Christians:Is Belief in the Trinity Required to Call Someone a Christian?

[ChristineES]

I have heard arguments about this since I became a Christian 25 years ago. There are some Christians who say that in order to be a "true" Christian, that person must believe in the Trinity.

The Trinity isn't actually taught in the Bible. Jesus Himself never spoke of it, Paul never spoke of it. I studied a bit about how they came up with the Trinity- different verses they strung together to prove it exists.

The fact has been for the past few years I have had a lot of questions about it. I accepted it without question for the first 20 years of my faith and then after a debate on a Christian site I used to post at (but haven't lately) I began to question it.

I am not saying I don't believe in it, I am just questioning it.

I am asking the other Christians on this board if questioning or not believing in the Trinity can stop one from being a Christian in your eyes.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, apparently it didn't stop people from being considered Christian for the first 325 years after Christ's death.

 

[Mister Emu]

It stops me from calling an organization a Christian church... but I hesitate to ruminate on an individual's state in regards to God...

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Strictly speaking, I would say no....it does not in itself prevent one from being a Christian- as has been pointed out there are not too insignificant Fathers who seem to have not held this opinion. In fact, I would say St. Paul or any of the Apostles were not Trinitarians in the explicit sense.

This was, however, in the years during which doctrine was still being worked out. The New Testament statements about the person of Jesus are a mess of contradictions (this is, we believe, because his advent among us broke through all existing categories of classification: he is a man, he is the Son of the Father, he is eternal with the Father, he brings God to us, he is himself God, he is enfleshed, he prays and is prayed to, is the Word, is the love of God made known; the revelation of the Father, davidic king yet the Kyrios/ Adonai, temporal, born, yet pre-existent and stands before the world...ect.)

All of the basic convictions that form the Trinity and the Incarnation doctrine stand in separate strands all throughout the New Testament- the matter was precisely how we could continue to hold them alltogether without debasing the integrity of any of them- the resulting formulation is the Trinity which safeguards all of these statements about the person of Jesus in their fullness. In this sense the Trinitarian doctrine was there from the beginning- it reflects the Church disgesting its intimate and original encounter with the elusive and mysterious nature of Christ.

To deny the Trinity after it has been declared is therefore quite different from not expressing it before it was formulated. It is an implicit New Testament truth and to deny it is a certain departure down a path of a whole host of Christological heresies that can certainly lead to the entire corruption of faith.

 

[Breathe]

I don't think it is.
In fact, I feel as though the Trinity is harder to reconcile with Christianity.

 

[dawny0826]

I believe to follow Christ and to have love and faith in Christ qualifies one as a Christian.

I'm greatly thankful to the Mormons I know in my life (IRL and online). Through their example, I've come to believe and cherish, the statement above.

 

[Katzpur]

It stops me from calling an organization a Christian church... but I hesitate to ruminate on an individual's state in regards to God...

Would you agree, though, that Christ's followers in the first, second, and third centuries were part of His Church and that it was, in fact, "a Christian organization"? If this is the case, and if the actual doctrine of the Trinity was not established until the Nicene Creed was written, your staement makes no sense -- unless you believe the individuals in question were Christians in a non-Christian Church.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Would you agree, though, that Christ's followers in the first, second, and third centuries were part of His Church and that it was, in fact, "a Christian organization"? If this is the case, and if the actual doctrine of the Trinity was not established until the Nicene Creed was written, your staement makes no sense -- unless you believe the individuals in question were Christians in a non-Christian Church.

The question is not whether it was explicitly taught- the question is whether the doctrine is explicitly rejected. The early Church never explicitly rejected the doctrine of the Trinity- the Nicean definition is the formal declaration, clarification and formulation of the Church's belief since the beginning.

 

[LC1735]

I don't think it is up to me to determine who is and is not a Christian.

 

[ayani]

no, i don't feel it is needed. what is needed to be a Christian is to follow Jesus with all of one's heart and soul and might- to live in imitation of Him.

personally, i am not a trinitarian Christian.

 

[Katzpur]

The early Church never explicitly rejected the doctrine of the Trinity- the Nicean definition is the formal declaration, clarification and formulation of the Church's belief since the beginning.

