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

[apostoli]

I do affirm the true eternal Sonship of the Son of God.

Can't see how, given you deny the Son is truely son, and his sonship is merely a metaphor to describe not a Trinity but a subordinate/subservient role = son by adoption and in name only!!!!

I deny Sabellianism.

Yet, in your posts, I and others have found you advocating it!!!

And you failed cite the holy scripture you think I am in denial of

I've quoted scripture numerous times and you have ignored the citations. Did, or did not God send his only begotten Son to be the saviour of the world?. Also, how is it that no man has ever seen God, yet Abraham sat, conversed and dined with YHWH (Gen 18. Also compare John 8:40)?

You only cited your interpretation of the facts. That is not discussing, that is accusing. I'm trying to be patient here. Pick one point of issue. And we need to deal with one point at a time. 1) What I said. 2) What does the word of God say? 3) Your view. 4) How are our two views the same? 5) How are they different?

Fair enough. Lets start with your rejection of the true sonship of the Son of God. I recognise you adhere to an adoptionist position. If you now have decided to reject adoptionism, then you have to agree with all the Bible based Christian churches that currently populate the earth, that the Son was begotten.

My view is based on the word of God. I do not deny, the distinct Persons of the Godhead, I do not deny the two natures of Christ in the incarnation. I do not deny that there is only One God who is the One Yahweh.

But you do deny that the Son is true son, given you deny his begetal by the Father. All the Orthodox and conservative churches accept this fact, something like two billion Christian adherents that have adhered to a belief that has been handed down from the apostles for a millennium or so.

So the odds are, your pagan perspective is not simply aberrant but wrong!!!

[37818]

Can't see how, given you deny the Son is truely son, and his sonship is merely a metaphor to describe not a Trinity but a subordinate/subservient role = son by adoption and in name only!!!!

Where did I say "there is no Son of God?" The Son of God as God is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. It is your wrong headed interpretation of my view.

Yet, in your posts, I and others have found you advocating it!!!

Who, besides you? I affirm the three Persons of the Godhead are distinct persons. The Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son. [The Son of God fully represents the Father.] The Person of the Holy Spirit is not the Father and the Father is not the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Son of God is not the Person of the Holy Spirit and the Person of the Holy Spirit is not the Person of the Son. [God is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and of Christ, being sent by them.] And you are going to tell me that I believe something I never believed?

I've quoted scripture numerous times and you have ignored the citations. Did, or did not God send his only begotten Son to be the saviour of the world?. Also, how is it that no man has ever seen God, yet Abraham sat, conversed and dined with YHWH (Gen 18. Also compare John 8:40)?

All appearances of YHWH in the OT is none other than the only-begotten Son of God (John 1:18).

Fair enough. Lets start with your rejection of the true sonship of the Son of God.

On the contrary I have explicitly stated I believe in the true eternal Sonship of the Son of God.

I recognise you adhere to an adoptionist position. If you now have decided to reject adoptionism, then you have to agree with all the Bible based Christian churches that currently populate the earth, that the Son was begotten.

Explain what you are referring to as the "adoptionist position?" And what is the biblical basis which you refer to as "the Son was begotten?" So I know what you mean.

But you do deny that the Son is true son, given you deny his begetal by the Father. All the Orthodox and conservative churches accept this fact, something like two billion Christian adherents that have adhered to a belief that has been handed down from the apostles for a millennium or so.

Again, I do not deny the genuine Son of God, you have not provided a biblical basis for your arguments. My view is biblcal. And you are being very evasive on this. Please provide your biblical basis.

So the odds are, your pagan perspective is not simply aberrant but wrong!!!

Yours is that of accusations. And to be a false accuser, which you are, alines with whom? And that my friend is not Christian of you. Making false accusation, which you persist in doing.

[apostoli]

Where did I say "there is no Son of God?"

You deny the Son was begotten by his Father and that he is an exact replica of his Father's hypostasis (the very meaning and usage of the Greek words the author of Hebrews 1:3 used!!!)

The Son of God as God is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father.

In an earlier post you had a rant that the exact words I had used "begotten before the ages" was not stated explicitly in the Bible. So using your arbitrary standard, where is it stated in scripture that "the Son of God as God is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father"? Whilst your exact words are nowhere to be found in scripture, John 1:1-3 is a possibility, except all it tells us is the Logos (the Son in his pre-incarnate state) was with God before anything was created ie: he existed before the ages...

