Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[HealthyShape]

What in your opinion are the 10 major differences in these 10 major different denominations?

Some visible differences in liturgy or things like the Lord's Supper. There is for example a visible difference between Lutherans and Calvinists or between Anglicans and baptists.

I would even say there are just three main denominations - the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and protestants. These three streams can be then divided a bit so we get like a dozen of somehow distinct denominations, but with a lot of similarities inside the streams.

But all these churches accept the Bible, the apostolic teachings of the first church and the ecumenical creeds.

 

[HealthyShape]

Mariology is derived from the doctrine of the Trinity as a matter of logical extension, but the doctrinal development of the Trinity itself is fundamentally illogical.

One can hide anything into "logical extension". And judging the nature of God on the bases of what you think is logical does not work. God is not a geometrical shape or a number. He is Spirit who exists outside of the logic of this Universe.

 

[Hiddenthings]

One can hide anything into "logical extension". And judging the nature of God on the bases of what you think is logical does not work. God is not a geometrical shape or a number. He is Spirit.

Is this an admission to you holding an illogical faith?

Let us assume, for example, that you believe in the Hypostatic Union. Even then, we would both ultimately agree that this belief cannot be proven from Scripture. If Scripture teaches that Christ was born of a woman and possesses the same nature as humanity, which is a logical conclusion, how do you continue to hold to the belief in an illogical duality of natures, knowing that neither you nor many other theologians can demonstrate it from the inspired text?

You could, of course, attempt to succeed where others have failed, but in the end you may simply conclude that it is illogical and yet still believe it, despite having no evidence to support it.

I assume you do not practice Mariology, since it is illogical and cannot be substantiated from Scripture; therefore, you do not believe it, whereas the Roman Catholic Church does.

Therefore, the reverse can be used on you - one can hide anything into "illogical extension".

In the end it must be proven to be found true and worthy of being a foundational belief for faith.

 

[HealthyShape]

Is this an admission to you holding an illogical faith?

Let us assume, for example, that you believe in the Hypostatic Union. Even then, we would both ultimately agree that this belief cannot be proven from Scripture. If Scripture teaches that Christ was born of a woman and possesses the same nature as humanity, which is a logical conclusion, how do you continue to hold to the belief in an illogical duality of natures, knowing that neither you nor many other theologians can demonstrate it from the inspired text?

You could, of course, attempt to succeed where others have failed, but in the end you may simply conclude that it is illogical and yet still believe it, despite having no evidence to support it.

I assume you do not practice Mariology, since it is illogical and cannot be substantiated from Scripture; therefore, you do not believe it, whereas the Roman Catholic Church does.

Therefore, the reverse can be used on you - one can hide anything into "illogical extension".

In the end it must be proven to be found true and worthy of being a foundational belief for faith.

Your focus on the mysteries of God to be somehow in the box of our human formal logic is... illogical in the end. It could actually be a sign that such god was invented by humans, like in paganism.

No, I do not practice Mariology.

And again, there are three pillars - the Bible, the ecumenical creeds and the apostolic church. Not just one (Bible). Without a correction from the other pillars, any heretic can find anything in the Bible.

 

[Adventageous]

Greetings Adventageous,

Looking at Strong's #3068, Jehovah is arrived at by using the vowel points of Adonai, while # 3069 is arrived at by using the vowel points of Elohim. Thus Jehovah is an incorrect rendition of the YHWH Name.

Kind regards
Trevor

No, your explantion is incorrect and already addressed in the book (link) I provided to this thread (here again) - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[GodsGrace]

Some visible differences in liturgy or things like the Lord's Supper. There is for example a visible difference between Lutherans and Calvinists or between Anglicans and baptists.

I would even say there are just three main denominations - the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and protestants. These three streams can be then divided a bit so we get like a dozen of somehow distinct denominations, but with a lot of similarities inside the streams.

But all these churches accept the Bible, the apostolic teachings of the first church and the ecumenical creeds.

Could you please explain what you mean by PROTESTANT?
You made 3 categories: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.
But within the Protestant community are those that believe that Jesus is not God and thus do not believe in the Trinity.
So is Protestant a particular denominaion in your understanding...
or does EVERYTHING that is NOT Catholic fall under the Protestand heading??

For example:
There is someone on these Forums who states that he is not Catholic and not Protestant....

For example:
Is the Evangelical denomination Protestant?

(this might make a good thread, but I'm not starting it).

