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

[ayani]

You are really serious, aren't you? You actually believe that God is going to send me to Hell because I understand Him differently than you do? And you believe this because "the Church" says so, not because God himself says so.

Katz, i once asked a LDS here if it was true that LDS believe that they themselves will inhabit a higher place in the next life than non-LDS, and they said this was, short answer, true.

is Dune's belief essentially different, though, from the LDS belief that LDS will be, in some meaningful and real way, in a higher place in the celestial kingdom than non-LDS? is your third question not also applicable to the LDS Church and its teachings?

 

[Katzpur]

Katz, i once asked a LDS here if it was true that LDS believe that they themselves will inhabit a higher place in the next life than non-LDS, and they said this was, short answer, true.

is Dune's belief essentially different, though, from the LDS belief that LDS will be, in some meaningful and real way, in a higher place in the celestial kingdom than non-LDS? is your third question not also applicable to the LDS Church and its teachings?

Dune's belief is that salvation hinges on getting this one fact right. It also hinges on the belief that once a person dies, the final curtain falls. We're all trying to get back to God. We all love Him and want to know Him. Dune is essentially saying that God is going to either save us or damn us depending upon how well we figure out the answer to the question of who He is. Not only that, we have to do it during a time span of maybe eighty or so years at the most. That isn't even close to the LDS belief. For starters, we believe that God is going to be far more compassionate than Dune apparently thinks He is. He is going to make sure that every single solitary person who has ever lived has the opportunity to really make an informed decision on what he believes is true. It's going to take some people a lot longer than it is others, but that doesn't matter to God. There are over 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world today. No two are exactly alike. How Dune can feel confident in saying whom God is going to save and whom He is going to damn is beyond me -- particularly when the Bible is less than clear on the matter, and particularly when Jesus Christ's message was consistently on the importance of how we treat our fellow men and not on what we conceive God to be.

 

[lunamoth]

FWIW, my take on the topic is closest to Jordan's. I don't think 'getting the Trinity right' is salvific, but I think it does affect one's Christology and eventually one's soteriology (one's thinking about salvation, not one's actual salvation). These two things may very well affect how one sees their relationship with God, each other and the world. So, while it might be difficult for most of us to trace the relationship between our theology about Christ/Trinity and obtaining salvation (wholeness/healing/completion), there is a connection.

Upon reflection I see that my question is closely related to the question of atonement, what exactly did Jesus do on the cross, and how does that relate to us and we to it.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dune's belief is that salvation hinges on getting this one fact right. It also hinges on the belief that once a person dies, the final curtain falls. We're all trying to get back to God. We all love Him and want to know Him. Dune is essentially saying that God is going to either save us or damn us depending upon how well we figure out the answer to the question of who He is. Not only that, we have to do it during a time span of maybe eighty or so years at the most. That isn't even close to the LDS belief. For starters, we believe that God is going to be far more compassionate than Dune apparently thinks He is. He is going to make sure that every single solitary person who has ever lived has the opportunity to really make an informed decision on what he believes is true. It's going to take some people a lot longer than it is others, but that doesn't matter to God. There are over 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world today. No two are exactly alike. How Dune can feel confident in saying whom God is going to save and whom He is going to damn is beyond me -- particularly when the Bible is less than clear on the matter, and particularly when Jesus Christ's message was consistently on the importance of how we treat our fellow men and not on what we conceive God to be.

This is getting beyond the OP a bit, so let me just say where Katzpur has got me right and where she's got me wrong.

First, where she's got me right. She's right that I affirm (and I believe scripture does, too) that understanding God, at least to a certain minimal degree, is necessary (but nowhere near sufficient) for salvation. In the first three chapters of his letter to the Romans, Paul is at pains to show that bad behavior is essentially linked to misunderstanding God or an inappropriate attitude toward God. That's what idolatry is all about, and that, for Paul, is the chief sin. Because we misconceive God (and for Paul, this is never an innocent process, at least on a cultural level), we get about all sorts of shenanigans. It therefore should come as no surprise that at least part of what has to happen for salvation is a reorientation of the person toward God. This reorientation will no doubt involve changes in the person's life but also changes in the person's understanding and attitude toward God. So far, she has understood my position correctly.

