What is necessary to be a Christian?

keithr · Aug 4, 2026

I've been a Christian for well over thirty years, and I am the treasurer and a trustee of the Pentecostal Christian church that I've been attending for about 32 years, but I've recently been banned from taking part in discussions in all the 'Christians Only' forums, because the CyB Team think that my "theological position" is "contrary to the historic Christian understanding of the person and nature of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture". So my understanding of Scripture is not the same as theirs, and because discussion participants can't defend from Scripture their belief in the Trinity doctrine, they resort to requesting that the people with a different understanding of Scripture are banned from posting. This doesn't seem to obeying Paul's direction in 2 Timothy 2:24-25 WEB:

(24) The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient,

(25) in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth,

So because my "doctrinal position falls outside the boundaries of the forum’s Christian Statement of Faith", my account has been moved to the "Other Faiths" membership group. I was informed by a private discussion, to which I replied, but for some reason my reply was deleted from the private discussion some days later. Hmm.

I don't understand, or approve of, banning someone from discussions just because their "beliefs are incompatible with the biblical doctrine upheld by this forum". Why shouldn't anybody be allowed to suggest different interpretations of Scripture to how you interpret it? There is only one true interpretation, and we should all be seeking to find that truth, and we should be able to defend what we believe the truth to be using the Bible - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 UASV:

(16) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

(17) so that the man of God may be fully competent, equipped for every good work.

Paul preached the simple Gospel, which he declares as - 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 WEB:

(1) Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News {Gospel} which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand,

(2) by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

(3) For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

(4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(6) Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep.

(7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

(8) and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.

So to be a Christian you simply need to believe that Jesus, the Messiah (Christ), died to pay for our sins so that we may have eternal life, and that God raised Jesus to life again three days later.

Now Paul also wrote that Jesus will not return for the Church until after there has been a falling away from the truth (apostasy) - 2 Thessalonians 2:3 UASV:

(3) Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

A large part of that apostasy is the teaching of the Trinity, teaching a new Gospel different from what the Apostles taught. Paul warned, Galatians 1:6-9 WEB:

(6) I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different “good news”;

(7) and there isn’t another “good news.” Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ.

(8) But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any “good news” other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.

(9) As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any “good news” other than that which you received, let him be cursed.

But even in the early days of the Church, people started adding other requirements in order to be a Christian, e.g. Acts 15:1 WEB:

(1) Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.”

Jesus condemned the Jewish religious leaders for adding to God's Word and imposing additional requirements upon the Jews, e.g. Mark 7:6-13 WEB:

(6) He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

(7) But they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

(8) “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.”

(9) He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

(10) For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother;’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’

(11) But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God”;’

(12) then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother,

(13) making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.”

Imposing the requirement to believe in a Trinitarian doctrine that did not exist in the early Church, and was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles, is the religious leaders making the same kind of mistakes that the Jewish religious leaders made.

This might be my last post on this forum. I'm going to sign up on another Christian forum that does allow discussion of the Trinity.

Romans 10:8-9 WEB

(8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart;” that is, the word of faith, which we preach:

(9) that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 WEB

(2) preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching.

(3) For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts;

(4) and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn away to fables.

Note that the genius Sir Isaac Newton deduced that the Trinity was a false doctrine. From Google AI Overview:

Sir Isaac Newton rejected the Trinity because his rigorous scriptural analysis convinced him that God the Father is one supreme, singular deity, Jesus Christ is a subordinate created being, and the traditional Trinitarian doctrine was a deliberate fourth-century corruption of early Christian history.

Scriptural and Historical Analysis

- Strict Monotheism: Newton believed that the Bible teaches absolute monotheism, identifying only the Father as the supreme "One True God".
- Subordination of Christ: He viewed Jesus as the Son of God and Savior, but argued that Christ was subordinate to, created by, and entirely dependent upon the Father.
- Historical Corruption: Newton concluded that 4th-century church leaders—specifically citing Bishop Athanasius—falsified historical documents and texts (such as 1 John 5:7) during the Arian controversy to invent the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea.

Implications of His Beliefs

- Secret Writings: Because denying the Trinity was illegal and considered heresy in England during his lifetime, Newton kept his extensive theological manuscripts strictly private.
- Evading Ordination: His unorthodox views caused him to refuse holy orders in the Church of England, a requirement for Cambridge fellows that he was uniquely granted a royal exemption to bypass.

Matthias · Aug 4, 2026

keithr said:
I've been a Christian for well over thirty years, and I am the treasurer and a trustee of the Pentecostal Christian church that I've been attending for about 32 years, but I've recently been banned from taking part in discussions in all the 'Christians Only' forums, because the CyB Team think that my "theological position" is "contrary to the historic Christian understanding of the person and nature of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture". So my understanding of Scripture is not the same as theirs, and because discussion participants can't defend from Scripture their belief in the Trinity doctrine, they resort to requesting that the people with a different understanding of Scripture are banned from posting. This doesn't seem to obeying Paul's direction in 2 Timothy 2:24-25 WEB:

(24) The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient,
(25) in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth,

So because my "doctrinal position falls outside the boundaries of the forum’s Christian Statement of Faith", my account has been moved to the "Other Faiths" membership group. I was informed by a private discussion, to which I replied, but for some reason my reply was deleted from the private discussion some days later. Hmm.