I disagree, Jordan. The Nicean definition could not have been the Church's declaration prior to the time it was written. The Church's "beginning" was 325 years prior to the Council at Nicea. A lot happened doctrinally in that 325 years.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Nicean definition could not have been the Church's declaration prior to the time it was written

It was not the Church's declaration before it was written...it was the Church's implicit belief. The question of the Trinity was not the superflorous philosophizing of a bunch of men , it was an entierly practical question arising from an inner contradiction within Christian belief itself. It sought to answer the question that Jesus himself had posed to Peter, "who do you say that I am?". Various answers were being given, as the the Church grew in her capacity to be more specific about these questions, which evidently fell short of the biblical record and the content of tradition. If Jesus is, as St. Paul records, "in the form of God" and "equal to God" (Philippians), what is the meaning of this "divine nature"? Was Jesus adopted into sonship? Was he assumed into the divinity? Is he a created thing? Is he a sub-divinity, like unto those that exist among pagan mythologies? And is it not true that some of these answers actually depart from the Jewish foundation of the faith, rather than fulfil it?

The New Testament never considered this problem as such, Christ simply "happened", by the fourth century it was time to set out in stronger detail exactly what it was that happened by weaving together the strands of revelation into a formulation that preserved the mystery.



So, what I mean is that the Nicean definition is, as I said, the formulation which alone secures the totality of revalation concerning the person of Christ and the nature of God:

The New Testament statements about the person of Jesus are a mess of contradictions (this is, we believe, because his advent among us broke through all existing categories of classification: he is a man, he is the Son of the Father, he is eternal with the Father, he brings God to us, he is himself God, he is enfleshed, he prays and is prayed to, is the Word, is the love of God made known; the revelation of the Father, davidic king yet the Kyrios/ Adonai, temporal, born, yet pre-existent and stands before the world...ect.)

All of the basic convictions that form the Trinity and the Incarnation doctrine stand in separate strands all throughout the New Testament- the matter was precisely how we could continue to hold them alltogether without debasing the integrity of any of them- the resulting formulation is the Trinity which safeguards all of these statements about the person of Jesus in their fullness. In this sense the Trinitarian doctrine was there from the beginning- it reflects the Church disgesting its intimate and original encounter with the elusive and mysterious nature of Christ.

It is, therefore, not an innovation, but an authoratative clarification. There are not two gods, nor three, but one God- a staple of biblical faith- yet this God is met in the person of Christ. When we take these two truths together, they are really only protected by the Nicean definition.

Does the LDS church teach that both the Son and the Father are divine? (I understand that they do, but I'm unsure)

 

[Doodlebug02]

I don't believe that belief in the Trinity is required to be a Christian but it is required to be an orthodox Christian with orthodox doctrine. The Trinity is clearly shown both in the Bible and in Sacred Tradition:

In the Bible, the Trinity is clearly shown in some verses:

Matthew 28:19 RSV Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

To me, this is the most obvious verse in the Bible showing the Trinity.

Luke 3:21 RSV Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,
Luke 3:22 RSV and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

And here we have all three members of the Trinity present at once. We have Jesus, the Son of God; the Holy Spirit as a dove; and the Father's voice.

And for quotes from Sacred Tradition about the Trinity, see this page from Catholic Answers:

The Trinity

 

[tomspug]

I have heard arguments about this since I became a Christian 25 years ago. There are some Christians who say that in order to be a "true" Christian, that person must believe in the Trinity.

The Trinity isn't actually taught in the Bible. Jesus Himself never spoke of it, Paul never spoke of it. I studied a bit about how they came up with the Trinity- different verses they strung together to prove it exists.

The fact has been for the past few years I have had a lot of questions about it. I accepted it without question for the first 20 years of my faith and then after a debate on a Christian site I used to post at (but haven't lately) I began to question it.

I am not saying I don't believe in it, I am just questioning it.

I am asking the other Christians on this board if questioning or not believing in the Trinity can stop one from being a Christian in your eyes.

No. The Trinity is a revelation. It helps to explain the mystery of God. It is there to help us, but no, it is not necessary to salvation. However, to NOT accept the Trinity is to alienate yourself from forms of relationship with God that are only possible through the understanding of this idea, such as the understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Katzpur]

In the Bible, the Trinity is clearly shown in some verses:

Matthew 28:19 RSV Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

To me, this is the most obvious verse in the Bible showing the Trinity.