Second, where she's got me wrong. I don't hold that a person has to have a theological degree to be saved. The cognitive content of salvation is summarized by Paul. We must "confess Jesus is Lord." At a minimum, a person must have a broad-stroke understanding of what "Jesus" and "Lord" mean in order to confess "Jesus is Lord." After all, the formula is not important; the content of the confession is. And that can be learned in a standard catechism class. By the end of that class, a catechumen will not understand all the ins and outs of the trinity; but they will know what they are saying when they confess Jesus is Lord. Most importantly, they'll know if they want to confess Jesus as Lord.

Third, she's also got me wrong if she supposes I don't think that everyone in the world has a legitimate shot at salvation. People who have never heard of Jesus still have a shot. They need to abandon their idolatry and worship the creator rather than the creature in response to the general revelation of God in creation and conscience. Such people may form beliefs contrary to trinitarian doctrine. For instance, they may believe as Muslims do, that God is such a unitary being that he cannot beget. Since such people know what's possible to know given their circumstances, God won't hold that against them. To whom much is given, much is required. To whom little is given, little. But I contend that someone who has responded to the revelation of God in nature, which can only be done in the power of the Spirit, will welcome the proclamation that Jesus is Lord, and although they will have difficulty understanding the ins and outs as some others do, they will welcome a trinitarian proclamation (after all, it's the Spirit of that trinity at work here). So my saying that a trinitarian understanding of God is essential to salvation doesn't actually leave anyone out.

Lastly, my confidence about who is saved and not is firmly rooted in scripture. For most people, I cannot say one way or another, and I don't. I merely say what scripture does, that confessing Jesus is Lord is a requirement. I can then go on to explicate from scripture what "Jesus" and "Lord" mean so the catechumen can confess with understanding rather than mouthing a slogan as if a robot.

 

[DeepShadow]

You can invent meanings if you like. Never in all of human history that I've studied has the word "God" ever been used as a collective noun.

And now you're missing my point. I suggested a collective noun merely as one way in which multiple singular things can still be singular. The bottom line is, whenever you use man's limited language to describe something that is undescribable, it's going to fall short.

Am I to understand that the Trinitarian concept contains no inconsistencies?

The Mormon conception of God changes this fundamentally. On a Mormon account, there are three beings, all of whom are correctly called "God". This is a fundamental departure from Jewish creational covenantal monotheism.

It's a mystery. It boggles my mind that Trinitarians are allowed to speak of the Trinity in mysterious terms, but they refuse to let Mormons use such terms with the Godhead! Why are we forced to use the very narrow constraints that you have cast off?!

It does no good to say that "God" is a collective noun. As I've already shown, the entire universe of known languages disagrees. But even if there are a couple of examples of languages that agree, the problem still remains that Christians are dealing with the Jewish God.

Are you honestly saying that the Jewish concept of God does anything more than approximate reality? I can't imagine how anything man can conceive could encompass divinity.

I suggest you bone up on grammar, specifically collective nouns and the use/meaning distinction. Then we can talk more intelligently about that.

I stood corrected on my comments about your knowledge of English. I've been teaching these concepts myself for five years or more, and I find this insulting.

But even without that more technical discussion, here's how I would analyze the problem. First of all, when we say "the Father is God", "God" is not a title. It's a predicate. That is, we're saying that the Father has the quality of being God. That is, we're saying that the Father is fully divine. So think of whatever characteristics you can the possession of which make a being divine. You might think of such qualities as sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, self-existence, noncontingency.... When we say that the Father is God, we are saying that he has all those characteristics. It's the same when we talk about the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Here I find nothing I disagree with. "God" can encompass a set of qualities that are shared by the Godhead.

For the word "God" is correctly applied, on a monotheistic conception, to one and only one being.