I don't understand, or approve of, banning someone from discussions just because their "beliefs are incompatible with the biblical doctrine upheld by this forum". Why shouldn't anybody be allowed to suggest different interpretations of Scripture to how you interpret it? There is only one true interpretation, and we should all be seeking to find that truth, and we should be able to defend what we believe the truth to be using the Bible - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 UASV:

(16) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
(17) so that the man of God may be fully competent, equipped for every good work.

Paul preached the simple Gospel, which he declares as - 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 WEB:

(1) Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News {Gospel} which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand,
(2) by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
(3) For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6) Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep.
(7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
(8) and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.

So to be a Christian you simply need to believe that Jesus, the Messiah (Christ), died to pay for our sins so that we may have eternal life, and that God raised Jesus to life again three days later.

Now Paul also wrote that Jesus will not return for the Church until after there has been a falling away from the truth (apostasy) - 2 Thessalonians 2:3 UASV:

(3) Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

A large part of that apostasy is the teaching of the Trinity, teaching a new Gospel different from what the Apostles taught. Paul warned, Galatians 1:6-9 WEB:

(6) I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different “good news”;
(7) and there isn’t another “good news.” Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ.
(8) But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any “good news” other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.
(9) As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any “good news” other than that which you received, let him be cursed.

But even in the early days of the Church, people started adding other requirements in order to be a Christian, e.g. Acts 15:1 WEB:

(1) Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.”

Jesus condemned the Jewish religious leaders for adding to God's Word and imposing additional requirements upon the Jews, e.g. Mark 7:6-13 WEB:

(6) He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
(7) But they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
(8) “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.”
(9) He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
(10) For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother;’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’
(11) But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God”;’
(12) then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother,
(13) making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.”

Imposing the requirement to believe in a Trinitarian doctrine that did not exist in the early Church, and was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles, is the religious leaders making the same kind of mistakes that the Jewish religious leaders made.

This might be my last post on this forum. I'm going to sign up on another Christian forum that does allow discussion of the Trinity.

Romans 10:8-9 WEB

(8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart;” that is, the word of faith, which we preach:
(9) that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 WEB

(2) preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching.
(3) For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts;
(4) and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn away to fables.

Note that the genius Sir Isaac Newton deduced that the Trinity was a false doctrine. From Google AI Overview:

Sir Isaac Newton rejected the Trinity because his rigorous scriptural analysis convinced him that God the Father is one supreme, singular deity, Jesus Christ is a subordinate created being, and the traditional Trinitarian doctrine was a deliberate fourth-century corruption of early Christian history.

Scriptural and Historical Analysis

Strict Monotheism: Newton believed that the Bible teaches absolute monotheism, identifying only the Father as the supreme "One True God".

Subordination of Christ: He viewed Jesus as the Son of God and Savior, but argued that Christ was subordinate to, created by, and entirely dependent upon the Father.

Historical Corruption: Newton concluded that 4th-century church leaders—specifically citing Bishop Athanasius—falsified historical documents and texts (such as 1 John 5:7) during the Arian controversy to invent the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea.

Implications of His Beliefs

Secret Writings: Because denying the Trinity was illegal and considered heresy in England during his lifetime, Newton kept his extensive theological manuscripts strictly private.

Evading Ordination: His unorthodox views caused him to refuse holy orders in the Church of England, a requirement for Cambridge fellows that he was uniquely granted a royal exemption to bypass.

There are many non- / anti-trinitarian members who are allowed to post freely in the “Christians Only” forums. You’re the first one that I’m aware of who has been forcibly sent into exile in the “NonChristian” forums.

Have you been speaking against that which must not be spoken against in the “Christians Only“ forums? Did they ask you to desist? Did you persist when they did?

If so, then I think that’s probably the answer to your question.

You’re a guest in their house. You should be willing to abide by their house rules. If you’re not willing to do that then you shouldn’t be surprised when they ask you to leave.

P.S.

Welcome to the “NonChristian” forums. I hope that in time you come to appreciate it here as much as I do.

keithr · Aug 5, 2026

Matthias said:
Have you been speaking against that which must not be spoken against in the “Christians Only“ forums? Did they ask you to desist? Did you persist when they did?

I've not received any direct request to desist from anything, and no I've not persisted - when they had banned any discussion of the Trinity I often pointed that out to others that it was banned, to avoid digressing into a discussion of it. They then allowed discussion of it again, although they've banned disputing the Trinity - so you can't say the Trinity doctrine is wrong and they don't like it when you quote Scripture that conflicts with the Trinity! The last post in Policy Change - Topics On The Trinity Can Now Be Discussed at CyB Updated - 20/12/2024, quietly posted a year after they allowed discussion of the Trinity again, says:

The Trinity, while open to discussion, is not open to dispute, except by other faith members.

I don't recall much discussing of the Trinity in the thread "Praying to Jesus", but I can't check to remind myself because the whole thread has been deleted! Some user(s) had mentioned John 1:1, to claim that Jesus is God so it's okay to pray to Jesus, so I had posted about an alternative interpretation of John's prologue in John 1:1-5, basically a repeat of my post in the thread A Curious Question For Non-Trinitarians.

Matthias said:
You’re a guest in their house. You should be willing to abide by their house rules. If you’re not willing to do that then you shouldn’t be surprised when they ask you to leave.

They've not asked me to leave, they said:

You are welcome to remain and participate on the forum under that classification {'Other Faiths'} while abiding by the forum rules. If you do not wish to participate under that classification, you are free to discontinue your membership.

Matthias said:
Welcome to the “NonChristian” forums. I hope that in time you come to appreciate it here as much as I do.

