Can You Be a Christian and Deny the Trinity?

[redleghunter]

From Grace to You Ministries:

I would answer, "No." If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you don’t understand who God is. You may say the word “God” but you don’t understand His nature. Second, you couldn’t possibly understand who Christ is—that He is God in human flesh. The Incarnation of Christ is an essential component of the biblical gospel, as John 1:1-14 and many other biblical passages make clear. To deny the Trinity is to deny the Incarnation. And to deny the Incarnation is to wrongly understand the true gospel.

In saying that, I realize that such an answer is going to not only impact people that you may have witnessed to (like Mormons), but it also applies to some in the broader Pentecostal movement, called United Pentecostals or "Jesus-Only" Pentecostals. Such individuals hold to a kind of modalism, where God is sometimes in the mode of the Father or the mode of the Son or the mode of the Spirit, but He’s never all three at the same time. That too is a deficient and heretical view of the Trinity. It denies the distinct Personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The same question sometimes arises about the virgin birth. I think it is possible for a person to become a Christian before learning about the details of the virgin birth, though that person would certainly assume that Jesus Christ must have had a unique birth since He is both God and man. But, if someone knows about the virgin birth and says, “I deny the virgin birth,” then he is simultaneously denying the deity of Christ, and also the Trinity. Such a person betrays the fact that they do not understand the gospel, and therefore cannot have truly been saved.
Can You Be a Christian and Deny the Trinity?​

 

[redleghunter]

For background information:

 

[public hermit]

Do you suppose MacArthur would argue that those Christians prior to Nicaea were exempt out of ignorance?

 

[redleghunter]

Do you suppose MacArthur would argue that those Christians prior to Nicaea were exempt out of ignorance?

The church councils confirmed "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

 

[public hermit]

The church councils confirmed "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Right, so by that a Christian is one by faith in Christ who is proclaimed and not belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Accordingly, MacArthur is wrong.

 

[redleghunter]

Right, so by that a Christian is one by faith in Christ who is proclaimed and not belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Accordingly, MacArthur is wrong.

The doctrines from the councils confirmed the true Nature and Person of Jesus Christ, God the Son.

 

[dzheremi]

Nicene/Niceno-Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism is the only theology that is accepted as orthodox in the entire history of the Christian Church (prior to any schisms). There were, of course, other theologies out there, but they were not accepted, and are not acceptable.

It's not a matter of who learned what when, but of who upheld the already-established faith and who did not. Read, e.g., HH St. Athansius the Apostolic's letters to Serapion, wherein he answers Serapion's doubts concerning the Holy Trinity (the Holy Spirit in particular). These begin c. 361 AD, so they are post-Nicene but pre-Constantinoplitan, and still express the same faith that would be once again confirmed at Constantinople in 381 AD, significantly after the departure of HH himself (373 AD).

 

[public hermit]

The doctrines from the councils confirmed the true Nature and Person of Jesus Christ, God the Son.

Surely there were Christians before it was confirmed by council that God is one essence and three hypostases. MacArthur argues that anyone who denies to Trinity cannot truly be saved because they don't understand the nature of God, and thus don't understand the gospel. Now, it stands to reason that there were Christians prior to the councils who did not understand the nature of God, as it is defined by the councils. Were they, then, not truly saved or would he have to make an exception for them?

I doubt he would argue that they were not truly saved. If he has any sense, he wouldn't argue that only those prior to the councils who, nonetheless, understood what the councils would later confirm were the only ones saved. That kind of argument would not only be ad hoc, but it would border on absurdity. So, he must allow an exception for them. But, if he allows an exception for them, then what saved them? Surely, not their lack of knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, what is essential to salvation cannot be belief in the Trinity as it was confirmed at the councils.

 

[Noxot]

To deny God is to deny salvation. The Holy Spirit proseeds from both the father and the son because he is the union of the first two persons. You see, in order for a perfect Unity the two must be fully separate and yet completely United. that is why reality is summed up in the primordial reality of the trinity. Perfect love must eternally unite and yet not destroy any. When a husband and a wife have been married for a long time they are in some ways as one person and yet they do not lose themselves.

And so salvation is the image of the trinity. just because Orthodox might be more traditionalistic than even the Catholic church... it does not mean that they are always right. Time and time again Jesus was battling with the religious of his day. What makes these prideful religious people think they did not fall into the same pit? You trust your councils of men more than you trust the Holy Spirit. You put your faith in The Works of your own hands just like Israel did.

 

[redleghunter]

Surely there were Christians before it was confirmed by council that God is one essence and three hypostases. MacArthur argues that anyone who denies to Trinity cannot truly be saved because they don't understand the nature of God, and thus don't understand the gospel. Now, it stands to reason that there were Christians prior to the councils who did not understand the nature of God, as it is defined by the councils. Were they, then, not truly saved or would he have to make an exemption for them?