Okay, with you so far.

Now, you might protest that when YOU use the word "God" in the slogan you gave, you use it first as a title and then as a collective noun. Nowhere do you use it as a predicate.

My protest was/is that we don't know how the words were used. Period. I offered one possible interpretation. I have no problem using it there as a predicate. I assume you mean predicate noun, yes? Otherwise, you're saying "God" also includes a verb.

Well, there you go. You are using the same WORDS as the historic church, but you're radically changing how they are used.

You are still missing my point: I changed nothing. I was offering one of many, many possible interpretations. Another interpretation would be to use "God" as a predicate in all three, with the understanding that the latter two are extensions of God the Father. Gimme a while, I might find another.

And you know what? I think God might find more.

As a result, you deny what the church and Israel have always affirmed - there is one and only one God.

I denied no such thing. Ever.

And that's really the point. The Christian Church has always affirmed, through preaching, creed, and devotion, that there is one and only one God. By invoking such grammatical devices as collective nouns, the LDS church is camoflauging just how far it is deviating from the concept of God proclaimed by Abraham through Jesus to the apostle Paul and beyond in the church.

Let's be clear here: the LDS church never said God was a collective noun. I said that, when you balked at multiple items forming a singular. It was an appeal to be reasonable and fair, and I'm starting to think it fell on deaf ears.

And salvation really is at stake. To be saved, one must confess "Jesus is Lord". How you understand both terms "Jesus" and "Lord" is crucially important.

Again I ask, does the Trinitarian concept contain any mysteries? If not, how can it anticipate the inexpressible reality of God? If so, why can Mormons not invoke mysteries in explaining the Godhead?

We're talking about God. If absolute understanding of God is required for salvation, then I seriously doubt anyone will be saved.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

As a result, you deny what the church and Israel have always affirmed - there is one and only one

God. I denied no such thing. Ever.

Deepshadow,

You are denying this. By saying that there is not ontological unity between the three Persons you are saying that there are three gods. It honestly baffles me that you don't understand this. If you there really is only one God and three Persons, then there is an ontological unity between those Persons- hence a Triune God.

How can you say, in the same breath, that three Persons do not form one being (a singular substance) but yet that there is still only one God? You are saying that there are three beings, yet, that there not (at least on the level of language).

Philosophically and theologically its a complete disaster, not a mystery.

 

[DeepShadow]

Philosophically and theologically its a complete disaster, not a mystery.

We believe in that God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. That's a matter of doctrine. If there's a contradiction there, then it's a mystery.

Who are you to say it's not a mystery? Why can Catholicism have mysteries but Mormons can't?

 

[Katzpur]

Jordan, we've been focusing on the "oneness" of God. Would you explain how you see the individual persons of the Trinity. I'd be interested in hearing your explanation of how they are "one" but, in some way, distinct from each other. I have heard Trinitarians mention that there is a distinction between them, but I don't understand how it ties into your belief that they are one God.

 

[Katzpur]

You are denying this. By saying that there is not ontological unity between the three Persons you are saying that there are three gods. It honestly baffles me that you don't understand this. If you there really is only one God and three Persons, then there is an ontological unity between those Persons- hence a Triune God.

According to Webster's, "Godhead" is a synonym for "God." If we believe in one "Godhead," we do believe in one "God." I still haven't seen an answer to my question about what a divine person is?

With respect to their ontological versus functional unity, here's an analogy that made sense to me. Picture a piece of paper with sixteen pin-sized holes in it. If you were to want to want to plug all sixteen holes simultaneously, how many needles would you need? Sixteen? No, just one. If the paper is folded in fourths both ways, a single needle would fit through all sixteen holes at the same time. If the functional unity of the members of the Godhead is absolute, I fail to see why their ontological unity is of such great importance. The Bible is so full of references to the ontological separation of the Father and the Son (i.e. think of how many scriptures mention the Son being on earth and the Father being in Heaven, for starters) that it's hard to imagine how anyone could say that they are separate persons but one substance.