 

[GodsGrace]

No, your explantion is incorrect and already addressed in the book (link) I provided to this thread (here again) - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I'm copying the following from your book....
But WHY would anyone ever want to actually learn what Christianity teaches??!!

Better to just make up the Christian religion as we go along.....


Thanks for your book, BTW....


CHAPTER 5 (page 69)

The Son, the Son of God, the Son of Man, JEHOVAH ‘Jr.’ — Jesus

There are some ‘good’, ‘godly’, ‘dedicated’, ‘spiritual’, ‘extremely religious’, ‘doctored’, ‘pastoral’ persons which think that the Persons / Beings of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were, before any creation had ever taken place (including all the unfallen worlds and angel-kind), exactly the same, identical in every way, as like three blank personality-less clones, Who each merely took upon

Themselves ‘roles’ (like suddenly wearing a ‘hat’ that says ‘Father’, or choosing of a ‘lot’ that says ‘Son’, or ending with a ballot that says ‘Holy Ghost’, &c.) of ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Ghost’ for their creation which they would make. That teaching is a gross abominable heresy, and a complete distortion of the Bible (KJB) texts. Such foolishness of thought actually destroys any meaningfulness of their eternal relationship, personal individuality, and specific nature that they have always had in their existence, and limits it to something of finiteness, being ‘bounded’ and ‘made’ for an external situation. Instead,

the Father has always been the Father, and the Son has always been the Son (likewise also the Holy Spirit), and that relationship between Them is eternal, not created, not made, not chosen as a ‘role’. It is infinitely mysterious and beyond all comprehension by created and finite beings, and not begun in a moment of time. Yet, that fathomless mystery of Their eternal relationship explains so many other things about Them, and Their doctrines (teachings), words and actions.

As the Father's name is [H3068] m", “JHVH”, “JEHOVAH” (‘Sr.’), so too the Son’s name is also [H3068] “m7”, “JHVH”, “JEHOVAH”, but being the Son with the same name as the Father's Person / Being, that makes Him, the Son, (JEHOVAH) “Jr.”. As an example among finite mankind, this author's own earthly father has the same name as his own biological earthly father (this author's grandfather), and so at the ending of his (this author's father’s) name, has the appendage, or appellation, “Jr.”, making his own father the “Sr.” (an ‘ancient of days’ so to speak) of the two.

Exodus 23:21 KJB - Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

John 5:43 KJB - Lam come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 10:25 KJB - Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

Matthew 1:21 KJB - And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The very English name “JESUS”, from the koine Greek [G2424] “moovv”, *iesoun" (Mat. 1:21 KJB, GNT TR, the koine Greek “i” becomes the English “j’’), stems from the Hebrew word [H3091], "yvy", *i'hóshu?", “Joshua” (Exo. 17:9 KJB, HOT), which is a combination of [H3068] 5117", “JHVH”, “JEHOVAH”, & [H3467] "xw", “jasha‘”, “be open, wide or free, that is, (by implication) to be safe; causatively to free or succor: - X at all, avenging, defend, deliver (-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe, bring (having) salvation, save (-1our), get victory" (Strong's Concordance E-Sword Edition), meaning together “JEHOVAH is (my) Salvation", which is exactly how Mat. 1:21 KJB, GNT TR defines the word. Another OT Hebrew word is [H3444] “nyw”, *jeshü'àh", meaning “salvation, deliverance, health, help" (Strong’s).

 

[HealthyShape]

Could you please explain what you mean by PROTESTANT?
You made 3 categories: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.
But within the Protestant community are those that believe that Jesus is not God and thus do not believe in the Trinity.
So is Protestant a particular denominaion in your understanding...
or does EVERYTHING that is NOT Catholic fall under the Protestand heading??

For example:
There is someone on these Forums who states that he is not Catholic and not Protestant....

For example:
Is the Evangelical denomination Protestant?

(this might make a good thread, but I'm not starting it).

I do not think that somebody who does not believe that Jesus is God can be defined as Protestant. They are not within the protestant community no matter how they define themselves.

Are evangelicals (like Pentecostals, baptists, Methodists...) protestants? I think this is edge case. From some point of view they are, from some point of view they are not. So... maybe :) If I want to paint the things with a broad brush, I put them into the same category, yes.

 

[GodsGrace]

Your focus on the mysteries of God to be somehow in the box of our human formal logic is... illogical in the end. It could actually be a sign that such god was invented by humans, like in paganism.

No, I do not practice Mariology.

And again, there are three pillars - the Bible, the ecumenical creeds and the apostolic church. Not just one (Bible). Without a correction from the other pillars, any heretic can find anything in the Bible.

