Does Someone Need to Accept the Trinity to be Saved?
- Thread starter abcaines
- Start date
It’s interesting how the wife, as a result of some exposure to Christianity (although the Methodist version), was never quite at peace with Mormonism. Thanks for sharing.
This sounds similar to what I’ve heard said about the Scientologists.
As I was trying to answer your question, I remembered Lance and Grace. I knew her commitment to Mormonism was on the fritz for a couple years but as she said, she stuck by her husband.
I have come to know these two personally and I can attest they are the real deal. In fact, when I was with them at our state rally (CMA) this past summer, Grace's personality and the way they interacted with each other made me miss my wife. My wife hasn't been able to attend any rallies because of work but that is going to change next summer. I hope Grace and Lance are there again Angela gets to finally meet them.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
So your real world default theological position is that when a person says they are a Christian but repeatedly claims they don't think Jesus actually walked the earth as a man, or they claim He was a great moral teacher whom they follow but they don't believe He rose from the dead, that you call them a brother in Christ?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
Well said Gringo.
It is an evangelical cornerstone belief that salvation is contingent on faith in Christ alone, and that is all that is required to be born again. But the tension that lies at the center of this discussion is, as put by somebody smarter than me, that the faith alone that saves is never alone, meaning that there's an expectation of growth in the Christian from a babe towards a mature Christian. That growth ought to match a certain picture that is painted in the Scriptures which manifests itself in an embrace of certain fundamental theological tenets. That's where, historically speaking, you see the councils, catechism, and creeds developed within Christendom. There's a lot of quibbling over some soteriological non-essentials (mode of baptism being sprinkling or immersion, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc) but the basics of minimal Biblical indicators of the new birth are generally agreed upon within the whole of orthodox Christianity. When somebody who claims to be born again, yet incessantly refuses to embrace these truths (Christology being the usual culprit of cultish denial), then they should be considered apostate.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,330
- Reaction score
- 1,640
- Points
- 113
People can be saved and not believe in the "doctrine of the Trinity." It's their lack of understanding and spiritual maturity that would keep them from coming to the conclusion that there is a Trinity. Genesis one says, "Let us make man in OUR image' not "images...There are three distinct characteristics working as one. There are many other places in the scriptures that point to them being together as one.
I did not even understand the Trinity, nor the Virgin Birth, nor the incarnation fully when I came to believe in Christ.
When I first got saved, I didn't understand that EVERYBODY needed to be saved. I only knew that I needed to be saved because of what a horrible wretch I was! This is the God-Honest truth!
Where did I say anything remotely like this? Of course the judaizers, of whom the verses you were quoting are directed, are antichrist. I thought you were misapplying the verses to support your notion that believers must reach a certain christological threshold, beyond believing that He is, to be saved.
You're engaged in a completely different argument.
Let's go through my assertions once again.
- It is a Person that saves, not a doctrine.
- I believe God has elect in every erroneous faction that names Christ. I think, however, that in most cases, if not all, He will bring them out eventually.
- very 'Christian' cult rejects some truth about Christ, and teaches some wacky thing about Him, but that doesn't change His Person, and it doesn't shorten His arm. It's a Person that saves, not a doctrine.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
You had said "Not quite. The word allows that some are just not ready and able to receive certain truths. Babes, basically." A "Babe" is one who admits ignorance and is willing to be taught, not perpetually refusing the truth of Christ's eternal divine and human nature. So the question on the table is "can somebody be saved (like the JWs) who refuse to yield to the truth of Scriptures on His nature and essence". You seem to be maintaining that they can refuse to adhere to these Christological truths perpetually and be a born-again Christian, otherwise you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Right. Again, I thought we were talking about those who sincerely believe in Jesus, and look to Him in faith regardless of the errors they might maintain about him. You brought the verses about antichrist into it, so I thought you saw some relevance in them, but I wasn't going to argue with you about that. I was just going to counter your notion that one must not have any resistance at all to the idea of a Trinity or he's liar.
