Belief in the Trinity required for salvation?

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

Wavy said:
Shows how they are echad/one imo. You ignored "with God" btw. What does that mean, and what is the definition of "God" as in "with God"?

Anyway, don't combat scripture with scripture please. Yeshua said he came out from Elohim (the Father), meaning he had to be within him at first.

Also see Isaiah 49:2, where he (Yeshua) speaks in the first person about his coming.

about Him coming in the flesh .... taking on the flesh not about Him becoming God as he was already God .... you cannot be God and within God and WITH another God all at the same time....

And so therefore I should not combat Scripture with Scripture when it specifically tells us that all scripture is profitable for that purpose?????? Now that makes no sense unless I am disproving your points?

Wavy · Apr 23, 2006

debiwebi said:
When in general it can apply to God when in the speific it is still plural in sense .... therefore, it is a pluralized meaning of the word God ....

H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God
Part of Speech: noun masculine plural
A Related Word by BDB/Strongs Number: plural of H433
Same Word by TWOT Number: 93c

Notice the ones I have highlighted in red so when he was imposing it upon Moses the meaning could have been Moses was a special posession of God or doing special works of God ....

Still too when speaking in the singular usage it is plural intensive, therefore the meaning behind it although stated singularly is still that of a plurality ....

This is Brown-Driver-Briggs, a noted I might add hebrew dictionary .... using Hebrew scholars to translate the correct meaning of the Hebrew text ....

I want to say one thing first: do you have e-sword? Appears so. I have it too (if you do, of course). Nifty little tool.

Anyway, I don't get your point. Are you saying "elohim" never refers to singular persons too (such as Abraham in Genesi 23:6 -- should be easy to see if you have e-sword)?

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

thereselittleflower said:
How does debi being a Catholic limit the crediblity of her arguments?

Peace

REmember honey we are just a bunch of pagans that do not know how to use Scripture or have absolute no idea whatsover what it all means either!!!! :doh:

Wavy · Apr 23, 2006

debiwebi said:
about Him coming in the flesh .... taking on the flesh not about Him becoming God as he was already God .... you cannot be God and within God and WITH another God all at the same time....

Who said he was "becoming God"? I don't believe I said that...

Tell me this then: can you be "God" and have a God at the same time?

And so therefore I should not combat Scripture with Scripture when it specifically tells us that all scripture is profitable for that purpose?????? Now that makes no sense unless I am disproving your points?

No, you are not disproving my points, you are ignoring them. Notice you didn't tell me what the scriptures I presented meant. You ran to other scripture you think contradicts my belief, hence combatting scripture with scripture.

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

Wavy said:
I want to say one thing first: do you have e-sword? Appears so. I have it too (if you do, of course). Nifty little tool.

Anyway, I don't get your point. Are you saying "elohim" never refers to singular persons too (such as Abraham in Genesi 23:6 -- should be easy to see if you have e-sword)?

Do you mean where it says lord ........ ?????

Wavy · Apr 23, 2006

Well, thereselittleflower, she went and found those who held her beliefs to prove her beliefs.

Wavy · Apr 23, 2006

No, debi, where it says "mighty".

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

Wavy said:
Well, thereselittleflower, she went and found those who held her beliefs to prove her beliefs.

Excuse me .... hate to tell you but the fact that I and TLF are in this thread at the same time is sheer coincidence .... do not make assumptions ... it just happens to be a subject that both of us are zealous about so when we both saw the title we both entered ... hence the reason she did not come in at the same time I did .... And in case you have not noticed wavy we are more than competent apologists in our right .... although we do work well together too

don't ya think?

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

2c) works or special possessions of God

Again one of God's special posessions, that does God's Works .... Still plural intensive

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

No, you are not disproving my points, you are ignoring them. Notice you didn't tell me what the scriptures I presented meant. You ran to other scripture you think contradicts my belief, hence combatting scripture with scripture.

There is nothing wrong with this by the way since we know that Scripture does not contradict itself, therefore if one scripture directly comes out and says something and yet another says something else by implication only which is all you have given so far then the explicit overrides the implicit

thereselittleflower · Apr 23, 2006

XianJedi said:
And the Scripture that says "to reject Trinitarianism is to be condemned" is ... ?

What does the scripture say about TRUTH Xian?

We are commanded to walk in Truth, right?

Can we be saved if we ignore the commands of God?

2Jo 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

Jam 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

Jam 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jam 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

*** 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
*** 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Joh 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Can one reject TRUTH and be saved?

Is the Trinitarian doctrine true?

Peace

Wavy · Apr 23, 2006

debiwebi said:
2c) works or special possessions of God

Again one of God's special posessions, that does God's Works .... Still plural intensive

Now you are rewriting this dictionary. This definition does not say anything about special possessions that do his work. It says works or special possessions (which are objects).

And I think you have a warped view of what "plural intensive" means...

And ultimately I don't even know why you are tryng to argue me about this. That dictionary clearly outlines usages referring to singular beings...

So do you agree it can refer to singular beings or not? If so, we should be done with this. If not, you are contradicting the very dictionary you are quoting...

