Belief in the Trinity required for salvation?

[Debi1967]

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!

Yes they are!... I guess you do not understand something there is ONLY ONE GOD that exists in three persons, one essence .... therefore YES if you deny any part of the TRUE GOD then You REJECT ALL OF THE TRUE GOD

 

[Debi1967]

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.

Stop trying to get us to break the commandment of God to no condemnation please .... it is enough!

It is not what we believe and we have explained what we believe severl times over, at this point it is MHO you are either deliberately being obtuse or out and out baiting ....

Either way it is the Lord's Job to Judge not yours not ours and you will evoke from us that type of condemnation

 

[HypnoToad]

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​

Fine, it is part of Divine Truth that the Ark of the Covenant was 2 1/2 cubits long (Ex.25:10). Is belief in that required for salvation?

 

[Wavy]

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

This is not proof or a true refutation, this is dogma. Seeing as how you are Catholic, this also limits the credibility of the argument. The major exception to this being a latter, false addition is the CC.

And, more than just "and these three are one" was added to the text.

But let's pretend that's not true. You said the "these three are one" at the end of 5:8 would include the first set of three as well. Not so. "And these three" would have referred back to only the Spirit/water/blood. Your position is not supported by the Greek.

 

[HypnoToad]

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

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Go here:
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Lookup 1 John 5:7, and read the notes on that verse (footnote #27).

 

[Debi1967]

Fine, it is part of Divine Truth that the Ark of the Covenant was 2 1/2 cubits long (Ex.25:10). Is belief in that required for salvation?

No that is part of Inspired Truth Given to Us by the Divine .... Not the Set of Divine Truths we know about God himself ....

 

[Debi1967]

This is not proof or a true refutation, this is dogma. Seeing as how you are Catholic, this also limits the credibility of the argument. The major exception to this being a latter, false addition is the CC.

And, more than just "and these three are one" was added to the text.

But let's pretend that's not true. You said the "these three are one" at the end of 5:8 would include the first set of three as well. Not so. "And these three" would have referred back to only the Spirit/water/blood. Your position is not supported by the Greek.

Wavy you do not even accept the Greek NT so why are arguing with me about it?

 

[Debi1967]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Go here:
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Lookup 1 John 5:7, and read the notes on that verse (footnote #27).

The johanine argument has been used over the cenuries does not make it true either, just makes it an argument of theology ....

 

[HypnoToad]

Now you are avoiding my questions why is that,

Because my belief in the Trinity or lack thereof is irrelevent to the topic.

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 ....

Where have I denied the existence of the Trinity? What I have denied is the requirement of Trinitarianism for salvation. And I'm still waiting for the proof from Scripture to the contrary.

 

[Wavy]

Wavy you do not even accept the Greek NT so why are arguing with me about it?

Ad hominem. Who says I do not accept the Greek NT?

 

[HypnoToad]

Yes they are!... . therefore YES if you deny any part of the TRUE GOD then You REJECT ALL OF THE TRUE GOD

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

 

[Debi1967]

Because my belief in the Trinity or lack thereof is irrelevent to the topic.


Where have I denied the existence of the Trinity? What I have denied is the requirement of Trinitarianism for salvation. And I'm still waiting for the proof from Scripture to the contrary.

It has already been given where is any of yours proving it is not .... therefore making it totally relevant the question I ask .... considering you keep talking of modalism and ONENESS PENTECOSTALS, then one might assume that you are trying to defend their position and with good cause .... At least wavy when asked this question was nice enough to give a direct answer to the question at hand..... What is you Faith?

 

[Debi1967]

Ad hominem. Who says I do not accept the Greek NT?

that was not an ad hominem wavy, that was presenting to you the facts that most that do not accept the TRINITY and carry the Messianic icon are what?

Now if you accept the NT then I would heavily suggest that you read the Letter to the HEBREWS .....

 

[HypnoToad]

Stop trying to get us to break the commandment of God to no condemnation please .... it is enough!

It is not what we believe and we have explained what we believe severl times over, at this point it is MHO you are either deliberately being obtuse or out and out baiting ....

Either way it is the Lord's Job to Judge not yours not ours and you will evoke from us that type of condemnation

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.

 

[Wavy]

that was not an ad hominem wavy, that was presenting to you the facts that most that do not accept the TRINITY and carry the Messianic icon are what?

Now if you accept the NT then I would heavily suggest that you read the Letter to the HEBREWS .....

This was confusing, but are you saying most who hold a more Hebraic view of the scriptures don't accept the Greek NT? Was it a hasty generalization then?

My understanding of the book of Hebrews is irrelevant to this topic also...

 

[Debi1967]

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.

Where in the Bible does it say it is Peter's confession that the Church is built upon? First you have to prove that.... that is was a confession and not upon Simon of Barjona, renamed Peter, in English Or in the Greek .... Stone, rock

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
G4074
Πέτρος
Petros
pet'-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock.( the corner stone)

G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet'-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock. (the female, conotation hence the reason we call the the Church HER, and the WHOLE)

 

[HypnoToad]

It has already been given

Where? Which post was that Scripture presented in?

where is any of yours proving it is not ....

I've already given you Paul's statement in Romans and Peter's confession.

therefore making it totally relevant the question I ask .... considering you keep talking of modalism and ONENESS PENTECOSTALS, then one might assume that you are trying to defend their position and with good cause .... At least wavy when asked this question was nice enough to give a direct answer to the question at hand..... What is you Faith?

How does that make it relevent??

 

[HypnoToad]

Where in the Bible does it say it is Peter's confession that the Church is built upon? First you have to prove that.... that is was a confession and not upon Simon of Barjona, renamed Peter, in English Or in the Greek .... Stone, rock

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It doesn't matter whehter it's the confession or Peter.

It is this confession that leads into Jesus' statement. Now, would Jesus have really said what he did, if Peter's words still left him condemned?

 

[Melethiel]

No.

Hm. Okay then - I'm just trying to understand your view here. I've noticed that you say that the Father and the Spirit are the same entity. How does Christ fit into this equation?

 

[Debi1967]

I've already given you Paul's statement in Romans and Peter's confession.

You mean after he is already an Apostle Already a Bishop and already Head of the Church? HUH? And you are saying this is what the whole of the Church is laid on when Christ said otherwise????????????