Do we need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?

[zoidar]

"Jesus is God's only son" - what does that mean if Jesus is not God Incarnate? It took the Christian world almost 400 years to fashion a cogent statement on the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I think it is internally consistent and consistent with the Old and New Testaments.
What is your "Nicene equivalent" statement defining 'Jesus is God's only son but is not God Incarnate?'

Good question! A mix of God and man? God's son, a different kind of man? Do you need to have a clear distinction of what it means to be God's son? Why isn't it enough to believe in the story: Mary got pregnant by the Holy Spirit, bore the son of God, who got crucified for the sins of the world and rose again from the dead?

 

[zoidar]

That is the reason for the Nicene Creed. Each line of the Creed refutes a particular heresy. It begins, "We believe in one God...". That is to counter the ancient gnostic belief in two gods, one who created invisible things such as the spirit, the other a lesser god who created all things material. The Creed continues, "the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible...". It then continues, "And in one Lord Jesus Christ...true God of true God...".

Any other profession of faith is not Christian, it is some other thing. Another heresy of some of the ancient Gnostics was that they claimed Jesus for themselves, but taught that he was only a "spirit being" with no physical body. That led to this:

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world

So to believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior isn't going to help much if you believe in the wrong Jesus. In the end, that is the reason for the Trinitarian form of baptism. A baptism not using the Trinitarian formula isn't valid. If a person is only baptized "in Jesus name" they don't really know which Jesus they are being baptized for.

How much of the Creed do we need to know to believe in the right Jesus? And are there things outside of the Creed we need to know to believe in the right Jesus?

 

[Lukaris]

How much of the Creed do we need to know to believe in the right Jesus? And are there things outside of the Creed we need to know to believe in the right Jesus?

I believe it is probably best to know that the Nicene Creed rings true when one reads, hears it etc. The other creeds, I know of, the one attributed to Athanasias & the Apostles creeds are satisfactory. These are solid Biblical creeds and were valuable in times when most people were illiterate. These were also safeguards against deceitful doctrines like the gnostics.

We also have live by faith as in the Lord’s great commandments ( Matthew 22:36-40), the golden rule ( Matthew 7:12 in light of Matthew 7:1-12), Matthew 19:16-19. Note that the Lord says the great commandments are that which the law & prophets are. The golden rule is actually a summary of the law and prophets. The Lord said He had come to fulfill the law ( Matthew 5:17-20) which St. Paul explains in Romans 13:8-10 ( note the consistency to Matthew 19:16-19). As the Lord says for us to keep His commandments ( John 14:15-18). This is salvation by grace through faith ( Ephesians 2:8-10).

Surely the Lord gives us examples of God fearing Gentiles also ( Matthew 8:5-13, Matthew 15:21-28). These are individuals though & thankfully there probably always will be such to the second coming but the Lord commanded the Great Commission.

In the earliest Church it was actually the commandments that were written articles of faith before the formation of the creeds. Probably people knew implicitly, in the Spirit, what was explicit in the creeds. Still even within scripture the apostles warned of deception ( 1 John 2:18-23 for ex) within(!) the church as opposed to various worldviews which not all are anti Christ of course ( for ex. the Hippocratic oath for doctors etc per Philippians 4:8 ). Safeguards were needed, the Bible was generally understood but also debated, most people could not read until very recently.


The surviving example of the most ancient church manual focusing mostly on the Sermon on the Mount, baptism, the Eucharist etc.

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

 

[HTacianas]

How much of the Creed do we need to know to believe in the right Jesus? And are there things outside of the Creed we need to know to believe in the right Jesus?

We have to begin with the Word of God and what that means. And I can give a glaring example of someone who did not understand that. The Word of God is the Divine Creative and Sustaining Power of God. Through His Word God the father creates and sustains all things. See John 1:

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Note that the use of by at 1:3 doesn't really capture the idea. Through is a better term for it. God the Father created all things through His Word. To say by implies that the Word created all things. See also Colossians:

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

It also has the word by, which doesn't really fit, but Col 1:16-17 shows that John and Paul both held to the same belief in the creation of all things. Note the use of through at the end of 1:16.

