Is belief in the Trinity essential to one's Salvat

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't believe in God the Son, but I do believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God. I don't believe they are different persons, different manifestations yes, but not different persons.

They are the same thing.

In Jewish usage, the term

[ruah brit]

Is belief in the Trinity essential to one's Salvat

No. The trinity is catholic doctrine. It is not in scripture as doctrine. Believing and Loving Christ is all you need.

Denise

[apothanein kerdos]

Is belief in the Trinity essential to one's Salvat

No. The trinity is catholic doctrine. It is not in scripture as doctrine. Believing and Loving Christ is all you need.

Denise

What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

First, why does "Catholic" equal wrong? Secondly, the doctrine is most certaintly in scripture!

[RGR]

So I guess Heaven's throne sat empty for 33 some odd years or did Jesus sneak away to become the Father now and then and sit on the throne? What about when He was a baby-how did things work then since that Jesus was the Father was Jesus was the Father was Jesus? I'm sorry if I sound rude but common sense, to me, dictates that Oneness is incorrect.

[Kabowd]

So I guess Heaven's throne sat empty for 33 some odd years or did Jesus sneak away to become the Father now and then and sit on the throne? What about when He was a baby-how did things work then since that Jesus was the Father was Jesus was the Father was Jesus? I'm sorry if I sound rude but common sense, to me, dictates that Oneness is incorrect.

Sounds a bit like spiritual schizophrenia!

[RGR]

So I guess Heaven's throne sat empty for 33 some odd years or did Jesus sneak away to become the Father now and then and sit on the throne? What about when He was a baby-how did things work then since that Jesus was the Father was Jesus was the Father was Jesus? I'm sorry if I sound rude but common sense, to me, dictates that Oneness is incorrect.

Sounds a bit like spiritual schizophrenia!

[AnotherTraveler]

[i am not being disrespectful, but words mean things. Whether you get offended or not, it is what it is.]

Hence the problem with the word trinity. Neither the word nor the discription of the doctrine are found in scripture. Sure there are hints of this and that. Father, Son , and Holy Ghost are found in scripture, only a fool would deny that, but is the doctrine (which I posted earlier) found conclusively in scripture, no. This is why not all Christians agree with the doctrine.

We are not commanded to define God's nature outside of what He has said of Himself. If He says He is a trinity, then I will tell everyone everywhere so, but He is silent on such a thing in the scriptures, and when He speaks of Himself, He always says that He is one.

Then there is the shelving of brethren, sorting brethren by unimportant yet terms meant to diminish. Declaring that someone is a thins or that, because they don't agree with the demand to accept the trinity doctrine even though it is unscriptural.

Many dear brethren died as maryters without figuring out many things in the word, many could not read, but believed the report preached to them, that Jesus Christ died for their sins and came back to life and assended into heaven. And they are with the Lord Jesus.

So many important things to occupy us, and we find a need to demand acceptance of words and doctrines that none of the apostles ever heard of.

[Ovedya]

[i am not being disrespectful, but words mean things. Whether you get offended or not, it is what it is.]

Hence the problem with the word trinity. Neither the word nor the discription of the doctrine are found in scripture. Sure there are hints of this and that. Father, Son , and Holy Ghost are found in scripture, only a fool would deny that, but is the doctrine (which I posted earlier) found conclusively in scripture, no. This is why not all Christians agree with the doctrine.

We are not commanded to define God's nature outside of what He has said of Himself. If He says He is a trinity, then I will tell everyone everywhere so, but He is silent on such a thing in the scriptures, and when He speaks of Himself, He always says that He is one.

Then there is the shelving of brethren, sorting brethren by unimportant yet terms meant to diminish. Declaring that someone is a thins or that, because they don't agree with the demand to accept the trinity doctrine even though it is unscriptural.

Many dear brethren died as maryters without figuring out many things in the word, many could not read, but believed the report preached to them, that Jesus Christ died for their sins and came back to life and assended into heaven. And they are with the Lord Jesus.

So many important things to occupy us, and we find a need to demand acceptance of words and doctrines that none of the apostles ever heard of.

[ruah brit]

So I guess Heaven's throne sat empty for 33 some odd years or did Jesus sneak away to become the Father now and then and sit on the throne? What about when He was a baby-how did things work then since that Jesus was the Father was Jesus was the Father was Jesus? I'm sorry if I sound rude but common sense, to me, dictates that Oneness is incorrect.

No emptier than it was when the Lord was down here as three messengers talking to Abraham. Is anything to difficult for the Lord? If the Lord can

[apothanein kerdos]

[i am not being disrespectful, but words mean things. Whether you get offended or not, it is what it is.]

Hence the problem with the word trinity. Neither the word nor the discription of the doctrine are found in scripture. Sure there are hints of this and that. Father, Son , and Holy Ghost are found in scripture, only a fool would deny that, but is the doctrine (which I posted earlier) found conclusively in scripture, no. This is why not all Christians agree with the doctrine.

We are not commanded to define God's nature outside of what He has said of Himself. If He says He is a trinity, then I will tell everyone everywhere so, but He is silent on such a thing in the scriptures, and when He speaks of Himself, He always says that He is one.

Then there is the shelving of brethren, sorting brethren by unimportant yet terms meant to diminish. Declaring that someone is a thins or that, because they don't agree with the demand to accept the trinity doctrine even though it is unscriptural.

Many dear brethren died as maryters without figuring out many things in the word, many could not read, but believed the report preached to them, that Jesus Christ died for their sins and came back to life and assended into heaven. And they are with the Lord Jesus.

So many important things to occupy us, and we find a need to demand acceptance of words and doctrines that none of the apostles ever heard of.

This couldn't me more wrong, and this is why I refered to you as "un-studied" in Biblical matters earlier. Yes, the word isn't found (again, it's a Latin word and the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek) but the doctrine certainly is there. The doctrine is not just hinted at, it's a solidified fact and the only logical explanation for the dual nature of Christ. To say the Trinity isn't found in the Bible is the equivalent to saying Jesus isn't found in the Bible. It's an absurd conclusion based upon a light study of the scripture from someone who has chosen not to go in depth, or at least has ignored the results of an in depth look.

A person who denies the deity of Christ CANNOT BE SAVED AND IS A HERETIC IN THEIR TEACHINGS. I don't know how many times I shall have to prove this to you, but I refuse to take a post-modern stands and go with the "can't we all just get along" doctrine. To say the apostles never heard of the Trinity is, again, absolutely absurd. They wrote about it. The entire purpose of John's writings was to prove such a thing existed and discount the heresy that Jesus wasn't God. You sit here and say this, but you ignore the fact that the only reason we have the Gospel of John is because someone came out and said Jesus wasn't really God.

No, there are issues such as eternal security, infant baptism, and things of this nature that can be put on the backburner. Yet when someone denies the very nature of God, or goes so far as to say that Jesus isn't God, that is doctrine worth fighting over because it is forever linked to the doctrine of salvation. Stop making an emotional appeal and let's get into the meat of the matter.