Can non-Trinitarians be saved?

1an said:

Substitute Trinity for Saviour. Deny the Saviour and you are out. Accept the Saviour and you have the Triune God. If you do not want a fate worse than death, you have no other choice.

Click to expand...

But who do you mean by accepting the Saviour?

I was born again as a child at least 10 years before anyone gave me the gospel story. I knew nothing about Jesus dying on the cross.

Looking back to my childhood, I surrendered to the God of creation, which as it turns out was also Jesus who died for me.

Francis Drake said:

But who do you mean by accepting the Saviour?

I was born again as a child at least 10 years before anyone gave me the gospel story. I knew nothing about Jesus dying on the cross.

Looking back to my childhood, I surrendered to the God of creation, which as it turns out was also Jesus who died for me.

Click to expand...

The Saviour of the world is Jesus.

Andrewn said:

You assume that God requires from an adult the same thing he requires from a 10-year-old (or someone with the mentality of a 10-year-old). You've repeated this in so many posts. This is a logical fallacy! Everyone has different talents.

Click to expand...

We are saved not by works, but by faith, the same as Moses, Abraham et. al.

Andrewn said:

Information is "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things."

Click to expand...

Provided they are not taken out of context. I usually put people on ignore who do that, just saying.

1an said:

The Saviour of the world is Jesus.

Click to expand...

You're missing my point.
When I was born again, I rejected the church, including Jesus for a long time!

Andrewn said:

You assume that God requires from an adult the same thing he requires from a 10-year-old (or someone with the intelligence of a 10-year-old). You've repeated this in so many posts. This is a logical fallacy! Everyone has different talents.

Click to expand...

Do you understand what a logical fallacy is?

Yes I have repeated it many times because people like you lot seem oblivious to the simplicity of new birth, and are determined to complicate it.

Jesus made it clear that there is no difference whether adult or child when it comes to being born again.

Matt18v 2And having summoned a child, He set it in their midst, 3and said, “Truly I say to you, if you are not converted and become as the little children, you shall never enter into the kingdom of the heavens. 4Therefore whoever will humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens.

And if you think that talents have anything to do with it, you are in for a shock!

Saint Steven said:

Congratulations, you found the word "doctrine" in the archaic KJV.
Did it tell you what "the doctrine of Christ" is?
Again, how are such things measured?

2 John 9 NIV
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

Click to expand...

The Greek is διδαχή, which is simply "teaching." The two dictionaries I checked both said it is teaching or instruction. It's the word normally used in the Gospels for Jesus' teaching, and in this context surely refers to Jesus' teachings as a whole.

One problem with the KJV is that words have changed. Before discussing the meaning of the KJV you really need to look up what words meant when it was written. Merriam-Webster says for doctrine, "archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION". So the KJV quite likely means the same thing here as the modern translations.

hedrick said:

The Greek is διδαχή, which is simply "teaching." The two dictionaries I checked both said it is teaching or instruction. It's the word normally used in the Gospels for Jesus' teaching, and in this context surely refers to Jesus' teachings as a whole.

One problem with the KJV is that words have changed. Before discussing the meaning of the KJV you really need to look up what words meant when it was written. Merriam-Webster says for doctrine, "archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION". So the KJV quite likely means the same thing here as the modern translations.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.
Can you weigh in on this question?

Does a person need to have the "correct" doctrine to be saved?

Or, as pertains to this topic specifically...
Does a person need to be a Trinitarian to be saved?
(if you haven't answered that already)

Saint Steven said:

Does a person need to have the "correct" doctrine to be saved?

Or, as pertains to this topic specifically...
Does a person need to be a Trinitarian to be saved?
(if you haven't answered that already)

Click to expand...

Of course not. Both Jesus and Paul seemed to see the difference to be what I'd call an orientation. Jesus spoke of followers, and "sinners." Paul spoke of faith. Both, I think, speak of a person's basic direction. Not perfection. (Jesus used "sinner" to indicate an orientation. In a more literal sense we're all sinners, but that's not what he meant.)

Jesus used a child as his example of someone with the right orientation. Probably because children, when in proper families (which too many are not) instinctively trust their parents and want to be like them. None of this suggests that salvation is about holding the right beliefs.