Now, for an example of someone getting the wrong idea about things, see Charles Russel, in effect the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He did not understand the concept of the Word of God. So to get around it, he had to change the wording of John 1 to read, "...and the word was a god". Adding to his mistake, in reading 1Thessalonians:

1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

Note that archangel is a generic word meaning chief messenger. So the Lord will return with the voice of a chief messenger. That's it. Charles Russel, on the other hand, had to find yet another way to overcome his ignorance of the meaning of the Word, so took 1 Th 4:16 to mean that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. So, the JWs don't believe in Jesus, they believe in the Archangel Michael. They have the wrong Jesus and have created on of the greatest heresies in Christian history.

 

[th1bill]

I certainly can't argue with that. But who decides which interpretation is correct? I categorize this as one of those "let God decide" things. That being said, if a pastor teaches what I believe to be nonsense, I will opt out of his church.

If you are speaking of KJV, NASB and, so on, who cares? If the Preacher is fully surrendered, the words he preaches are not his own. I fully surrendered my life and my will when I was overcome with the Ruah in 1990 and one year the Pastor was away at Christmas and I took his pulpit. I prepared for three weeks but when I prayed before teaching, Yahovah convicted me to allow Him to speak through me and the message was nothing I prepared to teach and it touch hearts that Sunday. Some Pastors are Yehovah's Mighty Men.

 

[zoidar]

We have to begin with the Word of God and what that means. And I can give a glaring example of someone who did not understand that. The Word of God is the Divine Creative and Sustaining Power of God. Through His Word God the father creates and sustains all things. See John 1:

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Note that the use of by at 1:3 doesn't really capture the idea. Through is a better term for it. God the Father created all things through His Word. To say by implies that the Word created all things. See also Colossians:

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

It also has the word by, which doesn't really fit, but Col 1:16-17 shows that John and Paul both held to the same belief in the creation of all things. Note the use of through at the end of 1:16.

Now, for an example of someone getting the wrong idea about things, see Charles Russel, in effect the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He did not understand the concept of the Word of God. So to get around it, he had to change the wording of John 1 to read, "...and the word was a god". Adding to his mistake, in reading 1Thessalonians:

1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

Note that archangel is a generic word meaning chief messenger. So the Lord will return with the voice of a chief messenger. That's it. Charles Russel, on the other hand, had to find yet another way to overcome his ignorance of the meaning of the Word, so took 1 Th 4:16 to mean that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. So, the JWs don't believe in Jesus, they believe in the Archangel Michael. They have the wrong Jesus and have created on of the greatest heresies in Christian history.

JW sadly got it all wrong. Jesus is certainly not an archangel.

 

[fhansen]

To start off I want to say I do believe in the Trinity. This thread is not here to prove the Trinity right or wrong, which I believe is against the rules of the forum anyway. The question is if we need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?

If a person trusts in Jesus for his salvation, believes Jesus paid the price for his sins on the cross, believes Jesus is God's only son, but doesn't believe Jesus was God incarnate, on what basis can we say he isn't saved?

To the extent that we love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves, we are saved. That love is a gift of grace, and a human choice that's meant to grow in us. It defines our righteousness, our justice. Faith is the doorway to it as faith is the doorway to God, to relationship/unity with Him, the source of love and life. In order to believe in, hope in, and love God we must know Him, and it's the job of the church and Scripture together with the Holy Spirit to help us do that, to help us understand the revelation of God that Christ presented to us.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

And the more we know Him, the more we love Him.

But none of us as individuals will have perfect understanding; the correctness as well as the strength of our faith always has room for growth, and is meant to grow. The importance of the concept of the Trinity mainly involves the nature of Christ. As we understand that everything He said and did is an expression of the nature and will of God, because He is God, then we can know just Who our Savior really is-and must be- and why we can trust Him absolutely. God, alone, saves.

