Belief in the Trinity required for salvation?

[HypnoToad]

What is one then?

Just how many times do I have to present the same examples over and over? I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall. Just how many times do things such as "Modalism" and "Oneness Pentecostals" have to be mentioned before people acknowledge they've been mentioned?

XianJedi . . if one does not believe Jesus is God, then what?

Perhaps more tricky, but as already pointed out, the thief on the cross was never shown to acknowledge Jesus as God, only as his "lord".

"because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Rom.10:9. No mention of believing Jesus is God.

"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”" - Matt.16:15 -19.

Should there be an amemdment at the end where Jesus said, "but you're still going to hell because you didn't say I am God"? Peter's "blessed" confession only mentions Jesus to be the son of God, not God. Yet Jesus says this is the "rock" of the church. Are we to believe this "rock" will still leave people condemned?

 

[Wavy]

dw, I understand, like most scholars that 1 John 5:7 as you present it is a latter [false] addition to what was originally written.

And nice try, linssue55, but that's not necessarily true. And your "proof" is not really "proof" at all. Just your interpretation.

 

[HypnoToad]

Is Truth necessary for salvation?



Peace

It's "true" that the sky is typically blue. Is believing that necessary for salvation?

 

[HypnoToad]

No. It means that we leave it up to God. It is the same as saying that perhaps someone who has never heard the Gospel can be saved if God wills it, but that doesn't mean that we believe that belief in Christ is unnecessary for salvation.

Who's talking about "belief in Christ"?

The topic is "belief in Trinitarianism".

 

[HypnoToad]

The doctrine of the Trinity also claims that the Lord is One.

So do people like Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals.

 

[Wavy]

thereselittleflower, that is the poorest explanation I have seen from you yet.

The context nor the text itself supports your position. He calls each false deity the goddess/god (all "elohim") of other nations. He does not say they had become the elohim of the Jews or that they replaced him as the elohim of the Jews. Yet another example of superimposition in order to support a preconcieved doctrine..

 

[Debi1967]

It's "true" that the sky is typically blue. Is believing that necessary for salvation?

this is a strawman argumentation, used to deflect away from the real argument

Now we are not talking about the sky here we are talking about God and who He is.... In this there is a big difference because as it has been said to reject any part of God would mean you reject the whole ....

Same question to you xian, do you believe in the TRinity Doctrine that linssue has so nicely posted in this thread?

 

[Wavy]

Should there be an amemdment at the end where Jesus said, "but you're still going to hell because you didn't say I am God"?

This made me lol!!!

 

[HypnoToad]

It is appropriate for God to refer to Moses as "elohim" for Moses is GOD TO Pharoah.

God has made Moses His representative in all things to Pharoah, and so this makes Moses God in God's stead. . this is what God is saying.
God is a plurality of persons, so it is appropriate to refer to Moses as Elohim, God, a plurality of persons, in this manner for this purpose.

It reinforces our understanding of WHO God is and how He sent Moses to fully represent Him.

Being God's representative doesn't suddenly make Moses have multiple persons. Did Moses suddenly become truine because he spoke for God?

The SAME TERM "elohim" is used to refer to SINGULAR persons (Moses) as well as multiple. Therefore, the term "elohim" by itself can NOT be used to say "oh, this means a plurality of persons". Otherwise, it could not be used to refer to Moses.

 

[Wavy]

Now we are not talking about the sky here we are talking about God and who He is.... In this there is a big difference because as it has been said to reject any part of God would mean you reject the whole ....

There is a different between rejection and not seeing or understanding something. Also, this assumes your version of "god" must be true. Begging the question.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Just how many times do I have to present the same examples over and over? I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall. Just how many times do things such as "Modalism" and "Oneness Pentecostals" have to be mentioned before people acknowledge they've been mentioned?

How do you know they are saved?

Perhaps more tricky, but as already pointed out, the thief on the cross was never shown to acknowledge Jesus as God, only as his "lord".

And?

You do not seem to be understanding what I have said . .

I have tried to explain there is two types of ignorance.

One is invincible ignorance . . this is ignorance that we are unable to overcome.

We are not held accountable for ignorance we are able to overcome.

The other is vincible ignorance . . . this is ignorance that we ARE able to overcome.

If we choose to remain in VINCIBLE ignorance, we will be held accountable for it.

To choose to remain in VINCIBLE ignorance is the same as knowing something is true and willfully rejecting it, because one is WILLFULLY rejecting the OPPORTUNITIES to overcome their ignorance.

One who willfully remains in VINCIBLE ignorance has rejcted TRUTH.

Jesus is Truth. If one willfully rejects TRUTH, one has willfully rejected CHRIST . . .


Can one be saved if one willfully rejects CHIRST?


No.


So there is your answer.

The question isn't is one modalist or oneness . . .the question is is one modalist or oneness because of invincible ignorance, or because they have chosen to remain in VINCIBLE ignorance?

"because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Rom.10:9. No mention of believing Jesus is God.

And this is done through the act of Water Baptism

I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . ..

Confession of faith has always preceded this, the act of Batpism one's internal belief put into action which becomes saving belief, for even the demons believe.

Internal belief is never sufficient.

"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”" - Matt.16:15 -19.

Should there be an amemdment at the end where Jesus said, "but you're still going to hell because you didn't say I am God"? Peter's "blessed" confession only mentions Jesus to be the son of God, not God. Yet Jesus says this is the "rock" of the church. Are we to believe this "rock" will still leave people condemned?