Beliefs can matter. If you think the world is run by a vindictive God, you can develop into a person who hates everyone around you. There can also be political implications. So errors can cause problems. But I see no evidence in the NT that denying the Trinity damns anyone unless it results in the kind of person who is opposed to Christ’s teaching.

When I look at forums such as Christian Advice I see lots of people whose lives are close to ruined by theological errors, although I hope that they are not actually damned. I see in the world as a whole many religions and philosophies that I think place their members at great risk. Some of these, unfortunately, are Christian and even Trinitarian. I think theology is important, and spend a lot of time thinking and writing about it. But that doesn’t mean that God throws people with erroneous beliefs into hell.

To my knowledge, the NT passages about belief are really talking about faith, and faith should be understood in the Pauline sense of trust in God and commitment to God’s purposes, not in an abstract intellectual sense.

If you’re read my posting on this topic, you’ll know that I don’t even think one has to be a Christian. I think Christ was the Logos made flesh. But the Logos has worked in other ways, e.g. inspiring the prophets. In Rom 2 Paul implies that the Law (one form of the Logos, in Jewish understanding) was sometimes implanted in the hearts of even pagans. So I think when the Bible says that salvation comes only through Christ, it is including these various forms in which the Logos works. Abraham surely didn’t believe in three hypostases with one ousia, and likely didn’t even understand the distinction between Father and Son, although all three Persons were surely at work with him.

Andrewn said:

Would you give examples, plz?

Click to expand...

To do so would likely violate CF rules, and would certainly be seen by many of the posters as personal attack. But surely you've noticed the many people who are being tortured by worries that God has condemned them. In many cases their postings parallel Luther's experience. In a number I think the sins they're tortured by aren't even sins (e.g. masturbation, and things that CF won't allow me to mention).

The impression I get from postings in CF is that in many churches "They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them."

1an said:

You cannot understand how the creator came to be with his creation?

Click to expand...

Weren't you accusing me of heckling?

Saint Steven said: ↑
That may be one of the best defenses as to why being a Trinitarian is not a requirement for salvation.

The idea of the Trinity is as unexplainable as it is incomprehensible. How could we make such a thing a requirement?

We could imagine St. Peter at the Pearly Gates asking for your definition of the Trinity before allowing admission. (answer correctly, otherwise you're toast) - lol

Francis Drake said:

You're missing my point.
When I was born again, I rejected the church, including Jesus for a long time!

Click to expand...

You can still come back like the prodigal son.

Saint Steven said:

Weren't you accusing me of heckling?

Saint Steven said: ↑
That may be one of the best defenses as to why being a Trinitarian is not a requirement for salvation.

The idea of the Trinity is as unexplainable as it is incomprehensible. How could we make such a thing a requirement?

We could imagine St. Peter at the Pearly Gates asking for your definition of the Trinity before allowing admission. (answer correctly, otherwise you're toast) - lol

Click to expand...

Please say something worthwhile or I shall put you on ignore.

1an said:

You can still come back like the prodigal son.

Click to expand...

I hope this was meant to be a joke, otherwise it shows you are so fixated by your own dogma that you can't even read what is written before you.

When I was born again as a child, I knew I had arrived at a place of eternal safety.
Why would I then need to 'come back like the prodigal', when I'd actually never left.

I was immediately hidden in Christ, even though I knew nothing of who he was or what he did on the cross! I discovered all that about ten years later.

Francis Drake said:

I hope this was meant to be a joke, otherwise it shows you are so fixated by your own dogma that you can't even read what is written before you.

When I was born again as a child, I knew I had arrived at a place of eternal safety.
Why would I then need to 'come back like the prodigal', when I'd actually never left.

I was immediately hidden in Christ, even though I knew nothing of who he was or what he did on the cross! I discovered all that about ten years later.

Click to expand...

You said you went astray and then came back later. That is like the Prodigal Son is it not.

1an said:

You said you went astray and then came back later. That is like the Prodigal Son is it not.

Click to expand...

This is what I said in post No388, which you misread, and nowhere does it say I went astray.

"You're missing my point.
When I was born again, I rejected the church, including Jesus for a long time!"

Take note, my being born again had nothing to do with the church or their stories of Jesus, as neither had featured in my awakening to God.
I met the Lord alone in my bedroom as an ignorant child. I never spoke to anyone, but just got on with my childhood completely oblivious of the cross.

When it came up, I rejected the church and Jesus because in my understanding, they were meaningless in my relationship with God