|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:29 pm
Is belief in the Trinity necessary for salvation, and why or why not?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:12 pm
Depends on which denomination you ask.
The trinity was basically the compromise that was meant to preserve monotheism and recognizing what many believed to be Jesus' divinity while still preserving his humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:57 am
What rmcdra said.
According to biblical standards and the Church I am a member of, no. To be "saved" all one must do is Believe Jesus is Lord, accept Him as your Saviour, obey His commandments, and endure to end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 pm
Shadows-shine What rmcdra said. According to biblical standards and the Church I am a member of, no. To be "saved" all one must do is Believe Jesus is Lord, accept Him as your Saviour, obey His commandments, and endure to end. Then why is it being taught in most of the major Trinitarian denominations that belief in the Trinity is necessary? IMHO its not a necessity of Christian Salvation. There are several reasons why, but the most inportant one is that it is not a Biblically proven doctrine. It must be read into the Biblical proof texts that are used to "prove" the Trinity is doctrinally sound. Also, I have a hard time believing that strict monotheistic Jews would have signed onto Christianity if the concept of the Trinity existed in the New Testament days. History proves that the concept was not formulated until after the deaths of the Apostles, and was not accepted fully at the Nicean Council 325AD. Its a progressive doctrine, much like the doctrines of mariolatry, being added to over the years until the present idea of the Trinity does not even resemble the 4th century version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:52 pm
Eponishta Then why is it being taught in most of the major Trinitarian denominations that belief in the Trinity is necessary? You just answered your own question. Quote: IMHO its not a necessity of Christian Salvation. There are several reasons why, but the most inportant one is that it is not a Biblically proven doctrine. It must be read into the Biblical proof texts that are used to "prove" the Trinity is doctrinally sound. Also, I have a hard time believing that strict monotheistic Jews would have signed onto Christianity if the concept of the Trinity existed in the New Testament days. History proves that the concept was not formulated until after the deaths of the Apostles, and was not accepted fully at the Nicean Council 325AD. Its a progressive doctrine, much like the doctrines of mariolatry, being added to over the years until the present idea of the Trinity does not even resemble the 4th century version. Well most doctrines of Christianity don't have biblical proof (Satan's supposed rebellion for example which comes almost verbatim from non-canonical texts) because Christianity formulated before there was even a Bible. There were some scripture in common usage but no one agreed on what scripture should be accepted. The Hebrew sects that became Judaism didn't have a canon until after the fall of the second temple. It wasn't until mid 2nd century Marcion came up with a canon that other sects began talks on formulating a canon of scripture. It wasn't until the beginning of the 5th century that a set of scripture was agreed upon to be considered canonical and the reason the texts were selected was primarily because they were used to support the various compromises, discussions, doctrines, and charges against other sects that had occurred up until that point. The problem with saying that the Trinity is unbiblical is that there was no Bible until the beginning of the 5th Century. If you want to say the Trinity is unbiblical the you'd have to demonstrated that there not any forms of Trinitarian doctrine prior to the 5th century . Edit: Or that the Trinity in its current incarnation is not consistent with the Bible and previous versions of Trinitarian doctrine that may have existed before the final formulation of the canon in the beginning of the 5th Century. Edit: This is not an attack on your stance but pointing out a flaw in your argument and how you can better improve your argument if you wish to continue discussion on this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:59 am
Eponishta Shadows-shine What rmcdra said. According to biblical standards and the Church I am a member of, no. To be "saved" all one must do is Believe Jesus is Lord, accept Him as your Saviour, obey His commandments, and endure to end. Then why is it being taught in most of the major Trinitarian denominations that belief in the Trinity is necessary? IMHO its not a necessity of Christian Salvation. There are several reasons why, but the most inportant one is that it is not a Biblically proven doctrine. It must be read into the Biblical proof texts that are used to "prove" the Trinity is doctrinally sound. Also, I have a hard time believing that strict monotheistic Jews would have signed onto Christianity if the concept of the Trinity existed in the New Testament days. History proves that the concept was not formulated until after the deaths of the Apostles, and was not accepted fully at the Nicean Council 325AD. Its a progressive doctrine, much like the doctrines of mariolatry, being added to over the years until the present idea of the Trinity does not even resemble the 4th century version. It appears you just answered your own question. I cannot answer the reason why though. I am not a part of those denominations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:28 pm