Wavy · Apr 23, 2006

debiwebi said:
There is nothing wrong with this by the way since we know that Scripture does not contradict itself, therefore if one scripture directly comes out and says something and yet another says something else by implication only which is all you have given so far then the explicit overrides the implicit

This still doesn't mean you aren't ignoring my points, which are valid.

And still, your understanding of what is something explicit is actually saying is in question too...

QuantaCura · Apr 23, 2006

I'm jumping in late, so I hope this hasn't been repeated, but what about this:

Titus 3:10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

This seems to say heretics are condemned, not saved. Denial of the Trinity is a major heresy. So, unless God judges you have mitigating circumstances, rejecting the Trinity will get you condemned.

thereselittleflower · Apr 23, 2006

XianJedi said:
There's no "obtuse" or "baiting" about it.

It's a simple progression of logic.

1. If one believes Trinitarianism is required for salvation, and

2. Peter's confession mentions NOTHING of Trinitarianism, and

3. Jesus says this confession is "blessed" and "the rock" of the church, then

4. This "blessed" confession, this "rock" of the church MUST, by one's belief in #1, leave someone still condemned.

It's quite simple.

Is belief in Jesus required for salvation?

What about those who have never had a chance to hear about Him?

Can they be saved?

Why or why not?

Peace

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

Wavy said:
Now you are rewriting this dictionary. This definition does not say anything about special possessions that do his work. It says works or special possessions (which are objects).

And I think you have a warped view of what "plural intensive" means...

Works are objects? huh?

works of god
or
special posessions of God

all they did was say this way

2c) works or special possessions of God

it is you that are redefining the usage here not me ....

either it is a special posession of God or a work of God and we all know that works of God are vast and that they come in all ways ....

that people themselves can be used to administer the works of God for him and be used as toold for Him .... it does not need be an object only....Unless you want to count us being the object of God's use ....

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

adding to my prior post ....

btw, Moses was already one of those used by God and called to this, so now is Abraham, and there are more to come like King David ect .... therefore it is indeed plural intensive, because at the time although it speaks of only one part of the multiple, there is still a multiple it applies to ....

Debi1967 · Apr 23, 2006

Wavy said:
This still doesn't mean you aren't ignoring my points, which are valid.

And still, your understanding of what is something explicit is actually saying is in question too...

I am not ignoring your points just because I am countering them, I am saying to you that I see your points and disagree with them and in that there is a huge difference

thereselittleflower · Apr 23, 2006

XianJedi said:
There's no "obtuse" or "baiting" about it.

It's a simple progression of logic.

1. If one believes Trinitarianism is required for salvation, and

2. Peter's confession mentions NOTHING of Trinitarianism, and

3. Jesus says this confession is "blessed" and "the rock" of the church, then

4. This "blessed" confession, this "rock" of the church MUST, by one's belief in #1, leave someone still condemned.

It's quite simple.

AHHHH . . now we get to the heart of the matter. . .

You think that the "rock" Jesus said He would build His Church on is Peter's confession . . .

The scriptures don't say that.

that is your personal interpretation 2000 years removed in time and place and at least 2, if not 3, langauges from when Jesus spoke those words and to whom.

Jesus said You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will beuild my Church.

The conjunction used there is "kai" which signifies a CONTINUATION of the SAME thought from what IMMEDIATELY preceeded it . . not what preceeded it a few sentences ago. ..

GRAMMAR, proper grammar is essential to understand this verse.

If Jesus meant something previous to Peter being named KEPHA, then the proper conjunction for Matthew to have used would have been "de" . . which, though a conjunction, signifies a CHANGE in thought, moving from one thing to another. But Jesus did not move from Peter to his confession, but was talking about PETER still.

Peter had told Jesus who Jesus was, so now Jesus was telling Peter who Peter was (or would be).

So, the conjunction "kai" means that the "kepha" that Jesus said He would build His Church on is the SAME Kepha Jesus JUST referred to . . . Peter.

So no .. it was not this limited confession Jesus said He would build His Church on.

And since this is the crux of your argument, your argument doesn't hold up.

Peace

Wavy · Apr 23, 2006

thereselittleflower said:
What does the scripture say about TRUTH Xian?

We are commanded to walk in Truth, right?

Can we be saved if we ignore the commands of God?

2Jo 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

Jam 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

Jam 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jam 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

*** 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
*** 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Joh 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Can one reject TRUTH and be saved?

Is the Trinitarian doctrine true?

Peace

I would say "no" it isn't truth , but from his perspsective, it does not matter. This is slippery slope, a named logical fallacy and therefore irrelevant as an argument.

No one knows all truth. That doesn't mean one can't be saved.

You will probably appeal to that silly argument of not believing one aspect of God means you reject the whole.

But you have actually defeated yourself thus. All trinitarians admit that they can't fully understand God anyway. Does lack of this knowledge about him keep one from being saved? No.

Belief in the Trinity required for salvation?

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Regular Member

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Regular Member

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Regular Member

Regular Member

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Rejoice always.

Well-Known Member

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads