Is believing in the trinity necessary to be a christian?

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

So... I did not hear the name of the Spirit yet, did I?

So... I did not hear the name of the Spirit yet, did I?

The names you so glibly refer to are in-fact "descriptive in nature" and aren't a name per-say i.e. a noun

Having said that when referring to God the Spirit, he is named amongst other names - as indicated above - "HOLY" to differentiate himself from other spirit(s).

Isn't it strange that God often uses descriptive names/tiles to express and reveal himself through out HIS word. {sarcasm off}.

 

[aspen]

throwing out the foundational, definitive doctrine of the true nature of God as a Trinity is another way of believing in universalism.

it is also about as reductionistic and meaningless as bishop spongs idea of removing theism from christianity. What's next? dehydrated water?

there does come a point when you remove all identifying markers........

 

[Groundzero]

throwing out the foundational, definitive doctrine of the true nature of God as a Trinity is another way of believing in universalism.

it is also about as reductionistic and meaningless as bishop spongs idea of removing theism from christianity. What's next? dehydrated water?

there does come a point when you remove all identifying markers........

Or would could just believe the extremely simple message of the Bible - that God is ONE, indivisible, and that He fused himself into a body of flesh to save us . . . .

 

[aspen]

I suppose, if you wanted to be a Modalist

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I suppose, if you wanted to be a Modalist

That is a incessant mischaracterization used by Trinitarians. One doesn't have to be a modalist to state what ZH did.

 

[aspen]

besides being the very definition of Modalism?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

besides being the very definition of Modalism?

Modalism is a floating term that trinitarians have used to denigrate anything that resembles oneness. Traditionally, it refers to the doctrine that teaches GOD has three faces, or modes, that he reveals to mankind at different times depending upon his whim. Whether that is what Sabellius actually taught, I don't think we know because modalism has been defined pretty much by the enemies of what Sabellius taught.

Trinitarians have morphed this 3-faced doctrine to mean other things as well in order to leverage the church's rejection of modalism as heresy.

I don't believe ZH believes in modalism as described above; I certainly don't.

 

[aspen]

If God manifested himself as a human being on Earth and then the Holy Spirit after God returned to Heaven - what would you call your theology? I do not accept the term 'Biblical' to describe it, btw.

 

[Groundzero]

Modalism is a floating term that trinitarians have used to denigrate anything that resembles oneness. Traditionally, it refers to the doctrine that teaches GOD has three faces, or modes, that he reveals to mankind at different times depending upon his whim. Whether that is what Sabellius actually taught, I don't think we know because modalism has been defined pretty much by the enemies of what Sabellius taught.

Trinitarians have morphed this 3-faced doctrine to mean other things as well in order to leverage the church's rejection of modalism as heresy.

I don't believe ZH believes in modalism as described above; I certainly don't.

Thank you. Spot on. And good point about not knowing exactly what he believed, since most of it was defined by his enemies.

If God manifested himself as a human being on Earth and then the Holy Spirit after God returned to Heaven - what would you call your theology? I do not accept the term 'Biblical' to describe it, btw.

When God was manifesting himself on earth, AT THE SAME TIME, He was STILL the OMNIPRESENT Spirit that FILLED every corner of this universe. So what's your problem? That God is omnipotent and omnipresent?

And it doesn't matter how you look at it, if you 'make' Jesus God in the Trinity (which already doesn't make sense), we have the same scenario. God is omnipresent. If God the Son is co-equal god, then he's omnipresent, even when manifest in flesh on earth. I really don't think you find ANY of this in the Scripture!

(about the Trinity that is)

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

The prophecy in the Old Testament says that the Son (Jesus) who is to be born is God.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

AMEN TO THAT!

 

[williemac]

Thank you. Spot on. And good point about not knowing exactly what he believed, since most of it was defined by his enemies.





And it doesn't matter how you look at it, if you 'make' Jesus God in the Trinity (which already doesn't make sense), we have the same scenario. God is omnipresent. If God the Son is co-equal god, then he's omnipresent, even when manifest in flesh on earth. I really don't think you find ANY of this in the Scripture!