I don't think I'll be active in this forum. Sorry! :stageright:

Wrangler · Aug 5, 2026

keithr said:
I don't understand, or approve of, banning someone from discussions just because their "beliefs are incompatible with the biblical doctrine upheld by this forum". Why shouldn't anybody be allowed to suggest different interpretations of Scripture to how you interpret it?

It's their forum and their rules.

keithr said:
This might be my last post on this forum. I'm going to sign up on another Christian forum that does allow discussion of the Trinity.

I hope it's not your last post on this forum.

Matthias · Aug 5, 2026

keithr said:
I don't think I'll be active in this forum. Sorry!

I’m sorry to hear that. NonChristians will be the poorer for it.

keithr · Aug 8, 2026

From Must you believe in the Trinity to be saved?:

As I left the Billy Graham crusade one evening, I was struck by a remarkable realization. Hundreds if not thousands were responding to the call of Dr. Graham. Yet, it seemed likely to me that most of them did not possess even a rudimentary belief in the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. As I thought about it, I rather much believed that far more did not possess such faith than did! This seemed quite extraordinary to think about being as many people insist that belief in those particular doctrines is necessary for one to be a Christian.

It is not reasonable to believe that so many people from such varied backgrounds and difficult circumstances of life would have come to faith in the mystery of the Trinity in the course of an evening. Even had they attended each night it still remained very unlikely. This is particularly the case considering that we today have a generation which largely has grown up not even attending Sunday School. How shall we imagine that such church “mysteries” as the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ would at all be grasped or believed in by many coming forward at the crusade?

As I reflected on these things, I realized something further: the matter is not related only to the inability of many to come to faith in such mysteries. It is additionally because such teachings are typically not seriously entered into in crusade messages. I recall one evening in which there was no mention at all of the divinity of Christ. How would one newly coming to receive Christ possess a faith in the doctrine of his divinity if he or she had not even heard of it?

All of this was of particular interest to me. From a child I have trusted in Christ as my Savior and wholly in the cross for the forgiveness of sins. I have always believed that he alone is the only way to God. However, as a non-traditional Christian, while I did grow up believing in the divinity of Christ, I was never taught the historical doctrine of the Trinity.

When I was a young man, I determined to have an open mind in this matter. I read a variety of books devoted to the defense of the concept of the Trinity. I also attended various lectures by capable teachers in favor of the doctrine. However, all of this only resulted in my being persuaded that the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ were developments of post-biblical Christian tradition. That is, they were “constructs” and not directly prescribed in the Bible itself. In particular, as I searched the Scriptures, I concluded that there were no examples of anyone actually coming to salvation upon a confession of faith in the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

It was that last thought which was on my mind at the crusade. Must one come to faith in those doctrines to be saved? Yet, to me the activities of the crusade itself seemed to be very convincing that large numbers of people going forward would not have possessed even an elementary belief in those traditional church doctrines.

It might be thought that conveying those concepts would fall to the many personal counselors who spoke with and assisted those who came forward. However, I learned that is not the case. Counselors were not instructed to discuss the doctrines of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ with those they counseled. I doubted that a typical counselor-volunteer could have made a coherent explanation of those doctrines.

A Non-Trinitarian Prayer of Commitment

Neither did the prayer printed for the benefit of those desiring to receive Christ contain any affirmation of those particular teachings. The prayer printed in crusade materials and distributed to the counselors reads simply as follows:

“Dear Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and I need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died for my sins. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as Lord and Savior. In Jesus’ name. Amen.”[1]

All in all, by the end of the crusade, it seemed quite clear that large numbers – if not most – of those coming forward to receive Christ had no comprehension of the doctrines of the Trinity and divinity of Christ. The prayer of commitment often prayed by those coming forward further demonstrated that they were not relying on faith in those concepts. Even if it were to be argued that people were somehow being saved by the Trinity it could not rightly be said that they were being saved through faith in the doctrine of the Trinity.

I did consider that some might later find faith in these doctrines as they would join local churches and receive baptism. But what of some who may never go to a local church? What of the person who might die before the night is out? And, even if they did later come to believe in these doctrines, that would still do nothing to resolve the essential conundrum. By evangelical standards, there were thousands of people who were being saved without possessing belief in those traditional doctrines.

If indeed believing in those doctrines is a fundamental requirement for being a Christian, then truly during the crusade we were seeing a terribly failed effort at the birthing of new Christians. I came to believe something rather different. I concluded that we were witnessing, by every evangelical standard, multitudes being saved without faith in the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

The Trinity: Evangelicals Versus the Traditional Church

We are saved by grace through faith, but faith in what? Traditional Christianity has historically gone to great lengths to assure that those desiring to become Christians are first educated in the mysteries of the church. Many catechisms have been written and duly studied by great numbers of people over the centuries. The process of such education often precedes adult baptism; expectation of eternal salvation, and entrance into the church.

Hence, in the traditional approach, the matter of coming to salvation has often required dedicated effort for days, weeks or even months.[2] A key benefit sought in such delays is that those individuals desiring to come to Christ are instructed in the church’s doctrines. Here, to the extent possible, those people will possess a faith in the doctrine of the Trinity and the mystery of the dual nature of Christ. The traditional churches are correct in recognizing that time and study is required for people to come to a faith in these difficult and often confusing doctrines.

