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

[blueman]

The belief in the Trinity is not a requirement of salvation, but it is a doctrine that is biblically based and is therefore adopted by most Christians.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes you do have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian as it is one of the fundmental Beliefs.

I would think that if this were the case, we would have a few statements on the Trinity from Jesus' Apostles or other of His disciples. According to your criteria, I'm afraid they wouldn't have been Christians.

But the arguement goes as follows:
1) If you are a Christian you believe the Bible is the word of God
2) God is perfect therefore he cannot lie.
3)The Bible teaches the concept of the Trinity
4) Therefore if you do not believe in the Trinity then you cannot believe the Bible is the Word of God

The Bible teaches the of the Godhead. Nowhere does it teach what the 4th and 5th century Creeds teach about God.

 

[blueman]

Being a Christian is not based on a belief in all biblical doctrine. That's not what makes one a Christian. Christianity is the belief and acceptance that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, that he died for our sins and that God rasied His Son from the dead. I cannot tell someone who has accepted this in their heart through faith, but may have some doubts about the Trinity or some other biblical doctrine, that they're not a Christian.

 

[Ditcher161]

"The Bible teaches the of the Godhead. Nowhere does it teach what the 4th and 5th century Creeds teach about God.[/quote]"

I must disagree the Bible is very clear on the idea that there are three persons in God and they are eternally distinct

In Hebrews 1:8 it says "But of the Son he says,'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..."

In Acts 5: 3-4 It says: 3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Paul in his Epistles constantly talks about "God the Father" which would show us that the Father is also God

There is one God and three persons in that God, each eternally distinct.This is why you baptise someone "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28: 19

Blueman I see what youre saying and i partially agree, but from what ive read there is no way to Doubt the Trinity and not doubt other things because it seems to me that the Trinity is spelled out very clearly in the Bible.

 

[Katzpur]

I must disagree the Bible is very clear on the idea that there are three persons in God and they are eternally distinct

Huh? You disagree? What did I say that you disagree with? That the Bible teaches of a Godhead of three?

There is one God and three persons in that God, each eternally distinct.This is why you baptise someone "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

You are describing the Godhead, not the Trinity.

Blueman I see what youre saying and i partially agree, but from what ive read there is no way to Doubt the Trinity and not doubt other things because it seems to me that the Trinity is spelled out very clearly in the Bible.

Well, I obviously missed it. Would you mind pointing out where the Bible "very clearly" states what the Creeds state? If the Bible is so clear on the matter, what need was there for a Creed in the first place?

 

[Ditcher161]

Huh? You disagree? What did I say that you disagree with? That the Bible teaches of a Godhead of three?

You are describing the Godhead, not the Trinity.

Well, I obviously missed it. Would you mind pointing out where the Bible "very clearly" states what the Creeds state? If the Bible is so clear on the matter, what need was there for a Creed in the first place?

Please Define what you mean when you say Trinity and Godhead, because the verses I have given describe what the Trinity would be in Christianity.

And what parts of the creeds do you question?

And the creeds were created to address doctrinal issues

 

[blueman]

"The Bible teaches the of the Godhead. Nowhere does it teach what the 4th and 5th century Creeds teach about God.

"

I must disagree the Bible is very clear on the idea that there are three persons in God and they are eternally distinct

In Hebrews 1:8 it says "But of the Son he says,'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..."

In Acts 5: 3-4 It says: 3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Paul in his Epistles constantly talks about "God the Father" which would show us that the Father is also God

There is one God and three persons in that God, each eternally distinct.This is why you baptise someone "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28: 19

Blueman I see what youre saying and i partially agree, but from what ive read there is no way to Doubt the Trinity and not doubt other things because it seems to me that the Trinity is spelled out very clearly in the Bible.[/quote]Yes, but one who has doubts regarding the Trinity but has accepted the free gift of salvation in Christ is eternally secure. Nowhere in scripture does it assert that you have to believe in the Trinity to receive salvation.

