Oh, I remember the very first day we arrived and got liberty in Dunoon, we went to a sort of cafeteria along the water and I wanted a cheeseburger - unlike the kind served on the Holland... I bit into it and almost died. Apparently, beef is not there thing.. it was a mutton burger and I spit it out and knew I was in trouble here in Scotland - until I was directed to those vinegar and salt fish and chips... unbelieveably good. Very nice people there.
Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Ya mutton in Scotland. The bed and breakfasts I went to had mutton and fish for breakfast.
You can get beef in England
Why do you think this is fallacious reasoning? Jesus Himself associated false teachers (who were doing "powerful works" & calling Jesus, 'Lord') with evil deeds. Jesus called these ones, "workers of lawlessness." (Some translations say "evildoers.")
-- Matthew 7:23
The question arises, "Where are these 'evildoers' getting their power from?" Not Jesus...or His Father. Who, then?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's what I mean, that anyone who simply says they follow Christ makes them what you call a "cultural Christian." So, you're talking about being a "real Christian" in the spiritual sense, right? My point was frankly that, that these so-called "cultural Christians" are not always "spiritual Christians."
There are many "cultural Christians" who have not believed that Jesus is God. Deists, for example, have rejected Jesus' Deity, Unitarians have rejected Jesus' Deity, and yet are considered "cultural Christians."
But they are not genuine "spiritual Christians" when they deny Jesus' Deity. Belief in the Trinity, however, is more complicated because the Trinity requires some intellectual skills that not all possess. And having the right intellectual understanding is not critical to accepting Christ within our spiritual nature.
An atheist friend asked me, "Is Christianity just a matter of having the right pin number?" No, but there are, as you suggest, some basic beliefs that makes Christ's indwelling possible and necessary.
Yes, but you were asking about Trinitarianism and not just about the Deity of Christ.
I was trying to distinguish between a good person and a bad person. And I wasn't distinguishing between a "cultural Christian" and a "spiritual Christian." Following bad doctrine does make a Christian a poor Christian, but not necessarily a false Christian.
I don't understand? I see "orthodox, historical doctrine" as the same as the "tenets of Christianity."
Well, I was part of a rather "fundamentalist" church, which had a school of theology. A split took place in the church and school when the pastor required all professors to sign a claim that the Scriptures have no errors in them. But how do we know what the original autographs looked like, since all we have are copies?
Of course, the authority of Scripture is inherent in the collective perspective given in Scriptures which can be reduced to fundamental tenets, as you suggest. Much of the Scriptures is repeated enough that we can authoritatively arrive at certain necessary conclusions.
But I agree with your basic summary if real Christians wish to be good stewards of the truth. If they lack teaching they may be good Christians to the best of their ability, and yet not be good stewards of the truth.
But if they have sufficient teaching to understand, and yet insist on teaching errant doctrine then they cannot be good Christians even if they are still genuine Christians. They are simply "bad Christians"--not "nonChristians."
^^This^^ is a great attitude to have! A humble one. Its rare in today's world....but its necessary in order to please Jehovah and Jesus.
Correct.
The residents of Antioch that were not Jewish gave this designation to those that followed Christ to delineate them from those that did not.
So those that did not believe Jesus was the Messiah continued to be known as Jewish.
Those that did believe that Jesus was the Messiah came to be known as Christian.
A person that identifies themselves as Christian SHOULD be following Christ in practice.
Not all do.
This is why some prefer to refer to themselves as BELIEVER instead of Christian.
But you're making my point exactly.
The word CHRISTIAN is supposed to mean something.
Apparently it no longer does.
Even AMONG those that DO follow Jesus in His teachings there are some that do not believe
what DEFINES them as Christian....
one of these is the Trinity.
If a person is just following Jesus' teachings....he could say he's a Jesus follower...
but he cannot say he's Christian.
A christian must believe that
Jesus is God
He died for our sins and was resurrected.
He was one Person but with two natures....
He was NOT only a man,
He was NOT only God,
He was both in one Person.
God is one BEING consisting of three PERSONS - of the exact same essence but separate in Personhood.