It is your wrong headed interpretation of my view.

Possibly, but it seems evident that our problem is your perverse view which goes against the teaching of most, if not all Bible based Christian denominations since the time of the apostles.

It is not sufficient that your chanting of slogans provides any foundation of faith. Christianity is a thoughtful religion based on the teaching of the apostles. For whatever reason you reject the teaching of the apostles ie: God sent his only begotten Son to be saviour of the world.

I affirm the three Persons of the Godhead are distinct persons.

Bully for you. But you deny the true Sonship of the only begotten Son, and the biblical witness that the Son is an exact replication of his Father (Heb 1:3; Jn 12:45;14:9). If your contemplations lead you to hold that there are three unbegotten beings then you have three Gods! Tritheism pure and simple...

The Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son. [The Son of God fully represents the Father.] The Person of the Holy Spirit is not the Father and the Father is not the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Son of God is not the Person of the Holy Spirit and the Person of the Holy Spirit is the Person of the Son.

Possibly you made a typo here, but given what you say next possibly not! Seems you advocate only two persons, the Father and the Son, given you think the Spirit is the Son.

God is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and of Christ, being sent by them.

Suggest you read Romans 8, wherein the Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God are described as separate identities.

And you are going to tell me that I believe something I never believed?

Nope! I've simply been pointing out what you have been promoting - none of which accords with the teaching of the Trinitarian churches.

All appearances of YHWH in the OT is none other than the only-begotten Son of God (John 1:18).

I agree! Jn 8:40 with Gen 18 is a pointer. Now the very interesting thing is that the majority witness of the OT nominates the "angel of the Lord (KJV); memra of YHWH (Aramaic targums, Word of God (Jn 1:1c)). Also in Gen 19:24 we have two YHWHs, one in heaven, the other on earth...

On the contrary I have explicitly stated I believe in the true eternal Sonship of the Son of God.

How is the Son son if he was not begotten? Please explain...

Explain what you are referring to as the "adoptionist position?"

The simplest example is where a wealthy person accepts an unrelated person into his household and nominates him as the inheritor of all his goods. Thus, if the Son is unbegotten, he has no natural right to the inheritance of anything that the Father might possess. However, he might have a legal basis of a claim if a formal contract can be produced. "Adoptionism" is one of the earliest heresies that arose in the church and the apostles directly attacked. Hence, A.John's emphasis throughout his Gospel and letters that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God...

And what is the biblical basis which you refer to as "the Son was begotten?" So I know what you mean.

I've already quoted you the scriptural witness in my other posts, but seeing you want to pretend to be as thick as a brick and illiterate here I go again (I won't quote the verse, I'll just provide pointers to them: Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb 11:17; 1 Jn 4:9 "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".

Again, I do not deny the genuine Son of God, you have not provided a biblical basis for your arguments. My view is biblcal.

If it is, then you will have no trouble supporting it from scripture rather than parrot on with irrelevancies of what you want to believe, or not believe.

And you are being very evasive on this. Please provide your biblical basis.

Evasion would be if I did not address your posts and simply prattled on with irrelevancies. As yet I not aware of you actually addressing any of the issues I have raised in my previous posts. I invite all the "watchers" to review my discussion with 37818, and decide who it is that has been avoiding the issues.

Yours is that of accusations. And to be a false accuser, which you are, alines with whom? And that my friend is not Christian of you. Making false accusation, which you persist in doing.

I'm not aware of directly accusing you of anything. I've simply tried to highlight the stupidities of your unsupported and unsupportable opinions and where they either stem from or could lead. Of course, I have pointed out that your aberant viewpoint is at odds with all of the Bible based Christian churches. Not a false accusation, just a provable fact...

Note" Slogans don't make a doctrine, and at the moment all you have is a bunch of slogans that you as yet have been unable to support...

ps: As for your accusation that I haven't been demonstrating a very Christian attitude: have a read of John 8:44-46. Could be that I have simply attempted to walk in the footsteps of Christ...

[37818]

You deny the Son was begotten by his Father and that he is an exact replica of his Father's hypostasis (the very meaning and usage of the Greek words the author of Hebrews 1:3 used!!!)

The Son of God was not begotten in order to be the Son of God. ". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, . . . "

In an earlier post you had a rant that the exact words I had used "begotten before the ages" was not stated explicitly in the Bible. So using your arbitrary standard, where is it stated in scripture that "the Son of God as God is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father"? Whilst your exact words are nowhere to be found in scripture, John 1:1-3 is a possibility, except all it tells us is the Logos (the Son in his pre-incarnate state) was with God before anything was created ie: he existed before the ages...