rmcdra The problem with saying that the Trinity is unbiblical is that there was no Bible until the beginning of the 5th Century. If you want to say the Trinity is unbiblical the you'd have to demonstrated that there not any forms of Trinitarian doctrine prior to the 5th century . Edit: Or that the Trinity in its current incarnation is not consistent with the Bible and previous versions of Trinitarian doctrine that may have existed before the final formulation of the canon in the beginning of the 5th Century. Edit: This is not an attack on your stance but pointing out a flaw in your argument and how you can better improve your argument if you wish to continue discussion on this topic. To say that the Bible was not fully formed together or existant as a cannon before the 5th century is not quite true. There is enough evidence that there was a cannon that contained the OT, the 4 Gospels, The Apocrypha of John, and most of the Epistles. Yes, there were a few writings that were added with that at the time that are now not in our present day cannon, but from the letters of the Apologists of the time one can understand that the Bible as we know it today was pretty much known through out the Church, and studied. The concept of the Trinity came from Greek thought. Greek Pagan thought (i.e. non-Christian). It was not a Christian idea. Though it was ratified and mouled into a more palatable theory, it continues to be a pagan philosophy, and Rome's answer to anyone who questions it seriously is simply, "Its a Mystery". Why? Why does God have to be a mystery. (I don't take any comments as an attack... I am simply trying to wrap my head around why so many Christians follow a totally non-Christian doctrine and claim belief in it to be necessary for salvation. Think of this as a thought process... I am thinking out loud to anyone who wants to work through this with me. BTW, I am not a Christian myself... having chosen to leave the Catholic fold of Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:23 am
Eponishta To say that the Bible was not fully formed together or existant as a cannon before the 5th century is not quite true. There is enough evidence that there was a cannon that contained the OT, the 4 Gospels, The Apocrypha of John, and most of the Epistles. Yes, there were a few writings that were added with that at the time that are now not in our present day cannon, but from the letters of the Apologists of the time one can understand that the Bible as we know it today was pretty much known through out the Church, and studied. The fact that apologist used certain texts did influence what became canon but an official canon was not ratified until the Council of Carthage in 397. The apologists "picked and choose" texts, specifically the popular ones to show why these supposedly heretical sects weren't Christian or doing something different. To illustrate this, Ireneaus quotes Polycarp, who was very much against any form of Trinity, to show why his sect's Trinity was "orthodox" and Valentinius was a heretic. Then you have the issue of the schismatics, such as the Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc, who include different scriptures or even exclude scripture from their canon. Which further complicates the "un-Biblical" issue since the schismatics still hold to most of the same doctrines. Quote: The concept of the Trinity came from Greek thought. Greek Pagan thought (i.e. non-Christian). It was not a Christian idea. Though it was ratified and mouled into a more palatable theory, it continues to be a pagan philosophy, and Rome's answer to anyone who questions it seriously is simply, "Its a Mystery". Why? Why does God have to be a mystery. Yeah a majority of Christians were Gentiles. James, Peter, and Peter, and John preached to the Hebrews keeping to Torah observance. Paul preached to the Gentiles and he made it pretty easy to join by rejecting the Torah and circumcision. Christian thought is primarily a synthesis of Greek and Hebrew thought and philosophy. As for why it's a "mystery", I have no clue, and I don't seek to defend it since I'm not an apologists. Usually when something is referred to as a "Mystery" it is because it is something that conveys ideas that would be lost if conveyed in other ways. Besides Christianity is technically one big mystery religion when you get right to it. You have an initiation requirement (Baptism), regular rituals to allow those initiated to experience those Mysteries (Confession and the Eucharist), and non initiates are not allowed to participate in these rituals (i.e. Non-Catholics aren't allowed to take Communion), they hold a special place for those who access the Mysteries of the