The evangelical movement has taken a markedly different approach in this matter. In that view one need not be educated in, or even aware of, many church doctrines prior to coming forward to receive Christ. This approach largely finds its roots in the great revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries. Here, men such as Whitefield, Finney and Moody brought a new sense of urgency and simplicity to individual conversion. Now people are invited to receive Christ within days, hours or even minutes of having heard (or perhaps read) a message.

Who is right? Which approach is correct? It is not the purpose of this presentation to take up the matter of “how” people come to be in Christ. The concepts of baptism versus praying a “Sinner’s Prayer” as ways for coming to Christ are worthy of another presentation. With regard to the issues of pre-conversion time and instruction, however, those matters are immediately clear: The evangelical movement has happily recaptured the New Testament’s sense of urgency regarding people coming to Christ. A review of the proclaiming of the message as heralded in the Book of Acts indicates that extensive, methodic education of people in doctrine prior to conversion was not typical. The message found in Acts the second chapter reveals that after the preaching of the word, three thousand souls were added that day:

Those who gladly received Peter’s message were baptized, and that same day about three thousand persons were added to them. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and to the breaking of bread and prayers (Acts 2:41, 42).

(To be continued.)

keithr · Aug 8, 2026

(Continuing...)

Instruction in the word largely came in the time following people receiving Christ – not during the time leading up to conversion. This approach is found in various examples in the Book of Acts. It includes cases involving conversion of Jews, proselytes, Samaritans and a wide range of Gentiles living throughout the Hellenistic world.[3], [4]

However, with the non-traditional evangelical approach comes a problem. Being as saving faith depends on the preaching of the word,[5] then what of the word must be conveyed to hearers so that they can possess saving faith? The traditional church has often insisted that people must attain to and express a faith in the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ in order to be saved. However, those doctrines are widely admitted to be complex, often debated, and difficult for even the most devout church goers to grasp.

It is rightly recognized that to speak of the Father, and Jesus Christ, and of the Spirit of God – does not at all in itself constitute a declaration of the doctrine of the Trinity. I have met many Christians from various denominations and backgrounds whose understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not actually Trinitarian. Orthodox Trinitarianism is a unique view or “configuration” regarding Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In that view, they are seen as three co-equal, co-powerful, co-eternal “persons” and yet one God. This has proven to be an especially difficult concept for people to grasp. That is also the case regarding the doctrine of the divinity of Christ which proposes that he has a “dual nature” being both God and man at the same time.

Evangelicals have spoken by their actions! Those actions have been to evangelize the unsaved without spending pre-conversion time sufficient to educate and assure that those coming forward do indeed embrace the historical doctrines of the Trinity and dual nature of Christ. If one did an exit poll of those having come forward at the crusade, I think the results would have been rather illuminating. To speak to those people of the divinity of Christ and a dual nature would have found many people staring back blankly. Again, it is likely that many were not only unfamiliar with the word “Trinity” but also not at all aware of the various concepts which uniquely define that doctrine and without which it does not rightly exist.

For example, Christians of various backgrounds are often surprised to learn that the historical doctrine of the Trinity is at odds with their personal faith regarding Christ as the Son of God. Orthodox Trinitarianism insists that Jesus has two natures (deity and human) and that the words “Son of God” are reserved for his “deity-nature.” Complicated to even think about, both new and established Christians often find the concept of a dual nature simply confusing and not helpful to their faith. Many are unaware of the actual tenants of the doctrine. Yet other Christians are aware – but privately do not embrace them.

In direct contrast to the dual nature doctrine, we find a common tendency among many mainstream Christians to take a very different view regarding Jesus as the Son of God. In that view, they see Christ as having only one nature – that of a true human being. Here, the “man” Jesus is the begotten “Son of God.” This makes ready sense to many evangelical and traditional believers because the Bible is quite clear in saying that he was miraculously “begotten” in the virgin Mary. If this “man” was begotten by God, then this “man” is literally God’s son. I believe that “the man” Christ Jesus as “God’s Son” is in fact what the first Christians had in mind when they spoke the words “Son of God” in the New Testament.[6]

At the end of the day, must one believe in the complex dual nature doctrine to be saved? Or, can a person be saved with faith in the understanding that the “man” Christ Jesus is God’s begotten human Son? I am persuaded that the latter is in reality what is believed today by a great many church going Christians. Will evangelical or traditional Christians disavow these believers because they have not yet embraced the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ? Or, because they have believed that Jesus was the begotten “human son” of God, but not “God – the Son.”[7]

To not declare the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ to those desiring salvation is in harmony with the Scriptures. Again, Acts 2 provides an excellent example of the message as typically proclaimed by the disciples in the days after Christ was taken up into heaven.[8] The word Trinity is not used on that occasion and there is no exposition about Christ having a dual nature.[9], [10] After quoting the prophet Joel, Peter begins his discourse with these words:

“Israelites, listen to these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man accredited to you by God by miracles, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).

The apostle Peter declares Jesus as “a man attested by God.” A reading of the balance of his message finds that Peter remains on that track. The “man” Christ Jesus was: killed by sinners (v. 23), raised from the dead by God (v. 24), then glorified and seated at the right of God (vv. 32-33). Peter’s astonishing words at verse 36 then conclude his essential proclamation:

“Therefore let all of the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Clearly by any fair reading, the three thousand people who became Christians on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not heard a declaration of the Trinity or of the dual nature of Christ.[11] If three thousand people could be saved that day without being taught those doctrines, then why would it be imagined that people today would not be saved as well? The evangelical approach of not insisting on belief in those particular doctrines is correct in light of the Scriptures.