And do you have a problem with that?

Possibly, but it seems evident that our problem is your perverse view which goes against the teaching of most, if not all Bible based Christian denominations since the time of the apostles.

My view is not perverse. And my sectarian view is [pre-reformation] baptist. In other words, not Roman Catholic, not post Roman Catholic protestant. The apostolic authority of holy scripture alone.

It is not sufficient that your chanting of slogans provides any foundation of faith. Christianity is a thoughtful religion based on the teaching of the apostles. For whatever reason you reject the teaching of the apostles ie: God sent his only begotten Son to be saviour of the world.

You are again wrong. My Christian faith is founded in the apostolic authority of holy scripture alone. Not post-Roman Catholic protestantism.

Bully for you. But you deny the true Sonship of the only begotten Son, and the biblical witness that the Son is an exact replication of his Father (Heb 1:3; Jn 12:45;14:9). If your contemplations lead you to hold that there are three unbegotten beings then you have three Gods! Tritheism pure and simple...

Now, ". . . you deny the true Sonship of the only begotten Son" is a false statement, and an accusation you are making! I affirm that the Son is an exact replication of His Father (Hebrews 1:3; John 12:45; 14:9). That (Hebrews 1:3) is what the word of God does teach.

Possibly you made a typo here, but given what you say next possibly not! Seems you advocate only two persons, the Father and the Son, given you think the Spirit is the Son.

The point I was making is that they those three Persons are distinct Persons. Each one is not the other. They are though, the One and the same God.

Suggest you read Romans 8, wherein the Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God are described as separate identities.

They are the one Holy Spirit. The Person of the Holy Spirit who is not the same Person as the Father, and not the same Person as Christ, is the Spirit of God and the Spirit Christ. And I see you have a problem here. So you think each Christian as how may Holy Spirits are in them? (Romans 8:9, 1 John 5:12, 2 Corinthians 13:5, John 14:16, John 16:7).


More comments later . . .

[37818]

. . .
Possibly you made a typo here, but given what you say next possibly not! Seems you advocate only two persons, the Father and the Son, given you think the Spirit is the Son.

It was a typo. Yes, it should have read, ". . . the Person of the Holy Spirit is not the Person of the Son."

Nope! I've simply been pointing out what you have been promoting - none of which accords with the teaching of the Trinitarian churches.

Not all trinitarian churches are equal. Some in fact deny eternal Sonship, John MacArthur's church had in the past held that view. But no longer. Some call the trinity a mystery, there are others which do not.

I agree! Jn 8:40 with Gen 18 is a pointer. Now the very interesting thing is that the majority witness of the OT nominates the "angel of the Lord (KJV); memra of YHWH (Aramaic targums, Word of God (Jn 1:1c)). Also in Gen 19:24 we have two YHWHs, one in heaven, the other on earth..

Agreed. I was using John 8:56. John 8:40 I will now also use this one too. And Genesis 19:24 with John 3:13, ". . . he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven."

How is the Son son if he was not begotten? Please explain...

Next . . .

[apostoli]

I affirm that the Son is an exact replication of His Father (Hebrews 1:3; John 12:45; 14:9). That (Hebrews 1:3) is what the word of God does teach

So you now refute all your prior propositions. Should I have the time, I will quote you post by post...the simplest option is that you have been advocating rubbish that has no scriptural support and no foundation in Christian belief (alternatively you could defend yourself by saying you were just experimenting with argument - for a little while I've suspected you are actually a Jew or Muslim trying to subvert Christianity).

[apostoli]

Agreed. I was using John 8:56. John 8:40 I will now also use this one too. And Genesis 19:24 with John 3:13, ". . . he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven."

It is good we finally found agreement on something. However, your KJV quotation of John 3:13 causes some concern. A significant number of translations render "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man". The difference comes down to manuscript evidence, both have major support. However, the first advocates phantasm, a major problem in the early church (ie: Jesus was not God in the flesh, but a mere simulation, not real in any real sense).