 

[blueman]

Please Define what you mean when you say Trinity and Godhead, because the verses I have given describe what the Trinity would be in Christianity.

And what parts of the creeds do you question?

And the creeds were created to address doctrinal issues

There is no distinction between the Trinity and the Godhead. Although the reference to the word trinity is not referenced in the Bible, the doctrine is clearly underscored. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are three distinct personalities, but one God in that they all share the same attributes of diety.

 

[Ditcher161]

There is no distinction between the Trinity and the Godhead. Although the reference to the word trinity is not referenced in the Bible, the doctrine is clearly underscored. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are three distinct personalities, but one God in that they all share the same attributes of diety.

Right i agree with that it just seems that Katzpur thinks it is something different.

so how can you believe by Faith that Jesus is Lord and Savior but reject the Trinity? I also dont see how you can question the Trinity but take Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

 

[blueman]

Right i agree with that it just seems that Katzpur thinks it is something different.

so how can you believe by Faith that Jesus is Lord and Savior but reject the Trinity? I also dont see how you can question the Trinity but take Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

Because Jesus never said yo had to in order to be saved. There is a distinction regarding the requirements for salvation compared to other biblical doctrines. The way to salvation is clear. It is through Jesus and no one else. But for example, I accept this truth, but have doubts about whether God created the world in 7 days, that does not take away from my salvation that rests in Christ. if you start adding all of these different requirements to salvation, then we would be no better than the false teachers that were present during the time of Paul and the other Apostles, who said such things as salvation comes through Christ and also circumcision or secret knowledge. Now in saying this, I believe in the Godhead and in creation and time period God made heaven and earth, but not all Christians do. The key is have they accepted the gospel of Christ and received in their heart what Christ did for them more than 2,000 years ago.

 

[Breathe]

so how can you believe by Faith that Jesus is Lord and Savior but reject the Trinity? I also dont see how you can question the Trinity but take Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

Simple: Trinity is not explicitly stated in the Bible, and the verses offered are, at best, poorly adequate as proof, and some of the others which hint at it are probably poorly translated from Aramaic (none of them would have conversed with Jesus in Aramaic).

 

[Dunemeister]

This question comes down to whether you think a person can be a Christian while remaining separate from the historic church. FWIW, I have my doubts whether you can. Which makes me, a Protestant, most uncomfortable.

 

[blueman]

This question comes down to whether you think a person can be a Christian while remaining separate from the historic church. FWIW, I have my doubts whether you can. Which makes me, a Protestant, most uncomfortable.

It's not a matter of separating yourself from the historical church, it's about being open when you have certain doubts about things. Aall Christians at one time or another do regarding some doctrine. What i was stressing was that you or I cannot take salvation away from someone who has accepted Christ as their Savior, but have doubts about the Godhead. The latter is not a requirement for salvation and you point to a scripture that states that and I'll change my point of view in this issue.

 

[Dunemeister]

Simple: Trinity is not explicitly stated in the Bible, and the verses offered are, at best, poorly adequate as proof, and some of the others which hint at it are probably poorly translated from Aramaic (none of them would have conversed with Jesus in Aramaic).

Right. The trinity is not explicit. It's implicit. The verses used to "prove" the doctrine are frequently misrepresented. People sometimes throw around a few proof texts as though you can just look at a few verses and go "Ah, how could I have been so stupid?" It's not as simple as that. They should be viewed as the intuitions and hints that led the church to formulate the doctrine of the trinity.

OTOH, I think Odion's statement is too dismissive. Certainly the bible was originally written by people who spoke Greek, and they were handling a tradition that was originally proclaimed in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Obviously, there would be issues with translation because the concepts of one language sometimes don't easily map on to the conceptual framework and lexis of another language. And those who translate the bible from Greek to English can tell you that a similar problem arises for them. That said, it's not as though we can know nothing about what the text said. Nor should we assume that the original writers of the New Testament botched the job of translating the relevant Jewish concepts into Greek. Besides, we DO have the Old Testament, which provides the conceptual framework for the NT, and of course that text we have in Hebrew.