In the Bible example of Acts 2, people were coming to salvation with the faith that God had made Jesus Lord and Christ. To receive him as the one made “Lord” and made “Christ” by God was sufficient. Why would it not be the same today?

Which is Greater – Church Tradition or Grace?

We today do have a generation in which many lack even a marginal grasp of the Bible much less post-biblical Christian teachings. It is reasonable to think that the doctrine of the Trinity and the mystery of the divinity of Christ would not be grasped by many (if not most) of the thousands attending the crusade. Yet, this was I suppose, a rather typical crusade.

Further, the circumstances surrounding the crusade are played out again and again in great numbers of evangelical churches each week. People – often with no meaningful knowledge of these traditional doctrines – are invited to receive Christ. Some who come forward will not receive baptism or further instruction. Will evangelicals count them as lost if they did not possess a faith in the doctrine of the Trinity at the time they came forward? Or, will they count that the grace of God is such that they will be saved without belief in that doctrine?

What evangelical pastor or worker has viewed the eyes of a child or of a dear grandfather coming forward and will then believe that they were not saved because they had no concept of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ? Do evangelicals have the conviction of their own beliefs? They have placed great significance on Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:8: “By grace you are saved through faith….” Will they not also equally embrace his words in vs. 13? There Paul affirms: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

Should the words of the song: “Nothing but the blood of Jesus,” be changed to: “Nothing but the blood of Jesus plus your personal belief in the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ”? Shall the burden of believing confusing doctrines be placed on those who would be saved? Should there be a return to the approach of many of the traditional churches? Should it be insisted that those desiring salvation first be carefully educated regarding these church dogmas? To whom has God given permission to add belief in these particular doctrines to the requirements for acknowledging the salvation of a human being?

If it is believed that many coming forward can and are being saved without belief in those doctrines, then an important recognition must be made: It is no longer acceptable that evangelicals would define who is and is not a Christian based on whether or not he or she believes in those concepts. The Scriptures tell us that “the Lord knows those who are his” (2 Timothy 2:19). Has he given permission for church systems or even Christians themselves to supersede him with regard to that matter? What a grave sin it would be to declare people as “not” Christians when Christ has indeed received them. Will we exclude people for whom Christ died because they do not meet our requirements by embracing these particular post-biblical dogmas and church traditions?

(To be continued.)

keithr · Aug 8, 2026

(Continuing...)

Again, do evangelicals believe that the man who picks up a gospel tract on a bus or train and sincerely prays the “Sinner’s Prayer” is not yet saved because he does not possess faith in the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ? Will evangelicals disavow the very people they say are being saved by the message they are bringing? Will they disavow much in the ministries of D. L. Moody and Billy Graham?[12] Will they call into question millions of people from varied nations, cultures, languages and religious backgrounds who they say came to Christ by way of such ministries? Will pastors tell their congregations that many of them were not truly born again because they did not possess belief in these doctrines? And, will those in traditional Christian churches disallow many of their evangelical friends? Oh, that Christians would spend half as much time seeking unity in the Scriptures, as they do in disavowing one another over post-biblical church traditions!

Neither is this a matter that can be resolved by evangelical ministries paying “lip service” to these particular teachings. It does not help to have people who come forward “say” they believe them when in reality they may hardly know what is being talked about. And, very importantly, would not insistence on faith in these historical doctrines change the “center” of the evangelical message? Would it not shift that center from “the cross” to complex historical creeds and teachings?

There is no retreat on this matter! There is no going back! Will evangelicals say that the power of the cross is nullified unless people also embrace these difficult and often confusing traditional doctrines? Will they say that people will be consigned to an eternity without God because – though they trusted in Christ – they did not grasp or have belief in the doctrine of his divinity and dual nature? The question all evangelicals must ask and answer is: Do they really believe in the grace of God as they say they do? Do they believe? Do they believe in the power of the cross and the blood of Christ as they say they do? Do they believe?

If the truth be known, it is likely that millions of ordinary Christians sitting in churches each week do not comprehend – and often do not have personal faith in the traditional doctrines of the Trinity and divinity of Christ.[13] Such people have been living and dying in Christian churches for decades. Pastors have preached their funerals! Will some now say that many of them were not saved? Or will they rather say that the grace of God is forever greater than these particular doctrinal traditions? Christ will decide who is his. God forbid that we get in his way!

Conclusion

The question at the heart of this issue is: Through what faith are people saved? Are there people being saved before having faith in the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ? Or, are they saved only when they acquire such a faith? If indeed there are people being saved before such faith, then it cannot be had both ways! Will the evangelical view be that those who receive Christ without faith in those traditional doctrines are “less” saved than those who do believe them? This leads to a seemingly ludicrous– yet valid – question: Does the blood of Jesus Christ wash away fewer or lesser sins depending on belief in those particular historical dogmas?

It is not possible that belief in those doctrines rightly defines who is and is not a Christian. These complex traditional doctrines do not represent God’s line for his accepting human beings. I cannot ever remember a call for people to come to Christ in any evangelical church in which they were invited to receive the Trinity or trust in that doctrine. And, as we have seen, in light of Scriptural examples in the Book of Acts, evangelical churches are not wrong in their approach of not insisting on that faith. It is the traditional churches that are out of step with the Scriptures in that regard.