[Catholicity]

My daughter at age 7 knows that Jesus is God, and has stated that she love's Jesus. She's come to a point where she believes very firmly that he lives in her heart, and that He loves her. But I do not think she has yet a distinctive grasp on the Trinity. She has a distinctive understanding of the purpose of her baptism and LOVES to talk about it with me. I know my daughter is a Christian despite the fact that she is still learning. There are Christians where I think it is the same thing. I believe that many Oneness Pentecostals and Holiness Christians are misguided albeit still Christians. When they read Scripture and they read Father and Holy Spirit they believe it refers to Jesus only. Hence a misunderstanding of the Trinity. I would say unorthodox but I wouldn't jump to heretical either in most cases either. I knew a lot who were very sweet Christians.

[Pentecost]

This is an aside but Catholicity do you know of any Oneness Holiness who are not Pentecostal? My understanding is that Oneness are typically Holiness-Pentecostals.

[apostoli]

...I knew a lot who were very sweet Christians.

In my experience, it is the very sweet Christians we need to be most wary of. I have had a considerable range of persons whom I was prepared to have association even though often they had some very strange and unbiblical ideas that tended to alienate me.

As for your 7 year old daughter, or for that matter any seven year old, I doubt they have any comprehension of religion. Your daughter might be exceptional, but from psychiatric publications I've encountered children even at the age of seven don't have total recognition, they usually simply parrot what ever pleases their peers, parents etc... I don't mean such an observation as a put down, actually the opposite. To my mind such puts emphases on our responsibility as parents/peers to be good examples, and as best we can explain to our children the consensus of the majority church concerning right belief (that way the kids won't be drawn in all sorts of directions when they find their innocence challenged - which will happen at some stage!)

Peace

[RBerman]

In my experience, it is the very sweet Christians we need to be most wary of. I have had a considerable range of persons whom I was prepared to have association even though often they had some very strange and unbiblical ideas that tended to alienate me.

I agree. I know nice Mormons, nice JWs, nice atheists, etc. That does not make them Christians, though it does make me wish they were. One of my good friends is a Oneness guy, and although I would love to treat him as a Christian brother, I can not and must not.

As for your 7 year old daughter, or for that matter any seven year old, I doubt they have any comprehension of religion. Your daughter might be exceptional, but from psychiatric publications I've encountered children even at the age of seven don't have total recognition, they usually simply parrot what ever pleases their peers, parents etc... I don't mean such an observation as a put down, actually the opposite. To my mind such puts emphases on our responsibility as parents/peers to be good examples, and as best we can explain to our children the consensus of the majority church concerning right belief (that way the kids won't be drawn in all sorts of directions when they find their innocence challenged - which will happen at some stage!)

i wish it were the case that my seven year old just parroted what I want to hear. A little kid's faith is less mature than an adult's, but that does not make it unreal.

[Obsidian]

The difference comes down to manuscript evidence, both have major support. However, the first advocates phantasm, a major problem in the early church (ie: Jesus was not God in the flesh, but a mere simulation, not real in any real sense).

Jesus had not ascended yet at the time when he made that statement. I think when he talked about the son of man who is in heaven, he was paraphrasing Daniel 7.

[apostoli]

Jesus had not ascended yet at the time when he made that statement. I think when he talked about the son of man who is in heaven, he was paraphrasing Daniel 7.

Could be! However the disputed text might just be an interpolation. For instance: it is possible that the disputed phrase "the Son of man which is in heaven" is a post resurrection perspective, rather than a currency (currency is what I suspect 37818 wants to promote). Consider John 6:53-62...

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you...Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?..."

Based on 37818's previous excursions into a range of Heresies, I assume he holds that John 3:13 is telling us that the Son simultaneously resided in heaven and on earth (though seeing he says he admits to the teaching of Chalcedon = that the Son is a singular hypostasis (person) who possesses two physes, that might be an unfair observation of mine). Imo, Jn 6:62 makes it clear that the Son in both physes had his feet firmly planted on the ground!!! Thus Genesis 19:24 is making us aware of two YHWHs, one who resides in heaven and the other who has resided with mankind...

[apostoli]

I wish it were the case that my seven year old just parroted what I want to hear. A little kid's faith is less mature than an adult's, but that does not make it unreal.

A rule of thumb: put a gun to the head of a child's parent and demand the child deny the existence of God or you'll pull the trigger, guess what the kid is most likely to do...I understand such was a common occurrence in certain atheistic countries...

[RBerman]

A rule of thumb: put a gun to the head of a child's parent and demand the child deny the existence of God or you'll pull the trigger, guess what the kid is most likely to do...I understand such was a common occurrence in certain atheistic countries...

Not just children on that one. Mind you, what people will say under duress and what they believe may not match well.