religion (saints),... Quote: (I don't take any comments as an attack... I am simply trying to wrap my head around why so many Christians follow a totally non-Christian doctrine and claim belief in it to be necessary for salvation. Think of this as a thought process... I am thinking out loud to anyone who wants to work through this with me. BTW, I am not a Christian myself... having chosen to leave the Catholic fold of Rome. I must ask what makes something non-Christian? To me it is a Christian concept because it was developed by those within the Christian religion. Your line of thought is similar to how the Church Fathers slandered various Christian sects they didn't agree with such as the cosmology of the Sethians and Valentians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:21 pm
I believe in the Trinity, but i don't think it is neccesary as long as you believe in God, Jesus, and the H.S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:20 am
Technically for Christianity I do believe you have to believe that there is an invisible man in the sky, that there was a real guy on Earth who died so now he is chilling with the other invisible dude and that a combination of both invisible dudes lives inside of you as a spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:34 am
For some branches of Chritianity, belief in the Trinity is not neccisary. For example for Catholics (which I am) it is nessicary, but for Methodists and other Protestants (I think) it is not nessicary because Methodists don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God , but they do believe that he was the Messiah, so it depends on the form of Christian you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:22 pm
Aspen 2010 For some branches of Chritianity, belief in the Trinity is not neccisary. For example for Catholics (which I am) it is nessicary, but for Methodists and other Protestants (I think) it is not nessicary because Methodists don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God , but they do believe that he was the Messiah, so it depends on the form of Christian you are. Hmmm, I'm not going to call you a liar, but I am friends with many Methodists who do hold Jesus to be the Son of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:30 pm
I don't want to offend anyone, but I don't want to be wrong either so are you sure he is Methodist or maybe like Baptist or something, or maybe the believe he's the Son of God, but not the Messiah or maybe it was that or that I mixed up whether it was Methodist or Baptist, but if I was wrong I'm sorry, I try not to offend anyone on these posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:58 pm
Aspen 2010 I don't want to offend anyone, but I don't want to be wrong either so are you sure he is Methodist or maybe like Baptist or something, or maybe the believe he's the Son of God, but not the Messiah or maybe it was that or that I mixed up whether it was Methodist or Baptist, but if I was wrong I'm sorry, I try not to offend anyone on these posts. Obviously you have not been part of this guild long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:37 am
I don't think you HAVE to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian...
That being said... I believe in the Trinity, but I don't think it is such a hard concept to wrap your head around...
A loose explanation could be something along the lines of Play-Doh... Think of God as Play-Doh... You take a piece of it, it does its job, and then it returns to the big piece...It is two separate pieces for awhile, but then it is still all really the same essence... Even when you return the bit you used to the larger whole, you remember what was done with the separate bit and it did serve its purpose....
You might also think about the fact that everyone you meet has more than one role in life... No one is the same person to everyone, even though they are still one person...
I am a daughter, a sister, a friend, a wife, a mother... To everyone who knows me, I am different... I can't be a wife to my mother, or a sister to my children, or a mother to my husband... No one knows me completely, even I don't know myself completely, because I cannot understand myself from the point-of-view that others have of me... Yet I am still an individual... A singular entity...
It doesn't really even have to be a Christian mystery, although there is a certain bit of enigma to it... I have a couple Neo-Pagan friends who believe in a Goddess Trinity... Even if that is where the idea of the Trinity originated, it doesn't make the mindset wrong, IMO. No matter what religion you believe, I think Trinitarian belief can be a wisdom that, once grasped, opens new doors to the recesses of our beliefs and perspectives.
I don't think it should necessarily be a core to a faith, but more of a philosophy on the complicated nature of perspective. Although, I do know that some denominations base their whole doctrine upon the Trinity. If you can't incorporate it into your theology, I don't think it should keep you from being among the ranks of the Christian community, if that is where you so choose to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