Many sincere Christians today have simply never given serious thought to these issues. Often they are propelled along in their attitudes by what is in reality church tradition. Many Christians have historically insisted that faith in these particular doctrines is required for salvation. It is a long and painful chapter in Christian history that saw multitudes of “non-orthodox” people suffering, who – while clinging to Christ – did not perceive or agree with these complex post-biblical church doctrines. Who caused them to suffer? Sorrowfully, it was other Christians! It is time for this long history of arrogance and lack of love to come to a close among evangelicals and traditional Christians

At the end of the day, will evangelicals say that those who come to receive Christ will in fact be rejected by him because they have not attained faith in these particular doctrines? I recall the children who came forward at the crusade. There were so many beautiful young lives with so much love and tenderness. I remember wondering how many of them believed in these historic – difficult – church doctrines at the time they came forward. Will Christians be so blindly devoted to church traditions that they will, in the name of those traditions, condemn and bring sorrow to other human beings who they judge to be “non-Christian” because they do not embrace these particular church dogmas?

An earlier point bears repeating: The Lord indeed knows those who are his. If it is judged that he accepts people who trust in him without having faith in the doctrine of the Trinity – who are we to oppose him? Who are we to reject those people? I myself once thought that a person must believe in the dual nature of Christ to be a Christian. But if it is judged that Christ receives children who have no concept of a dual nature – then who are we to reject anyone for not believing in that doctrine? Never Again! Other men may be wise enough – mighty enough that they can condemn and reject people because they do not believe in the deity of Christ. As for me…Never Again!!

Wrangler · Aug 8, 2026

TLTR @keithr. Perhaps the history of the evolution of the trinity doctrine would be helpful? From this website, the early church fathers - Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian and The Three Cappadocians - developed doctrines that were later deemed heretical. Excerpts:

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born Carthage, Africa. A contemporary of Origen, Tertullian was a noted theologian and an equally gifted writer. He was the first Latin Christian philosopher to coin the theological term “Trinity” and supply a formal doctrine for it.30 Tertullian’s ideas, built upon the Logos Christology of the prior century, contain many of the phrases found in the official creeds.

Yet Tertullian did not conceive of a co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential Trinity. Instead he had in mind an unequal Trinity in which God is distinct from and fully superior to the Son and Holy Spirit. For Tertullian, there was a time when the Son did not exist: “He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son.” 31

Later church councils frowned upon Tertullian’s conception of the Trinity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable.” 32 Thus the man who introduced the concept of the Trinity into theological discourse was judged heretical according to the final version of his own doctrine.

It begs the question that if Christians before Tertullian didn't know the Trinity doctrine, as we now know it, were they saved? An answer I am often given is that it was known from the beginning but not written down.

Matthias · Aug 8, 2026

@keithr do you think it is necessary for a person to be “armed, ready to kill“ in order to be a Christian / follower of Jesus?

What is your conclusion on that?

Matthias · Aug 8, 2026

Wrangler said:
TLTR @keithr. Perhaps the history of the evolution of the trinity doctrine would be helpful? From this website, the early church fathers - Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian and The Three Cappadocians - developed doctrines that were later deemed heretical. Excerpts:

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born Carthage, Africa. A contemporary of Origen, Tertullian was a noted theologian and an equally gifted writer. He was the first Latin Christian philosopher to coin the theological term “Trinity” and supply a formal doctrine for it.30 Tertullian’s ideas, built upon the Logos Christology of the prior century, contain many of the phrases found in the official creeds.

Yet Tertullian did not conceive of a co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential Trinity. Instead he had in mind an unequal Trinity in which God is distinct from and fully superior to the Son and Holy Spirit. For Tertullian, there was a time when the Son did not exist: “He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son.” 31

Later church councils frowned upon Tertullian’s conception of the Trinity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable.” 32 Thus the man who introduced the concept of the Trinity into theological discourse was judged heretical according to the final version of his own doctrine.

It begs the question that if Christians before Tertullian didn't know the Trinity doctrine, as we now know it, were they saved? An answer I am often given is that it was known from the beginning but not written down.

Do you know the owner of the website? He‘s a pacifist, and a former classmate of mine.

Matthias · Aug 8, 2026

pacifism Archives - Restitutio

restitutio.org

Listen to him @Wrangler.

Anchorite · Aug 8, 2026

Jesus did many things to signify that He was God in the flesh.

Forgiving sins, calming a storm, turning water into wine, transfiguring on a mountain, walking on water, knowing the thoughts of a person, multiplying fish and bread, healing people, raising the dead back to life, passing through a crowd that wanted to hurl Him down a cliff, rising from the dead.

While it seems strange that one God could exist as three persons, it is also strange how God created this vast, complex universe by speaking it into being.

God is beyond the human mind.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Wrangler · Aug 8, 2026

Anchorite said:
Jesus did many things to signify that He was God in the flesh.

That’s not the question of this thread.

Runningman · Aug 8, 2026

keithr said:
I've been a Christian for well over thirty years, and I am the treasurer and a trustee of the Pentecostal Christian church that I've been attending for about 32 years, but I've recently been banned from taking part in discussions in all the 'Christians Only' forums, because the CyB Team think that my "theological position" is "contrary to the historic Christian understanding of the person and nature of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture". So my understanding of Scripture is not the same as theirs, and because discussion participants can't defend from Scripture their belief in the Trinity doctrine, they resort to requesting that the people with a different understanding of Scripture are banned from posting. This doesn't seem to obeying Paul's direction in 2 Timothy 2:24-25 WEB:

(24) The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient,
(25) in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth,

So because my "doctrinal position falls outside the boundaries of the forum’s Christian Statement of Faith", my account has been moved to the "Other Faiths" membership group. I was informed by a private discussion, to which I replied, but for some reason my reply was deleted from the private discussion some days later. Hmm.