You have missed the point entirely.



Peace

 

[HypnoToad]

1Jo 5:7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
1Jo 5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

Yes, and textual studies indicate (as is now known by most scholars) that the portion "who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." was not in the original.

 

[HypnoToad]

this is a strawman argumentation, used to deflect away from the real argument

Now we are not talking about the sky here we are talking about God and who He is.... In this there is a big difference because as it has been said to reject any part of God would mean you reject the whole ....

It's not a strawman.

It was asked (quite vaguely) "is truth necessary for salvation?"

'Yes' or 'No' - was my statement true?

'Yes' or 'No' - is that truth required for salvation?

The obvious answers leave us to only one conclusion - there is truth that is relevent to salvation, and there is truth that is NOT relevent to salvation. It has yet to be demonstrated how Trinitarianism is one of the "relevent" truths.

Same question to you xian, do you believe in the TRinity Doctrine that linssue has so nicely posted in this thread?

And, once again, what I believe is irrelevent to the topic.

 

[thereselittleflower]

thereselittleflower, that is the poorest explanation I have seen from you yet.

The context nor the text itself supports your position. He calls each false deity the goddess/god (all "elohim") of other nations. He does not say they had become the elohim of the Jews or that they replaced him as the elohim of the Jews. Yet another example of superimposition in order to support a preconcieved doctrine..

You are entitled to your own opinoin of course.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, and textual studies indicate (as is now known by most scholars) that the portion "who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." was not in the original.

Are you saying this is not part of God's inspired scripture?



Peace

 

[Debi1967]

dw, I understand, like most scholars that 1 John 5:7 as you present it is a latter [false] addition to what was originally written.

And nice try, linssue55, but that's not necessarily true. And your "proof" is not really "proof" at all. Just your interpretation.

prove it wavy....

And it still then says that the Holy Spirit and the water and blood are one so there forefore even if you take the verses again take out the first "and they are one" place it back onto context with the other context it still reads the same .... and it has always capitalized THREE ...

1Jo 5:7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.
1Jo 5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

Both sets of three and therefore when it says and these three are one ..... it still applies to the above referenced verse as well ....

In Johanine argument which is what you are using .... it is simply that they believed that it was entered in later because they throught John meant that ... But this too has been easily refuted

However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism; to him the authentic decisions of all Roman Congregations are guiding signs in the use of the Sacred Scripture, which the Church and only the Church has given to him as the Word of God. He cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum may not with safety (tuto) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though his approval was not in forma specifica, as was Pius X's approval of the Decree "Lamentabili", all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree. (See "Revue Biblique", 1898, p. 149; and Pesch, "Prælectiones Dogmaticæ", II, 250.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm#III

IOWs it has been canonized as thus ... approved for use and therefore is Scriptural

 

[thereselittleflower]

It's "true" that the sky is typically blue. Is believing that necessary for salvation?

I think you know exactly what I meant.

Let's keep things within their proper context, OK?


We ar speaking of Divine revealed TRUTH.


Now please, if you would be so kind, answer the quesiton:

Is Truth necessary for salvation?​

Peace​

 

[Debi1967]

It's not a strawman.

It was asked (quite vaguely) "is truth necessary for salvation?"

'Yes' or 'No' - was my statement true?

'Yes' or 'No' - is that truth required for salvation?

The obvious answers leave us to only one conclusion - there is truth that is relevent to salvation, and there is truth that is NOT relevent to salvation. It has yet to be demonstrated how Trinitarianism is one of the "relevent" truths.

And, once again, what I believe is irrelevent to the topic.

Now you are avoiding my questions why is that, I have answered yours and to the best of my ability too I might add .... So again I am wondering why you hedge on answering a question asked .... Since you obviously know who I am and that I am Catholic and since we know only that you are Protestant and that can cover a multitude of things it helps the other posters here to be able to better understand what theology you are coming from to better address you .... espeically in a theological conversation where you seeemingly are denying the existence of the trinty ....

 

[Wavy]

You are entitled to your own opinoin of course.

Peace

Not opinion. Fact based on the plain reading of the text. He calls each individual deity an elohim of other nations, not a replacement of the true Elohim of the Jews.

In addition (can't believe I overlooked this) you have commited a serious anachronistic fallacy.

In its historical context, the Jews would not have understood "Elohim" to be a plurality of persons anyway, so how can they have tried to substitute an Elohim of plural persons with other elohim (assuming your definition is correct)?

...

...

...

...think about it...

...

...

...


...Exactly.

 

[HypnoToad]

How do you know [Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals] are saved?

I never said that was something I knew.

It has been presented that those who deny the Trinity deny that Jesus is God or that Jesus is the Savior. The example of Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals demonstrates that that is a false argument. There are those who DO believe Jesus is the Savior and who DO believe that Jesus is God, but are NOT Trinitarian. My question is are those people then going to hell?

Can one be saved if one willfully rejects CHIRST?

No.

So there is your answer.

Again, this is IRRELEVENT. We are NOT talking about rejection of Christ, we are talking about rejection of Trinitarianism. They are NOT THE SAME THING!

And this is done through the act of Water Baptism

I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . ..

Confession of faith has always preceded this, the act of Batpism one's internal belief put into action which becomes saving belief, for even the demons believe.

And Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals believe in that baptism as well.

You have missed the point entirely.

How? There is no confession in Peter's statement about Jesus being God. No confession of Trinitarianism. Peter's confession, you must believe then, is one that leaves someone condemned.