Indeed.
As heretics do.
Because they refuse to be taught by those that the Apostles taught.
As if the Apostles would pass on wrong teachings that Jesus died for.

But I hearsay that those that the Apostles taught are not inspired.
As if the ones from whom heresy is learned ARE inspired !!

So, yah, better to learn from some guy that invented some religion a couple of hundred years ago...
than those that were taught by the Apostles.

Protestantism is in trouble.

 

[GodsGrace]

I do not think that somebody who does not believe that Jesus is God can be defined as Protestant. They are not within the protestant community no matter how they define themselves.

Are evangelicals (like Pentecostals, baptists, Methodists...) protestants? I think this is edge case. From some point of view they are, from some point of view they are not. So... maybe :) If I want to paint the things with a broad brush, I put them into the same category, yes.

Have to agree.
Those that do not believe that Jesus is God are totally OUT of the Christian paradigm.

Thanks!

 

[HealthyShape]

Protestantism is in trouble.

What do you mean?

 

[GodsGrace]

What do you mean?

Protestantism is in trouble because it's always splintering.
It's not unified.
There is not an exact understanding of what it believes/means.

For instance, if I say I'm Catholic,,,
you'll know what I believe.

If I say I'm Protestant...
I'll have to expound and state what I believe.

This is not good.
The Christian religion used to be unified.

Luther believed Jesus is God.
He had disagreements on soterioly..but that's OK.
The reformed have different soteriological beliefs,
but they accept Christian tenets so they're Christian.

Some Protestants no longer hold to Christian tenets and
we don't know who they are when they use the word PROTESTANT.
It does not allow for distinction between a real Protestant/Christian
and a fake Protestant that is following his own religion.
Certainly not the Christian one.


And I really do not want to get back on to this thread...

 

[HealthyShape]

Protestantism is in trouble because it's always splintering.
It's not unified.
There is not an exact understanding of what it believes/means.

For instance, if I say I'm Catholic,,,
you'll know what I believe.

If I say I'm Protestant...
I'll have to expound and state what I believe.

This is not good.
The Christian religion used to be unified.

Luther believed Jesus is God.
He had disagreements on soterioly..but that's OK.
The reformed have different soteriological beliefs,
but they accept Christian tenets so they're Christian.

Some Protestants no longer hold to Christian tenets and
we don't know who they are when they use the word PROTESTANT.

And I really do not want to get back on to this thread...

Actually, the Roman Catholics can believe and not believe plenty of things, too. Only some elementary things would be known just from the label itself.

I guess in protestantism, it is similar. I do not think that regarding salvation, there are some serious differences between protestants and even evangelicals. If by soteriology you mean rather philosophical debates whether we are predestined or if faith precedes grace etc, then sure, there are more views inside protestantism than inside the RCC, for obvious reason (no centralized magistrate authority).

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, the Roman Catholics can believe and not believe plenty of things, too. Only some elementary things would be known just from the label itself.

Catholics are free to believe their conscience on some matters,,,but not any regarding doctrine.
For instance...a person can believe what they wish as to where/how/who Caine married. There is no specific teaching/doctrine.

Ditto for evolution...as long as God had a part in it.

But core doctrine/dogma must be believed in order to be defined as Catholic.
That includes Marion doctrine.

I could list some but I don't know if you really care to get into this.

I guess in protestantism, it is similar. I do not think that regarding salvation, there are some serious differences between protestants and even evangelicals. If by soteriology you mean rather philosophical debates whether we are predestined or if faith precedes grace etc, then sure, there are more views inside protestantism than inside the RCC, for obvious reason (no centralized magistrate authority).

Right. Soteriology....salvation economy...how does a person get saved.
A person could have different soteriological beliefs but still be a Christian.
This thread is about what defines a Christian in RELIGION...
What should a person KNOW that I believe if I state that I'm Christian (including Protestants of course).
But these days,,,they will NOT.

ESPECIALLY if I'm Protestant.
The label is loosing all meaning.
And I do say LABEL...which defines a person without having to write a full report.

 

[HealthyShape]

Catholics are free to believe their conscience on some matters,,,but not any regarding doctrine.
For instance...a person can believe what they wish as to where/how/who Caine married. There is no specific teaching/doctrine.

Ditto for evolution...as long as God had a part in it.

But core doctrine/dogma must be believed in order to be defined as Catholic.
That includes Marion doctrine.

I could list some but I don't know if you really care to get into this.