I don't understand, or approve of, banning someone from discussions just because their "beliefs are incompatible with the biblical doctrine upheld by this forum". Why shouldn't anybody be allowed to suggest different interpretations of Scripture to how you interpret it? There is only one true interpretation, and we should all be seeking to find that truth, and we should be able to defend what we believe the truth to be using the Bible - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 UASV:

(16) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
(17) so that the man of God may be fully competent, equipped for every good work.

Paul preached the simple Gospel, which he declares as - 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 WEB:

(1) Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News {Gospel} which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand,
(2) by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
(3) For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6) Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep.
(7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
(8) and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.

So to be a Christian you simply need to believe that Jesus, the Messiah (Christ), died to pay for our sins so that we may have eternal life, and that God raised Jesus to life again three days later.

Now Paul also wrote that Jesus will not return for the Church until after there has been a falling away from the truth (apostasy) - 2 Thessalonians 2:3 UASV:

(3) Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

A large part of that apostasy is the teaching of the Trinity, teaching a new Gospel different from what the Apostles taught. Paul warned, Galatians 1:6-9 WEB:

(6) I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different “good news”;
(7) and there isn’t another “good news.” Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ.
(8) But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any “good news” other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.
(9) As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any “good news” other than that which you received, let him be cursed.

But even in the early days of the Church, people started adding other requirements in order to be a Christian, e.g. Acts 15:1 WEB:

(1) Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.”

Jesus condemned the Jewish religious leaders for adding to God's Word and imposing additional requirements upon the Jews, e.g. Mark 7:6-13 WEB:

(6) He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
(7) But they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
(8) “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.”
(9) He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
(10) For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother;’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’
(11) But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God”;’
(12) then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother,
(13) making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.”

Imposing the requirement to believe in a Trinitarian doctrine that did not exist in the early Church, and was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles, is the religious leaders making the same kind of mistakes that the Jewish religious leaders made.

This might be my last post on this forum. I'm going to sign up on another Christian forum that does allow discussion of the Trinity.

Romans 10:8-9 WEB

(8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart;” that is, the word of faith, which we preach:
(9) that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 WEB

(2) preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching.
(3) For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts;
(4) and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn away to fables.

Note that the genius Sir Isaac Newton deduced that the Trinity was a false doctrine. From Google AI Overview:

Sir Isaac Newton rejected the Trinity because his rigorous scriptural analysis convinced him that God the Father is one supreme, singular deity, Jesus Christ is a subordinate created being, and the traditional Trinitarian doctrine was a deliberate fourth-century corruption of early Christian history.

Scriptural and Historical Analysis

Strict Monotheism: Newton believed that the Bible teaches absolute monotheism, identifying only the Father as the supreme "One True God".

Subordination of Christ: He viewed Jesus as the Son of God and Savior, but argued that Christ was subordinate to, created by, and entirely dependent upon the Father.

Historical Corruption: Newton concluded that 4th-century church leaders—specifically citing Bishop Athanasius—falsified historical documents and texts (such as 1 John 5:7) during the Arian controversy to invent the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea.

Implications of His Beliefs

Secret Writings: Because denying the Trinity was illegal and considered heresy in England during his lifetime, Newton kept his extensive theological manuscripts strictly private.

Evading Ordination: His unorthodox views caused him to refuse holy orders in the Church of England, a requirement for Cambridge fellows that he was uniquely granted a royal exemption to bypass.

I received the same sort of ban as you, which is a shadow ban, and it means our permissions are restricted just some of the other sub-forums. I did a search of the board, didn't see any rules that I thought we violated, so yeah.

However, I know which thread you're referring to because I posted it and it got deleted.

I don't see the fact that the bible doesn't instruct to pray to Jesus as something worth deleting. Actually, that's just a feature of the Bible. There are many things the Bible never says. With that being said, one of the other things the Bible never mentions is something we were likely getting too close for comfort to and they picked up on that and deleted the thread. It is what it is.

There are other forums that don't have any restrictions on bringing up uncomfortable truths. I will send you a message about that.

keithr · Aug 9, 2026

Wrangler said:
TLTR @keithr. Perhaps the history of the evolution of the trinity doctrine would be helpful?

Or, from the video Is God a Trinity of Persons? Definition, History & Scripture - by Sean Finnegan:

Stages of Trinitarian Development

The first person in history whoever used the term trinity as a Christian is a man named Theophilus of Antioch in the year 184. This is 150 give or take years, so a century and a half after Christ was the first time in human history that any Christian used the word, and what's interesting about Theophilus of Antioch is that his trinity was God, his Word and his Wisdom. It wasn't the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it was God, his Word and his Wisdom. So it's really not anything like the modern definition of the Trinity, not even close.

Then in the year 208 a Latin author by the name of Tertullian of Carthage wrote a book against Praxeas in which he used the word trinitas, the actual Latin word for trinity, and he did have the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as the three in his trinity. By the way, trinity just means three; like unity, divinity, trinity. That's all this word means. The question is what do you mean by the three, because you know I believe in the United States and freedom and the constitution. That doesn't mean they're all mysteriously one essence. There's the thing about Tertullian. He believed the Father was greater than the Son and the Son was greater than the Holy Spirit, and he believed that part of the substance, the stuff out of which God is made, went to make the Son. So he he's derived from the same stuff, the matter of the Father, but a smaller portion.