I doubt he would argue that they were not truly saved. If he has any sense, he wouldn't argue that only those prior to the councils who, nonetheless, understood what the councils would later confirm were the only ones saved. That kind of argument would not only be ad hoc, but it would border on absurdity. So, he must allow an exemption for them. But, if he allows an exemption for them, then what saved them? Surely, not their lack of knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, what is essential to salvation cannot be belief in the Trinity as it was confirmed at the councils.

In the second century even St Irenaeus argued in his Against Heresies that even the barbarians who do not know how to read and write understand the faith once delivered unto the saints.

 

[redleghunter]

What makes these prideful religious people think they did not fall into the same pit?

What leads you to believe these people were prideful?

 

[Albion]

Right, so by that a Christian is one by faith in Christ who is proclaimed and not belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Accordingly, MacArthur is wrong.

I don't think so.

While it may be argued that the exact nature of the Holy Spirit was in doubt among the first Christians, even though the Scriptures are amply clear about his nature...

...it was NOT the case that the early church doubted either the divinity of Christ or the Father. In other words, to say this:

Right, so by that a Christian is one by faith in Christ who is proclaimed....

is to deny more than the Triune nature of God.

 

[public hermit]

In the second century even St Irenaeus argued in his Against Heresies that even the barbarians who do not know how to read and write understand the faith once delivered unto the saints.

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity. I also understand that from the earliest there were understandings very close to what was eventually confirmed by council, e.g. Justin Martyr. What I doubt is that the proclamation of the earliest Christians was the Trinity. We know what it was: Christ crucified, died and arose three days later. What I doubt is that those earliest Christians all had a robust understanding of the Trinity; therefore, I doubt it is what is essential to salvation. And that seems to be the argument that MacArthur is making, it is essential. I think his argument is too strong.

Maybe one response to my question that MacArthur could give is that denying the Trinity is not the same as affirming what one does not yet know. He seems to make a similar argument in his article concerning a new Christian who does not yet know of the virgin birth. But, again, if he makes that concession then one has to ask, "Is it essential?"

 

[Noxot]

What leads you to believe these people were prideful?

Their strict adherence to Authority and the lack of humility to listen to their brothers. but who is without sin? seeing that the Catholic Church ended up murdering some of your people when you called for them to help you in Constantinople against the Muslims. But the two-headed eagle is a beautiful symbol. I wish it would have worked out better for them in the past.

 

[public hermit]

it was NOT the case that the early church doubted either the divinity of Christ or the Father.

I did not say they denied either the humanity of Christ nor his divinity. I am saying they did not necessarily have the robust understanding of the Trinity that was confirmed by council.

 

[redleghunter]

Their strict adherence to Authority and the lack of humility to listen to their brothers. but who is without sin? seeing that the Catholic Church ended up murdering some of your people when you called for them to help you in Constantinople against the Muslims. But the two-headed eagle is a beautiful symbol. I wish it would have worked out better for them in the past.

I'm not Orthodox. I'm Reformed Baptist.

 

[Albion]

I did not say they denied either the humanity of Christ nor his divinity. I am saying they did not necessarily have the robust understanding of the Trinity that was confirmed by council.

Then you may want to correct this sentence that you wrote earlier. It certainly does not look like it's saying anything about God the Father, let alone affirm either the divine or human nature of Christ.

Right, so by that a Christian is one by faith in Christ who is proclaimed and not belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Noxot]

The Barbarians knew God because they were full of the Holy Spirit and did good. The Barbarians are called what they are called because they are a simple people not skilled in knowledge. They confessed Christ in spirit and in truth rather than just with their lips. it does not mean that they understood the academic doctrines developing about the trinity or the hidden knowledge Jesus passed down to the disciples.

 

[Albion]

The Barbarians knew God because they were full of the Holy Spirit and did good. The Barbarians are called what they are called because they are a simple people not skilled in knowledge.

They're called Barbarians because they spoke a language that the Romans did not understand and thought it sounded funny, as though they were just making sounds (bar bar, etc.)

 

[redleghunter]

I did not say they denied either the humanity of Christ nor his divinity. I am saying they did not necessarily have the robust understanding of the Trinity that was confirmed by council.

Yet every born again Christian prays to the Father, in the Spirit, in the Name of Jesus Christ as the apostles taught. (John 14:13 ; Ephesians 6:18 ; Matthew 6:9).

We are baptized in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19)

The NT testifies we are sanctified by God the Father, Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit:

“Sanctified by God the Father.”— Jude 1
“Sanctified in Christ Jesus.” — 1 Corinthians 1:2
“Through sanctification of the Spirit.” — 1 Peter 1:2

Do you believe that was enough for a common elder or pastor to teach to their churches?