Right. Soteriology....salvation economy...how does a person get saved.
A person could have different soteriological beliefs but still be a Christian.
This thread is about what defines a Christian in RELIGION...
What should a person KNOW that I believe if I state that I'm Christian (including Protestants of course).
But these days,,,they will NOT.

ESPECIALLY if I'm Protestant.
The label is loosing all meaning.
And I do say LABEL...which defines a person without having to write a full report.

You are Catholic, I guess? I am protestant :)

And yes, I suppose you are right that you would need to give me two or three more questions to categorize me more, while I know more about you if you say you are a Catholic, from the start.
On the other hand, many Catholics do not believe what they actually should believe officially. I find it quite common. It is also more prevalent for Catholics to identify with Catholicism only culturally in many countries, while not personally believing too much. So, this all plays a role.

Anyway, I see the freedom to have some more personalized views as a benefit, if still kept in orthodoxy.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are Catholic, I guess? I am protestant :)

I'm Protestant but know Catholic theology.

And yes, I suppose you are right that you would need to give me two or three more questions to categorize me more, while I know more about you if you say you are a Catholic, from the start.

Exactly my point !

On the other hand, many Catholics do not believe what they actually should believe officially. I find it quite common. It is also more prevalent for Catholics to identify with Catholicism only culturally in many countries, while not personally believing too much. So, this all plays a role.

Agreed 100%
I live in one of those countries.
And, yes, most ...I'd say the vast majority...of Catholics are improperly catechized (or not at all).
They do NOT understand their faith system/theology.

Anyway, I see the freedom to have some more personalized views as a benefit, if still kept in orthodoxy.

Agreed. I always agree with your posts.
I believe what makes us be able to agree is the very fact that we follow orthodoxy.
Now why we all do not is the question of the day.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Adventageous,

No, your explanation is incorrect and already addressed in the book (link) I provided to this thread (here again)

I appreciate your response. I am not sure if you have examined or understood Strongs' #3068 and 3069. I have in the past quoted these different occurrences of the YHWH Name from Isaiah 50 and I can supply this if you are interested. I would have preferred that you had given a simple answer as to why my explanation is incorrect.

Since my last Post to you I did determine from another one of your Posts on another thread what is your specific denomination. I had a brief exchange with my Doctor who is of your denomination on this subject and he affirmed his belief in the Trinity but he mentioned that some of your pioneers did not believe the Trinity.

Yes, I appreciate your extensive treatment of this subject and will now download your book despite my reservations, especially in the light of your response here, as I consider what I stated is simple basics. It is late at night here now in Australia, and I will not be able to major portion of your book for a day or two and may find it difficult to find how and where you have disagreed with my statement (page number?)

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again Adventageous,

I appreciate your response. I am not sure if you have examined or understood Strongs' #3068 and 3069. I have in the past quoted these different occurrences of the YHWH Name from Isaiah 50 and I can supply this if you are interested. I would have preferred that you had given a simple answer as to why my explanation is incorrect.

Since my last Post to you I did determine from another one of your Posts on another thread what is your specific denomination. I had a brief exchange with my Doctor who is of your denomination on this subject and he affirmed his belief in the Trinity but he mentioned that some of your pioneers did not believe the Trinity.

Yes, I appreciate your extensive treatment of this subject and will now download your book despite my reservations, especially in the light of your response here, as I consider what I stated is simple basics. It is late at night here now in Australia, and I will not be able to consider a considerable portion of your book for a day or two.

Kind regards
Trevor

Might take more than a day or two!
Unless you're a scholar, of course.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

Might take more than a day or two!
Unless you're a scholar, of course.

I am not a scholar, but I have spent a good deal of time over the years considering Elohim and YHWH and Chapter 1 pages 1-19 and Chapter 2 pages 20-43 appear to be very relevant and this does not seem to be too great a task.

Btw, my last interaction with you was concerning Psalm 110:1. In the picture that @Adventageous supplies with the title of his book:
Is this a depiction before or after Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

I am not a scholar, but I have spent a good deal of time over the years considering Elohim and YHWH and Chapter 1 pages 1-19 and Chapter 2 pages 20-43 appear to be very relevant and this does not seem to be too great a task.

Btw, my last interaction with you was concerning Psalm 110:1. In the picture that @Adventageous supplies with the title of his book:
Is this a depiction before or after Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled?

Kind regards
Trevor

Hmmm. I think you might have changed the post, or added to it, after I gave you the like.
I'd have to go back and take at look at the picture.

Could I ask why you're so (I don't want to say obsessed) interested in Psalm 110:1 ?