 

[Delamere]

The term "trinity" was coined by Tertullian long before any of the great Church councils. The doctrine is completely rooted in the Bible and especially the New Testament. Elements of the doctrine are found in virtually ever page of the New Testament. The Christian community founded by Jesus of Nazareth which included his friends, disciples and family was utterly 'trinitarian' even though the term may not have existed. Each individual must do what the early church had to do - try to make sense of the canonical text.
Unless the term 'Christian' is going to mean whatever we want rather than of an adherent of apostolic Christianity then there is no argument. We cannot really call ourselves Christians if we flatly ignore what Jesus said!

 

[Katzpur]

The term "trinity" was coined by Tertullian long before any of the great Church councils.

Long before the Nicene Creed was written, but two hundred years after Christ's death. Kind of makes you wonder why the Apostles didn't coin the term.

Elements of the doctrine are found in virtually ever page of the New Testament.

How about you provide one example from each of the first ten pages.

Unless the term 'Christian' is going to mean whatever we want rather than of an adherent of apostolic Christianity then there is no argument. We cannot really call ourselves Christians if we flatly ignore what Jesus said!

And what did Jesus have to say on the subject?

 

[Mister Emu]

Kind of makes you wonder why the Apostles didn't coin the term.

Do you believe that the Apostles fully developed and defined with as precise language as they could every theological idea from the ministry of Jesus?

I have a question

Do LDS, as a whole laywise or through official doctrine, reject the idea of the Trinity, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly one?

 

[Katzpur]

Do you believe that the Apostles fully developed and defined with as precise language as they could every theological idea from the ministry of Jesus?

Absolutely. I believe their understanding of the nature of God and the relationship between the Father and the Son was infinitely more accurate than was the understanding held by the writers of the Nicene Creed. You might say that their (i.e. the Apostles') knowledge came by revelation from the Father in Heaven through the Holy Ghost and not by "flesh and blood." (See Matthew 6:17) I believe that the language of the scriptures is sufficiently refined and that the Creeds did nothing whatsoever to clarify the doctrines Jesus Christ taught. It seems to me that the language of the Creeds complicates the nature of God.

I have a question

Do LDS, as a whole laywise or through official doctrine, reject the idea of the Trinity, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly one?

That all depends on what you mean by "truly one." We absolutely do believe that they are "truly one" -- just not in the way the Creeds say they are. The scriptures describe an absolute unity of will, purpose, mind and heart.

 

[Mister Emu]

Absolutely.

So, no ambiguous statements that could be expounded on further in the Apostolic writings? The writings of the Apostles are as precise as it gets?

I believe their understanding of the nature of God and the relationship between the Father and the Son was infinitely more accurate

I wasn't meaning to talk about understanding(though I would disagree, and say that it is the exact same understanding only further defined so as to create no ambiguity)... I have to say that I would believe that the Apostles' understanding would be as close to perfect as we can get...

That all depends on what you mean by "truly one." We absolutely do believe that they are "truly one" -- just not in the way the Creeds say they are. The scriptures describe an absolute unity of will, purpose, mind and heart.

By one, I mean one singlular... I hate to say "thing"... Absolutely one is every way while keeping seperate personage...

And I'm asking if it is a doctrine thing that, or a lay thing...

 

[Katzpur]

So, no ambiguous statements that could be expounded on further in the Apostolic writings?

None that I know of. Do you have some in mind?

The writings of the Apostles are as precise as it gets?

They are, I believe, as precise as anything that has been revealed by God. The Creeds are definitely more precise, but I don't believe them to be inspired. I believe them to be an attempt to describe God according to the terminology proposed by the educated men of that time. It was an effort to make God be both what the scriptures said He was and what neoplatonic thought said He must be.

I wasn't meaning to talk about understanding(though I would disagree, and say that it is the exact same understanding only further defined so as to create no ambiguity)... I have to say that I would believe that the Apostles' understanding would be as close to perfect as we can get...

