagery and symbolism, while many of the passages are simply straightforward narrative and epistolary writings, writings that lend themselves more easily to a literal reading than what prophetic literature does.

Because Paul, for example, doesn't use imagery and symbolism

You're free to demonstrate that any of the NT passages that uses personal language to describe the Spirit is a quotation or allusion to the OT if you want to. I believe you'll have the most luck with the passages that speak of the Spirit talking through the prophets, or Ephesians 4:30, which when reading it in English atleast, reminds me of Isaiah 63:10.

To make your stance, you need to rule it out at many points.

and a second alternative possibility being that their strong monotheistic sensibilities, fashioned by the strongly monotheistic language of the OT prevented them from reading passages like Isaiah 63:10 in a straightforward fashion. So far I'm leaning more towards the second explanation.

All right. We aren't going to get anywhere if we don't agree on this, so I'll assume with this for the sake of argument, and hopefully we can proceed.

[apostoli]

apostoli:

Is 37818 maintaining that the Son and Holy Spirit are autotheos (i.e., self-existent) along with the Father?

From what I gather, definitely!

Calvin tried that on at some stage but was resoundingly refuted. Albeit, Calvin attempted to do a Basil and redefine the term as personal possession rather than "God of himself" which is the most direct translation. Given the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, both having their theotēs (state of being God) sourced and caused by the Father, they are obviously not autotheos (God of themselves). However, that their theotēs is a self possession would seem evident.