Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Justified,

That's fine, we can leave it at that, but that does not mean he wasn't already the Son of God.

I do not know any Bible passage that states this. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. I suggest the first two of these are taught in the following:
John 1:14 (KJV): 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.

These three aspects form the heart of the Apostolic teaching of why Jesus is the Son of God, as Paul stated:
Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
There is no specific mention of your claim.

Jesus clearly thought he had pre-existed with the Father, and so did his disciples.

I have a different opinion of most of those passages.

How, exactly, is that a "contradiction and an impossibility"? You made the claim, now prove how it is the case.
Through the Holy Spirit. You provided the verse. Don't go beyond that and try to solve the mystery.

The use of the word "mystery" is designed to override any obvious contradiction and dull the senses.

Of course not. He was one person with two natures.
What about it? What should we expect if the Son came and took on human flesh through being born? That he have immediate infinite knowledge? No, we see precisely what we should expect.

Did he lose his Divine knowledge? The following speaks about his growth in wisdom and his source of instruction.
Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Isaiah 50:4–9 (KJV): 4 The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. 5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 7 For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. 8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. 9 Behold, the Lord GOD will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up.

Except that isn't what John has in view. You must keep things within the context of what John has already stated in John 1:1-13. And he makes it clear that the Son is the incarnate Word who has always existed in an interpersonal relationship with God and who is God in nature.

John 1:1 states The Word was in the beginning, not Jesus.

Of course not. There was and is only one God.

How then do you explain the word "begotten" in the following? :
John 1:14 (KJV): "the only begotten of the Father", John 1:18 (KJV): "the only begotten Son" and John 3:16 (KJV): "he gave his only begotten Son".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lambano]

How then do you explain the word "begotten" in the following? :
John 1:14 (KJV): "the only begotten of the Father", John 1:18 (KJV): "the only begotten Son" and John 3:16 (KJV): "he gave his only begotten Son".

Mistranslation. "Monogenes" comes from "monos" (only) and "genos" (kind), not "gennao" (born). It should read "unique" (literally, "one-of-a-kind"), and is translated so in modern translations. Support for "begotten" comes from citations of Psalm 2:7 by Paul in Acts 13:33 and by the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 1:5. You are my Son; today I have begotten you.

 

[Lambano]

God the Father did not beget another God.

Are you sure? How do you know?

 

[Lambano]

I do not know any Bible passage that states this. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

Philippians 2:6 indicates that Christ Jesus had the nature (literally, "form", Greek morphe) of God prior to the Incarnation. The use of the word "Father" for God in verse 11 does not seem to be restricted to Christ's incarnate form.

 

[Lambano]

Biblical understanding? To claim he had two natures is a contradiction and an impossibility.

How, exactly, is that a "contradiction and an impossibility"?

If we understand morphe (literally, "form") as "nature", Philippians 2:6-7 is claiming that Christ had the ability to change natures.

6 who, as He existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. 9 For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Justified]

I do not know any Bible passage that states this.

There are many, including:

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

How could the Son be the agent of creation if he didn't already exist? Why does the Father attribute a passage about Yahweh creating the heavens and earth to the Son, if the Son didn't actually do so, which means he would have to already be in existence? These are clear, plain statements that require no reinterpretation to say something different.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. I suggest the first two of these are taught in the following:
John 1:14 (KJV): 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.

That is to completely ignore the rest of the context of John 1:1-18.

These three aspects form the heart of the Apostolic teaching of why Jesus is the Son of God, as Paul stated:
Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
There is no specific mention of your claim.

Jesus's being declared the Son of God is not what made him the Son of God; it was for our benefit, Jew and Gentile, so that we would know that he was who he claimed to be. It was in his claiming to be the Son of God that the Jews tried twice to kill him during his ministry and the reason they finally had him crucified:

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”
Joh 19:8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid.

Luk 22:70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.”
Luk 22:71 Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.”

I have a different opinion of most of those passages.

Then your opinion isn't what the Bible states. They are very clear, plain passages. One would have to read something into them in order to make them say something different.

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
...
Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
…
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

There is simply no way to understand these other than Jesus is claiming to have pre-existed, which is the conclusion the disciples came to and why we see this throughout the NT.

 

[Justified]

The use of the word "mystery" is designed to override any obvious contradiction and dull the senses.

Again, how, exactly, is it a "contradiction and an impossibility" to "claim he had two natures"? You made the claim, now prove how it is the case.