I believe the Apostles were fully capable of defining God with the same precision as He was defined four centuries after their deaths. I don't think they saw any need for greater precision. Had the fourth-century Church been led by twelve apostles who held the same authority as the ones Jesus called, I don't believe their would have been a need for greater precision at that time.

By one, I mean one singlular... I hate to say "thing"... Absolutely one is every way while keeping seperate personage...

I hate to say "thing" too. I hate most of the ways we try to explain God. I believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate personages, and that belief is considered doctrinal by the Latter-day Saints. I also believe each of these separate personages is divine. Does that answer your question or just raise more questions?

 

[Mister Emu]

None that I know of. Do you have some in mind?

"Verily, he who does not eat of my flesh has not life"?
Literal, as Catholics believe, symbolic as protestants(and I assume you all )? Early writers believed Christians were cannibals!

Jesus as God and man? That concept isn't really defined scripturally, in what ways is He man and what ways is He God? A host of heresies arose because of those questions...

Heck, what is scripture, NT writings which ones? Adding or subtracting a book could change a whole lot...

Had the fourth-century Church been led by twelve apostles who held the same authority as the ones Jesus called, I don't believe their would have been a need for greater precision at that time.

There would have been no need in what way? No heretics, believing and teaching falsely? I know of at least one LDS split off no? Did your Church not point out what was wrong, say what was right and ask them to reconcile?

Does that answer your question or just raise more questions?

Could a LDS believe the Trinity and still be in good standing with the your church doctrine is what I am asking?

Would it be an offense, or an anomaly?

 

[Katzpur]

"Verily, he who does not eat of my flesh has not life"?
Literal, as Catholics believe, symbolic as protestants(and I assume you all )? Early writers believed Christians were cannibals!

Okay, I guess I was just thinking of questions pertaining to the Trinity (or Godhead) as addressed by the Nicene Creed. Granted, there are many, many doctrines the Bible does not do anything but briefly alude to.

Jesus as God and man? That concept isn't really defined scripturally, in what ways is He man and what ways is He God? A host of heresies arose because of those questions...

Yes, I realize that. The difference between us is that you believe they were resolved correctly and I don't.

Heck, what is scripture, NT writings which ones? Adding or subtracting a book could change a whole lot...

I can't argue with that.

There would have been no need in what way? No heretics, believing and teaching falsely?

I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the fact that you see the councils as acting under the authority of God. That's one thing I have to admire about Catholicism -- the rejection of the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" and the insistance that authority is essential. Since the Latter-day Saints believe the authority given by Jesus to Peter had been lost centuries earlier, we see the councils of the 4th, 5th and subsequent centuries as having no more authority to decide upon doctrine than the heretics they were fighting against.

I know of at least one LDS split off no? Did your Church not point out what was wrong, say what was right and ask them to reconcile?

Absolutely, and in theory it's the same thing as happened in your Church.

Could a LDS believe the Trinity and still be in good standing with the your church doctrine is what I am asking?

Spanish-speaking Latter-day Saints use the word "Trinidad" all the time because that's the best translation there is for the word "Godhead." I've heard it argued that Latter-day Saints do believe in a Trinity of sorts, but that we don't accept the way the Nicene Creed describes the Trinity. I almost think that if a Latter-day Saint were to decide he believed in the Nicene Creed, he wouldn't really want to be a Latter-day Saint any more. I suppose He could remain a Latter-day Saint and believe whatever he wanted, but as soon as he started trying to preach the doctrine of the Trinity to his fellow Church members, he would not remain in good standing for long.

Would it be an offense, or an anomaly?

We are free to believe what we want without being asked to leave the Church. It would be an offense to teach something that was contrary to Church doctrine, though. At the very least, it would be a pretty huge anomaly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

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.

The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love. Gal 5

Too many want to draw a line in the sand that God never intended to be drawn.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love. Gal 5

That's fine and all, but faith in what?

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's fine and all, but faith in what?

That's answered in the very first chapter. It's not in Scripture or any church.