Part of the problem is that the NT is not the sort of book that we want. We want a book that tells us in neat, didactic form what we should believe. Instead, the bible gives us stories, personal correspondence, and apocalyptic prophecy. Add to that several centuries over which to forget or distort the rules for interpreting certain genres (such as apocalyptic and gospel, to mention just two particularly noteworthy examples), and it's not at all a straightforward matter to determine what is and isn't taught in scripture.

Another part of the problem is our modern resistance to authority in Christian matters. (I say "Christian" rather than "religious" because we are not so resistant to, say, Bhuddist or Shinto or Hindu authority. When a Hindu authority says "Hinduism entails X" we tend to believe them.) This has historical roots in Protestantism and American Evangelicalism especially. But however this resistance has come about, we are not apt to take a bishop's word for it that a Christian ought to believe this or that. I'm not saying this is good or bad; I'm just saying that it's part of the complication when discussing the question of what a Christian ought to believe.

 

[Dunemeister]

Sorry for my previous ramble. ugh.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Trinity comes down to certain biblical points that no Christian can disagree with:
- there is only one God, one Lord
- Jesus Christ is Lord, equal with God

The New Testament is uncompromisingly monotheistic. The Trinity is the result of this commitment- somehow and someway Jesus reveals the face God, is included in what God is, deserves the worship and the glory that God does- but not in such a way that compromises this fundamental conviction of Israel, one of its most important defining points as a People.

If people want to step back into the ambiguity of New Testament times and be resolved to say that they can't explain in what sense the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, in what sense Jesus factors into what God is- that is one thing. To explicitly reject monotheism in favor of an admitted tritheism is, in my opinion, a very grave error.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's not a matter of separating yourself from the historical church, it's about being open when you have certain doubts about things. Aall Christians at one time or another do regarding some doctrine. What i was stressing was that you or I cannot take salvation away from someone who has accepted Christ as their Savior, but have doubts about the Godhead. The latter is not a requirement for salvation and you point to a scripture that states that and I'll change my point of view in this issue.

Arguably, believing that Jesus is Lord entails a trinitarian understanding of God. For certainly the Father is God. Confessing Jesus to be Lord entails believing that Jesus is God. Yet there are not two gods but one and only one. So if believing that Jesus is Lord is necessary for salvation, then so is belief in the trinity.

 

[Breathe]

OTOH, I think Odion's statement is too dismissive. Certainly the bible was originally written by people who spoke Greek, and they were handling a tradition that was originally proclaimed in Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

I'd say mostly Aramaic from Jesus.

Though, I've gotta ask... why do you think I'm too dismissive??

Obviously, there would be issues with translation because the concepts of one language sometimes don't easily map on to the conceptual framework and lexis of another language. And those who translate the bible from Greek to English can tell you that a similar problem arises for them. That said, it's not as though we can know nothing about what the text said. Nor should we assume that the original writers of the New Testament botched the job of translating the relevant Jewish concepts into Greek. Besides, we DO have the Old Testament, which provides the conceptual framework for the NT, and of course that text we have in Hebrew.

True - but one of my family members who lives in Israel said that the view of the Old Testament by Christians is often vastly different to the view that Jews have of it. Languages do not translate well, especially word-for-word. Let's say if we took the Japanese "douzo yoroshiku o-negai shimasu" -> some of this is incomprehensible if translated word for word, but it is something akin to "Please be kind to me". This means "Nice to meet you" - where do you go from there?

Considering Jesus spoke parables, for example, shows a massive problem when the Gospels were written into Greek. Jesus used parables, as we know, but what about things which have been misunderstood, lost in translation? It's easier for a camel (gamel) to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Heaven. Why camel? Wouldn't it most likely be "gam[e]la", - "rope"?

 

[.lava]

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

what happened 325 years later?

.

 

[Breathe]

what happened 325 years later?

.

[FIRST!] Council of Nicea.