Christians believe that Jesus was borne in human form by a virgin.
Christians believe that Jesus is coming back.
Christians believe in the bible as their authority (not any other book).
The above beliefs are the core tenets of the Christian religion and of Christian theology or the theology would make no sense.
One may be a better behaved person,
he may be following Jesus better,
he may know scripture better,
but if he knows of the above and denies them,,,,
he cannot IDENTIFY as Christian.
The early Christians died because they believed the above.
The early church protected these beliefs.
We have no right to change them as has been done in the past 200 or so years.
Why does Jesus' sacrifice make sense?And do you understand why a Christian would look at this unexplainable dogma and say, "Wait a minute. This doesn't make sense!"?
Why couldn't God just forgive those that ask forgiveness?
Why do I have to pay for a sin that Adam committed?
Again,,,the Trinity does not have to be understood, but it does have to be accepted.
Those that state that Jesus is not God (thus rejecting the Trinity)
cannot be considered Christian since not believing that Jesus is God is a heretical belief because orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is God.
Not familiar with the Ebionites.
This is from Google's Gemini:
The Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian group who believed Jesus was the human Jewish Messiah but was not divine. They insisted on strict observance of Jewish law, including circumcision and dietary rules, and rejected the writings and authority of Paul the Apostle, whom they considered an apostate. They practiced asceticism and holy poverty, and they used their own version of the Gospel of Matthew, known as the Gospel of the Ebionites.
So should these group have survived?
Do you NOT believe that the NT confirms that Jesus is God?
John was worried about the gnostics while he was still alive.
Should the gnostics have survived?
Augustine was a gnostic.
He taught we don't have free will.
He taught that babies go to hell if not baptized.
Agnostics taught that the body is separate from the spirit bringing to all sorts of wild beliefs.
Should these groups have survived?
What the NT taught and what the Apostles believed and what they PASSED ON is what survived.
And rightly so.
And we should be protecting these beliefs and protecting Christianity....
not being blown about by any wind that blows.
Ephesians 4:12-14
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
Right.
Because Father is not Son and V V.
This is why there is only ONE BEING
but THREE PERSONS. Exactly the same in essence but unique and different in Personhood.
The Son went to the cross.
Not the Father.
The Father wanted to create
Not the Son
(but creation was through the WORD...Jesus).
They share the same essence and the same will.
When Jesus prayed in the Garden He said NOT MY WILL BUT YOURS BE DONE.
The will of the divine in Jesus was exactly the same as the will of the Father.
It was THIS will that was accomplished by the cross.
His human will was weak and His fear was great.
You were asking about whether or not I understand how some might understand that there are 3 Gods.
(the reply got messed up somehow).
I could understand it...
but why debate it?
The NT clearly states that there is ONE GOD.
As to relating to God:
You said
AWE
REVERENCE
SUBSERVIENCE
I suppose reverence includes LOVE.
Subservience includes OBEDIENCE.
If we have AWE I suppose we KNOW Him (to whatever extent we can).
Your list would also include TRUST (reverence).
So, no, I cannot think of the aspect you have in mind....
Looking forward to your reply.
This was in your post no. 142 regarding power and intrigue:
So with the Trinity instead of taking the risk of confusing the tar out of us with images of things we cannot understand.....He kept it simple.....Father and Son and Holy Spirit....well Holy Spirit is still a mystery. We maybe shocked when we get to Heaven....over a lot of things......Anyway They kept it simple it was Man that made it confusing and complicated. (We cannot blame women on this one, or most theological errors.) And as unusual it was not about seeking the truth it was about power and intrigue.
Right.
But who can really understand it?
Not most folk.
Same for the Trinity/Godhead.
What's the difference between Trinity and Godhead?
This is from Google Genesis:
The main difference is that Godhead refers to God's singular essence or divine nature, while Trinity refers to the three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who share that single Godhead. In simpler terms, Godhead is the "what" of God (the divine substance), and the Trinity is the "who" of God (the three persons within that one substance).
So...