Luke 3:21 RSV Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,
Luke 3:22 RSV and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

That's about as clear as the Bible gets on the subject, and all it does is mention three beings -- the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It says nothing to imply that they comprise a single, indivisible substance. As a matter of fact, if anything, it supports non-Trinitarian doctrine. Jesus was physically here on earth, a voice (the voice of the Father) came from a different location (Heaven) and the Holy Ghost was manifest in the form of a dove.

And here we have all three members of the Trinity present at once. We have Jesus, the Son of God; the Holy Spirit as a dove; and the Father's voice.

As a single substance? How do you figure?

 

[ayani]

well, here's my take...

there is One God, whom Jesus has taught us to call "Father". Jesus is the unique Son of God, the Messiah. He is One with the Father, as He proclaims in John's Gospel, yet distinct. Jesus also says whoever has seen Him, has seen the Father. to know Jesus and walk in His ways, is to walk with God. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh- God's Living Text, sent to us. He is the light that shines in the darkness, and the mediator between God and us.

the Holy Spirit is, simply, God's Spirit. the "power from heaven" promised by Jesus before Pentacost. it is the power, Spirit, and holiness of God which sanctifies and blesses, guides and makes new. the same Spirit through which Jesus worked His miracles- hence His stern retort to those Pharisees claiming He was driving out demons by Satanic power. the same power of God, God has given to His Son, and so Jesus also gives and sends the Holy Spirit- which is also called "the Spirit of Jesus" in Acts !6:7.

i do not believe that the Spirit is a "person" or a "being" as distinct from the Creator, or His Son the Messiah. yes, it is real, powerful, and holy. i believe in the Holy Spirit, and i can agree with the trinitarian explaination that God works in three ways- in Himself as Master of the Universe, through His Living Word and Son, Jesus, and through His Spirit, to inspire, convict, and guide us in following Christ and becoming more like Him.

i can see how a trinitarian can get his or her theology from the NT and be justified in it, and i can also see how another person reading the NT might not come to a trinitarian conclusion at all.

 

[Katzpur]

It was not the Church's declaration before it was written...it was the Church's implicit belief.

Could you provide some evidence that Christ's contemporaries (let's say, the Apostles or their immediate successors) taught the Trinity as it is described in the Nicene Creed? I'm not looking for teachings from the third or fourth centuries. I'm looking for teachings from the first century.

Does the LDS church teach that both the Son and the Father are divine? (I understand that they do, but I'm unsure)

Yes. It teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all divine, perfectly and absolutely "one" in every regard except physical. In other words, they are completed united in will, purpose, mind and heart. The degree of their unity is beyond our comprehension. It's just not unity of substance.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Yes. It teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all divine, perfectly and absolutely "one" in every regard except physical

I don't think I would use "physically one" to describe the Trinity. God does not have a body, (though now Christ does) so the Persons of the Trinity are "one in being" not "one in flesh".

Or is it true that the LDS faith teaches that God the Father has a body? And did the Son have a body before the Incarnation?

Secondly, you don't find biblical problems with Tritheism?

"Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one"

Could you provide some evidence that Christ's contemporaries (let's say, the Apostles or their immediate successors) taught the Trinity as it is described in the Nicene Creed? I'm not looking for teachings from the third or fourth centuries. I'm looking for teachings from the first century.

I don't believe they taught it as Nicea defined it, though nor do I believe that they taught tritheism (and they certainly did not teach that the Father had a body). They taught that Christ was God, the Son of God, and the Father was God and that the Holy Spirit was the active power of God among them. They did not yet reconcile how this could all be so- by Nicea this had been done.

 

[Heneni]

People have confused working as one, with being one.

There is the father, the son, and the HS...and they work AS one.

Jesus said..i am in the father, and the father is in me.

If its the same being..then the one cant be in the other, but the one IS the other.

Is it required to believe in the trinity to call someone a christain?

No...what is required is that someone believes that jesus died and rose from the dead IMHO.

Heneni

 

[Breathe]

No...what is required is that someone believes that jesus died and rose from the dead IMHO.

By your definition then hun, I am a Christian.