Did he lose his Divine knowledge? The following speaks about his growth in wisdom and his source of instruction.

Again, what should we expect if the Son came and took on human flesh through being born? That he have immediate infinite knowledge?

John 1:1 states The Word was in the beginning, not Jesus.

Please pay closer attention to what I actually wrote, which was: "And he makes it clear that the Son is the incarnate Word who has always existed in an interpersonal relationship with God and who is God in nature."

Also, you need to pay much closer attention to what John wrote:

The Word was already in existence and in an interpersonal relationship with God when the beginning began, which is why John concludes that "the Word was God," that is, God in nature. He reaffirms and supports that statement in verses 2 and 3, where "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." This means the Word has always been in existence with God; there is no other conclusion that can be drawn.

Verses 4 and 5 continue to speak of the Word. Verse 9-12 also continue to speak about the Word, but careful attention must be paid to verses 10-12:

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Verse 10 affirms what was stated in verse 3--"the world was made through him"--but notice that it begins with "He was in the world." That thought continues into verses 11 and 12, where "He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God."

Clearly, those verses can only be speaking of Jesus. There is no way around it. So, while John is not saying that Jesus existed for eternity, he is saying that the eternal person who is the Word, is the one who is incarnate as Jesus. And he explains that in verse 14--"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

All that to say, the Word is the Son, who is God in nature, and became human and was given the name Jesus.

How then do you explain the word "begotten" in the following? :
John 1:14 (KJV): "the only begotten of the Father", John 1:18 (KJV): "the only begotten Son" and John 3:16 (KJV): "he gave his only begotten Son".

As has been explained already, it doesn't mean "to be born," but rather "unique," "single of its kind," "only."

 

[Justified]

If we understand morphe (literally, "form") as "nature", Philippians 2:6-7 is claiming that Christ had the ability to change natures.

6 who, as He existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. 9 For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I disagree. It's talking about adding human nature, not replacing divine nature with human nature. God cannot cease to be God.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings Lambano,

Mistranslation. "Monogenes" comes from "monos" (only) and "genos" (kind), not "gennao" (born). It should read "unique" (literally, "one-of-a-kind"), and is translated so in modern translations.

I hold the view that "only begotten" in John 1:14 is the correct translation and "one of a kind" has no substantial meaning in that context. I suggest that modern translations are trying to avoid the simple teaching and implication of what it is saying that God the Father was the father of Jesus in his conception and birth. Consider the opening of the NT which teaches the begettal of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Matthew 1:20 (KJV): But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg GK: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit.

God the Father did not beget another God.

Are you sure? How do you know?

To beget is to create. God created the human Jesus. You cannot create a God. When do you actually consider that God the Father created God the Son?

Philippians 2:6 indicates that Christ Jesus had the nature (literally, "form", Greek morphe) of God prior to the Incarnation. The use of the word "Father" for God in verse 11 does not seem to be restricted to Christ's incarnate form.

If we understand morphe (literally, "form") as "nature", Philippians 2:6-7 is claiming that Christ had the ability to change natures.

Paul uses the word "form" to indicate the mental condition of Jesus before and during his ministry. Although born the Son of God, the greatest Prince ever born, his disposition of mind was not demanding and self centred like Absalom or grasping at equality with God as did Adam, but he humbled himself and assumed the role of a servant, submitting himself to the will of God, even to the crucifixion to establish salvation. We are exhorted to have this same disposition of mind.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

Most Christians who struggle to wrap their mind around the Trinity still believe in the diety of Christ. It is the third personage of the Holy Spirit which typically causes problems for people when contemplating the Trinity. At least from my own personal experience, and that of many other believers I have met through the years. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met a believer who didn't know that Christ is Divine.

Mark...
You must be new to these Forums.
I in no way am saying that the Trinity must be understood.
What I'm saying is that it must be accepted.

You'll be meeting many so called Christians that do not believe that Jesus is divine/deity.

They believe Jesus was the Son but not God...
They believe Jesus became annointed at His baptism.

Some on this very thread do not believe Jesus is God.
Or they believe He is God,,,but Father is God and Holy Spirit is God so that makes (to them) three Gods.

I wish you were right.
If a person does not believe that Jesus is God...they should not be defining themselves as Christian.
(not to mean that they are not saved - only God knows that)

Welcome to the Forum !