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit SHARE the Godhead with God Father.
GOD IS WHAT.
The PERSONS ARE WHO.
WHAT is the essence of God...
WHO explains the Persons spoken of in the NT (and the OT).
Jesus is God.
He was in heaven.
He came down to earth.
He became human (a divine human person would be more accurate).
Is this not a lowering??
He was a unique being....
GOD.
Now He was a human being. (and also a divine being).
Yes. I'm talking about what defines a Christian.
And, yes, a "Christian" is not always a spiritual Christian.
But whether or not they are SPIRITUAL in their nature...
we still need a definition of what a Christian is SUPPOSED to believe.
We might be saying the same but using different words.
This happens a lot.
OK.
But let's leave out the word CULTURAL because we're getting into another topic.
In your opinion...if a person does not believe in the Trinity....
can they still be defined as Christian?
I don't mean SAVED....
I don't mean that they are not following Jesus....
I mean the DEFINITON....
Is a person allowed to call themselves Christian NO MATTER WHAT they believe?
I agree.
I've been saying that we're not required to understand the Trinity,,,,only to accept it.
We're not supposed to be railing against it and stating that Jesus is not God.
How could a person that does not believe Jesus is God define himself as Christian?
It's the major tenet of Christianity !
We agree here, and I think on everything.
Hmmm. Yes. I think this is a different topic.
Let me confuse things a bit more!
A person could be indwelt with Jesus because that person believes in Him.
So does that make him Christian??
Or does he also have to accept some other theology if he's presented with it?
Many don't even know about the Trinity - I'm not speaking about them.
The Deity of Chris IS Trinitariansim.
If Jesus is God...we need to explain HOW since He was born a man.
Agreed.
Not really.
Two could have opposing doctrine but be defined as Christian.
Maybe you believe in OSAS.
Maybe I don't.
But if we believe the Christian tenets,,,then we can define ourselves as Christian.
Let me post some of the tenets again:
THE TRINITY
THE DUAL NATURES OF JESUS. (HYPOSTESIS)
HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION
BIRTH BY A VIRGIN
SALVATION THROUGH HIS DEATH
AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
THE SECOND COMING
THE RESURRECTION OF ALL
We'd have to explain what he meant by error....
There are differences in the bible....
but I don't believe they could be called error.
Plus, when persons speak about error, they usually mean an important difference that might change theology...
in this sense there is no error in the bible.
We have a lot of manuscripts and very early writings that confirm our theology - they mention early writings and only these are part of the NT. MANY were rejected.
Yes sir.
Exactly!
Good point.
Perfectly said.
Agreed.
I don’t think it is against the rules:
New Interpretations
Book of Daniel
Can you see me now…
ISBN # 979-8-218-63723-1
If anyone would like a free author’s copy please PM me with your mailing address, PO Box, your work or church address (should you want to keep your personal information private), or any other address to send to you. Thanks.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Nothing but there is a difference between three in one and 3 Gods together as a group forming the Godhead.
The United States----one country but 50 separate states.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The Persons are Yahweh and Yeshua and Holy Spirit. Questions on the nature and substances are best left til we get to heaven. For now knowing their structure as such that they can sit on thrones,
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Jesus is God.....Yeshua is a God.
He was in heaven.....?
He came down to earth......He was begotten by Yahweh and born to a woman. Yahweh came down to earth and impregnated a woman and she delivered a God.
He became human (a divine human person would be more accurate).....Human to an extent. I am on the fence whether he was 100% human and 100% Divine.....or human body and divine spirit or something that cannot be defined. Was this a lowering or a raising?
Is this not a lowering??
He was a unique being....
GOD.
Now He was a human being. (and also a divine being).
The words used for the begotten Yeshua are very human......begotten...conscieve....impregnated ....beared .....born ...delivered... So some form of union occurred....the female egg joins with a sperm.....sex or some form of it. Now in college there were students that had issues with this so the professor would have them write down what they thought happened. In every case their stories did not match the scriptures....words that did not appear in the scriptures.
So Yahweh choose the process and that is what He did.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