(about the Trinity that is)

The reasoning here concerning the Son is merely an opinion that shows a possible lack of comprehension concerning the trinity. Jesus was not omnipresent while on earth. We know that. But this does not negate His equality with the Father in essence and divinity. Isa.9:6 says what it says. There was nothing that was made that was not made without Jesus. All things were created by Him, for Him, and through Him. In the beginning was the word. He was with God. He was God. One is not required to comprehend it in order to apprehend it. It says what it says. We often get in over our head by our analyzing.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

The reasoning here concerning the Son is merely an opinion that shows a possible lack of comprehension concerning the trinity. Jesus was not omnipresent while on earth. We know that. But this does not negate His equality with the Father in essence and divinity. Isa.9:6 says what it says. There was nothing that was made that was not made without Jesus. All things were created by Him, for Him, and through Him. In the beginning was the word. He was with God. He was God. One is not required to comprehend it in order to apprehend it. It says what it says. We often get in over our head by our analyzing.

Excellent point(s)!

 

[domenic]

Good question. It's hard to tell, as I imagine they all have similar but distinct reasons. However, I tend Good to think - in regards to some denominations- it's a power play. That's, don't agree with every article of faith and you can't be a christian, nor can you attend this church. Of course raising the question of the trinity in early church history was to ward off the gnostic heretics, and deliver a systematic theology in regards to the Godhead.

Personally I believe the concept of a trinity is totally irrelevant. The central question to Christianity is as Jesus himself asked "who do the people say I AM?". By the way this was the the initial reason for the above.

As I think it has already been alluded too, once you delve into the scripture one cannot but help notice that the word addresses God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. but to come up with a formula, I think, is a personal and subjective point of view.

Such things ought NOT to be thrust forth as a central tenet of Christianity. Rather, if one doesn't know and understand properly that Jesus is GOD in the flesh from get go & repent, then no matter what one 'may' understand about the mysteries of the Godhead, one is still lost in their sins.

IMO I don’t think the issue of the trinity is irrelevant. If the trinity is not true, it would be giving glory to Jesus the son, rather than God.

 

[Warrior]

It is Necessary, Why? Because we must understand that each person in the trinity is God. for God is the greatest ever, so God is needed for important roles.

Think of it this way, The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is both.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

It is Necessary, Why? Because we must understand that each person in the trinity is God. for God is the greatest ever, so God is needed for important roles.

Think of it this way, The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is both.

Do you mean that Jesus is the Holy spirit?

IMO I don’t think the issue of the trinity is irrelevant. If the trinity is not true, it would be giving glory to Jesus the son, rather than God.

I think the bottom line is that God is undeniably revealed through the Father, Son and Holy spirit. Whether you call this a trinity or not is irrelevant and this is what I mean by it.

 

[Thereisbutonetrueking]

I don't believe so as I believe a righteous atheist already knows God.

 

[aspen]

God wants to be in relationship with us. He is work for the redemption of humanity. The way you guys are presenting the gospel looks like God is actively trying to weed people out like medical school.

 

[domenic]

Completely understanding the Trinity has never been the issue.

The critical part is if someone denies that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh .

To deny the divinity of Christ is probably the most serious rejection and insult made toward both God and His Son

So as long as we do not reject God as the Son , Spirit , & Father we are OK , even though it is hard for our minds to full grasp how "the three are one" (trinity)

I’m going to agree with you on every point of the trinity…after you explain a few things to me. Please remember. I’m the dimmest person on this forum.
God, or should I call him Jesus? He came to Earth as a human. God, who came aka Jesus, said a few things that would put him in line with a con man. Tons of double talk as I see it. What kind of a God is he, pretending to be a different person?
If Jesus is God, why didn’t he come as God?
I’m still with you…Jesus is God theory thing.
Here are a few things Jesus, aka God, aka the Father said;
The Father is greater than I?…he is greater than himself?
Do not pray to me, but to the Father through me?… Do not pray to me, but to me?
Jesus, prayed to the father, who is God, aka Jesus?… Praying to himself?
I have not yet ascended to my Father? …ascended to himself?
Father forgive them for they know not what they do? …self, forgive them?
Father, why have you forsaken me?…Self, why have you forsaken yourself?
In just these few things, he is talking to, or about himself?
I know he said, The Father and I are one. When two people marry, they are one flesh. 3,000 people were baptized, and Jesus, aka God, aka the father said, Let these be one with me, as I am one with you?
I know I’m not a smart person…but am I the only one who sees they can’t be the same person? IMO, to say Jesus, aka God, aka the Father are the same person, takes all the power, and glory away from God, who is the Father, and giving it to the Son, who was the first born of all creation.
Either somebody is blind to the truth, or my head is stuck so far up my butt, I can see the back of my teeth.
But I’m still open to listen.