So this is now getting a little closer to the modern definition of the Trinity, but still definitely would be considered heresy today by Trinitarians, even though Tertullian is considered by some the father of the idea. Then we had a man named Alexander of Alexandria. He decided he was the bishop of the churches in Egypt, northern Egypt especially but probably at that point all of Egypt was basically under his diocese or jurisdiction. He decided that the Son was eternal. Tertullian believed that the Son had a beginning, that there was a time of creation for the Son. Alexander of Alexandria said no, the Son is eternal, he has always existed, and when he did that one of his pastors in his network of churches in Egypt said, "This is not how we grew up; this is not how I learned the faith. I can't go with you". That man was then not only fired from being a pastor by Alexander but he was also kicked out of the church, so that he could not attend any churches in all of Egypt, and this initiated a huge controversy that culminated in the year 325 when the emperor himself got involved and held a council called the council of Nicaea in which they decided definitively the question about whether or not the Son has a beginning, and they decided the Son is eternal, he does not have a beginning. They stamped that as their official doctrine, and secondly that the Son and the Father are of the same substance. So that's really something that came in at Nicaea, but even at Nicaea you know what we're missing - there's nothing about the Holy Spirit. In the the creed of Nicea they just said and we believe in the Holy Spirit - that's it. So we had to wait till 381 to define the Holy Spirit as being in any way on par with the Father and the Son, but even in the the the Council of Constantinople in 381, we're still lacking so much. We still don't have the word trinity in the creed, we don't have the concept of person like we have today, nor co-equal and co-eternal; none of that language is there in the year 381 yet, it's still in the process of development.

All they basically did was they took Nicea and they added to it. They said and the Holy Spirit should be worshipped. That's all they really did. They just added in that part about the Holy Spirit should be worshipped; they didn't say the Holy Spirit was God, or fully God, or co-equal or any of these other terms that we get later. It's actually not until the 500s at the earliest, the sixth century, that we get what's called the Athanasian creed, and the historians are not really sure when this creed first got written. It wasn't written by Athanasius and it's not a creed, so there you go, but that's the name that stuck and it's called the Athanasian creed. In the sixth century we finally have a fully formed doctrine of the trinity that s used today. Let's assume it was the year 530 when this creed got developed and written down. That's then 500 years after Christ until we have a clear articulation agreed upon by the church of what we would today just call the doctrine of the Trinity.

So if you have to believe in the Trinity doctrine in order to be a Christian, then for 500 years after Jesus ascended to sit at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2) there were no Christians, and all the Apostles were also not Christians. That is absurd, and I can't believe that!

keithr · Aug 9, 2026

Matthias said:
@keithr do you think it is necessary for a person to be “armed, ready to kill“ in order to be a Christian / follower of Jesus?

What is your conclusion on that?

No. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:38-48 WEB:

(38) “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’

(39) But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

(40) If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.

(41) Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

(42) Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.

(43) “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

(44) But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,

(45) that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.

(46) For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?

(47) If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?

(48) Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Matthias · Aug 9, 2026

keithr said:
No. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:38-48 WEB:

(38) “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’
(39) But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(40) If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.
(41) Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
(42) Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.
(43) “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
(44) But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,
(45) that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
(46) For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?
(47) If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?
(48) Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion.

“You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill” is a false teaching. It comes from the evil one, not from Jesus and the apostles. It has to be opposed by followers of Jesus.

Matthias · 2026-09-02T20:01:46-0500

Is “What is necessary to be a Christian?” the same question as “What must I do to be saved?” or are they distinctly different questions?

keithr · 2026-09-03T05:54:11-0500

Matthias said:
Is “What is necessary to be a Christian?” the same question as “What must I do to be saved?” or are they distinctly different questions?

It's a similar question, but I started this thread to discuss whether or not a person must believe in the Trinity in order to be a Christian. As I wrote in the opening post:

I've recently been banned from taking part in discussions in all the 'Christians Only' forums, because the CyB Team think that my "theological position" is "contrary to the historic Christian understanding of the person and nature of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture".

The administrators of the forum changed my account from the 'Christians Only' group to the 'Other Faiths' group:

Because your doctrinal position falls outside the boundaries of the forum’s Christian Statement of Faith, your account has been moved to the "Other Faiths" membership group.

So because they think that my "publicly stated beliefs are incompatible with the biblical doctrine upheld by this forum" they declared that I was not a Christian. I started this discussion to show that that is an unjust decision.

At some point after I started this discussion I noticed that they have changed my account back to having a faith of 'Christian', although I still can't participate in the 'Christians Only' forums. This makes no sense to me! This is just censorship of people who have a different understanding to you - will they be censoring the books of the New Testament next, because the Apostles' writings and the words of Jesus disagree with their Trinitarian idol creeds too!

Luke 6:22-23 WEB

(22) Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and when they shall exclude and mock you, and throw out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.

(23) Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven, for their fathers did the same thing to the prophets.

What is necessary to be a Christian?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A Non-Trinitarian Prayer of Commitment​

The Trinity: Evangelicals Versus the Traditional Church​

Well-Known Member

Which is Greater – Church Tradition or Grace?​

Well-Known Member

Conclusion​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

A Non-Trinitarian Prayer of Commitment

The Trinity: Evangelicals Versus the Traditional Church

Which is Greater – Church Tradition or Grace?

Conclusion