 

[GodsGrace]

I disagree. It's talking about adding human nature, not replacing divine nature with human nature. God cannot cease to be God.

Jesus was divine in nature.
Jesus was human in nature.

Jesus had both a divine nature and a human nature.
The hypostatic union.

Two natures.
One Person.

You're right.

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings Lambano,

I hold the view that "only begotten" in John 1:14 is the correct translation and "one of a kind" has no substantial meaning in that context. I suggest that modern translations are trying to avoid the simple teaching and implication of what it is saying that God the Father was the father of Jesus in his conception and birth. Consider the opening of the NT which teaches the begettal of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Matthew 1:20 (KJV): But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg GK: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit.


To beget is to create. God created the human Jesus. You cannot create a God. When do you actually consider that God the Father created God the Son?


Paul uses the word "form" to indicate the mental condition of Jesus before and during his ministry. Although born the Son of God, the greatest Prince ever born, his disposition of mind was not demanding and self centred like Absalom or grasping at equality with God as did Adam, but he humbled himself and assumed the role of a servant, submitting himself to the will of God, even to the crucifixion to establish salvation. We are exhorted to have this same disposition of mind.

Kind regards
Trevor

ONLY BEGOTTEN in theology means UNIQUE.

It does not mean that God had only one baby.

God the Son was NEVER created.
He always existed.


You don't really have to understand this...
but you do have to accept it.

Or, you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.

 

[Armour of God]

You don't really have to understand this...
but you do have to accept it.

You want people to accept something they don't understand just because you say so. Wow. That's hardcore

 

[Justified]

You want people to accept something they don't understand just because you say so. Wow. That's hardcore

We should believe what the Bible says, shouldn't we, even if we don't fully understand it?

 

[soberxp]

We should believe what the Bible says, shouldn't we, even if we don't fully understand it?

Who,don't fully understand it?

 

[GodsGrace]

You want people to accept something they don't understand just because you say so. Wow. That's hardcore

LOL
You're funny.

So you think that I think that what I think is what everyone should think?

Is that what you think?

Yeah.
Not going to be able to give you a serious answer.
Mull over my reply and see what you think you could come up with.

 

[GodsGrace]

We should believe what the Bible says, shouldn't we, even if we don't fully understand it?

Thanks Justified.
Sometimes I just can't.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

ONLY BEGOTTEN in theology means UNIQUE.
It does not mean that God had only one baby.

You are redefining the phrase to fit your theology. Jesus was begotten by God his father.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:20 (KJV): But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg GK: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit.

God the Son was NEVER created.
He always existed.

There is no such entity as God the Son. Jesus was created and became the firstborn of the New Creation.
Psalm 8:1–6 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Matthew 11:25–30 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

You don't really have to understand this...
but you do have to accept it.
Or, you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.

The credentials for being a Christian is to believe the Gospel that Jesus and the Apostles taught, not what the corrupt Church taught in the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Justified]

Who,don't fully understand it?

Everyone. The Bible makes it clear that there are three divine persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--each truly God and equal in deity, but that the three persons are all distinct from each other. And all that while maintaining that there is only one God. No one can fully comprehend how that can be, yet it is biblical truth nonetheless. That Jesus is truly God is essential for salvation. That leads to the fact that he is not, nor ever has been, the Father, yet, again, there is only one God. That is ultimately incomprehensible; the finite mind cannot fully understand it.

There are any number of things we don't fully understand, such as the sinfulness of sin, God's infinite love, grace, mercy, and holiness, such that he would be willing to die in man's place, and his absolute existence. Yet we must believe those things, because the Bible says they are a true account of reality.

 

[Justified]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

You are redefining the phrase to fit your theology. Jesus was begotten by God his father.

No, monogenes really does mean "unique," "only," "one of a kind."

There is no such entity as God the Son. Jesus was created and became the firstborn of the New Creation.

Personally, I have given plenty of evidence that you ignore, that shows the Son pre-existed for all eternity, as per Jesus's own words.

The credentials for being a Christian is to believe the Gospel that Jesus and the Apostles taught, not what the corrupt Church taught in the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

What makes you think the Church was corrupt in the 3rd and 4th centuries?

To believe in Jesus, to "believe in his name," is to believe in who Jesus said he was, as the gospels record, and in his atoning work:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
...
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

That Jesus was both truly man and truly God was taught in the second century onward, outside of the Bible that is. In other words, it has always been taught.