A Babe is a believer in Christ who cannot receive strong meat, regardless of whether or not he can admit it.
No, that isn't the question. The question is, can someone, like a JW, trust in Christ for his salvation and still have some erroneous notions about Him?
I would say, if not, then we're all doomed. Or maybe the glass you're looking through is crystal clear. But I doubt that.
It only sounds that way to those who are hard of hearing.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
This was Huk’s question (and Avg Joe’s contribution for context) from the first page…Right. Again, I thought we were talking about those who sincerely believe in Jesus, and look to Him in faith regardless of the errors they might maintain about him. You brought the verses about antichrist into it, so I thought you saw some relevance in them, but I wasn't going to argue with you about that. I was just going to counter your notion that one must not have any resistance at all to the idea of a Trinity or he's liar.
A Babe is a believer in Christ who cannot receive strong meat, regardless of whether or not he can admit it.
No, that isn't the question. The question is, can someone, like a JW, trust in Christ for his salvation and still have some erroneous notions about Him?
I would say, if not, then we're all doomed. Or maybe the glass you're looking through is crystal clear. But I doubt that.
It only sounds that way to those who are hard of hearing.
It’s very clear that his point was about the potentiality of somebody who rejects Christ as the eternal co-equal Son of God to be saved in spite of their persistent rejection of Christology proper, as was the case with numerous other follow up queries on his part. So yes, the question indeed was, can somebody be saved who repeatedly denies the Trinity like a Jehovah’s Witness.
Last edited:
Thank you. Many on here keep talking about those who call themselves Christians but just happen to be accidentally ignorant of the Trinity concept…but I’m specifically referring to those who deny the Trinity but go along with the vast majority of the Bible, even going so far as to call themselves “Christians.”
To me, it seems a deal breaker with regard to being a true believer if one denies the deity of Christ. Catholics may have many disputable beliefs/practices, but they don’t deny the Trinity, whereas JWs and their ilk do.
I apologize. I haven't yet learned fundy-speak. Huk no where said repeatedly.
I find it amazing how you can read so many unspoken qualifiers into another's statement, and yet completely ignore those brazenly explicit in mine.
Maybe we should discuss the meaning of repeatedly. Do you mean for a set number of times, or for a time segment?
But I would remind you that the confession we're taught isn't, 'Christ as the eternal co-equal Son of God,' but simply, the Lord Jesus, Romans 10:9.
It's a Person that saves, not a doctrine.
I find it amazing how you can read so many unspoken qualifiers into another's statement, and yet completely ignore those brazenly explicit in mine.
Maybe we should discuss the meaning of repeatedly. Do you mean for a set number of times, or for a time segment?
But I would remind you that the confession we're taught isn't, 'Christ as the eternal co-equal Son of God,' but simply, the Lord Jesus, Romans 10:9.
It's a Person that saves, not a doctrine.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
Nobody has said doctrine saves, but the point you continue to obfuscate over is the fact that Scriptures clearly depict there will be those who claim Jesus as some kind of Christ, but they are actually idolatrous antichrist worshipping apostates. If JWs aren’t that very thing then I don’t know who is. Confront a JW with Christ’s eternality and see what happens. If you want to claim them as brothers despite their rejection of the real person of Christ then it shows your willing ignorance of the Biblical notion of proper ecclesiastical separation.
LOL. Who said anything about fellowshipping with the JWs? Go back and look at my original statement.
I believe God has elect in every erroneous faction that names Christ. I think, however, that in most cases, if not all, He will bring them out eventually.
Now where on God's green earth do you see anyone saying the JWs are our Christian brothers and we should fellowship with them?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
Glad to see you’re edging closer to the light. Huk was saying that a professing believer who persistently denounces Christ’s eternal co-equal divinity is in fact no born-again Christian at all. So by logical deduction the only way to have true fellowship with another person in Christ, well, is that they be *in Christ*.
True. This is exactly why I changed the retelling of my testimony from my conversion being in 1983 to 1981 because as I gave it thought, I began to recognize the Spirit's work on me at the time the gospel clicked with me.