But we can't make ourselves believe things. God covets and cherishes a basic faith in Him that leads to hope and love. We do the best we can with the help of prayer, study, and grace to better know and understand Him, but it's a very BIG topic-and He knows that. Everything in Christianity is oriented first of all to simple faith in the true God.

"Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:21

 

[notRusskiyMir]

Why isn't it enough to believe in the story: Mary got pregnant by the Holy Spirit, bore the son of God,

There are a few problems with this. Jesus is shortchanged. Pretty sure Jesus had supernatural powers (water into wine; raising Lazarus and the centurion's child, the Resurrection, etc.) Have to explain that. Encounter with Satan wouldn't mean as much. The Redemption aspect would not be very compelling. The imagery of the Crucifixion wouldn't be nearly as powerful, nor the Resurrection.
The Holy Spirit is shortchanged. Today, any number of human geneticists could do what the Holy Spirit did in your version. Why would God go to the effort of using the Holy Spirit? Couldn't He just select an Israelite for Mary in some fashion, and have a natural birth but with changes to the genetics? Would eliminate the headache of the Jews' main objection, theoretically.
The hat trick. God would be shortchanged. Again, a human geneticist could do what the Holy Spirit did. No need to make that effort. Why wouldn't God have done this sooner? Not a big deal. Makes God a slacker. There are likely other issues with your notion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Salvation isn't a theology exam.

But good confession, good theology, should be something we are receiving and abiding in; because bad theology and bad teaching is harmful to our faith.

- CryptoLutheran

 

[Grafted In]

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."

In this portion of Scripture, what is the word "that" pointing to? Is it not the word "faith?
Salvation is free and the faith to believe unto salvation also is the gift of God.
Salvation it totally, completely, in its entirety, the gift of God.
I cannot see anything in this verse that requires anything on our part to become saved. No creed, no longwinded understanding of God. These are things, In MY OPINION, that we later developed through studying His word.

 

[ARBITER01]

In the end, that is the reason for the Trinitarian form of baptism. A baptism not using the Trinitarian formula isn't valid. If a person is only baptized "in Jesus name" they don't really know which Jesus they are being baptized for.

I guess none of the apostles ever got that memo, eh?

 

[HTacianas]

I guess none of the apostles ever got that memo, eh?

People were originally baptized in Jesus' name. But then the gnostics co-opted Christ for themselves and created a "new" Jesus". So the question became, "which Jesus are you wanting to be baptized for"? Also, Jesus was a fairly common name among the Jews of the time. Read The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus. It contains an unbelievable number of men named Jesus. See the Jewish exorcists of Acts:

Act 19:13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.”

Notice they didn't merely exorcise "in the name of Jesus", but "by the Jesus whom Paul preaches". That Jesus. Not some other Jesus.

Are we to say that one receives salvation by the Mormons who baptize in Jesus name? No. That's not the Jesus of Christianity. That is some other Jesus. So to be certain, we baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. That does away with all the other Jesuses out there.

 

[ARBITER01]

People were originally baptized in Jesus' name. But then the gnostics co-opted Christ for themselves and created a "new" Jesus". So the question became, "which Jesus are you wanting to be baptized for"? Also, Jesus was a fairly common name among the Jews of the time. Read The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus. It contains an unbelievable number of men named Jesus.

That sounds good and all, but I don't buy it.

 

[HTacianas]

That sounds good and all, but I don't buy it.

It's not offered for you to buy. It simply is.

 

[ARBITER01]

It's not offered for you to buy. It simply is.

Sorry, but you are trying to sell something here. You want me to believe that what you said was fact/truth,.... and I don't buy it. I don't believe it. The reason why, is every single instance in acts where a person was water immersed and a name was used during that event, it was always in the name of Jesus.

Paul also made this statement by The Holy Spirit,..

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

With evidence like that, the way I view it is this, if it was standard procedure for our first century apostles, then anyone doing it otherwise is wrong.

 

[HTacianas]

Sorry, but you are trying to sell something here. You want me to believe that what you said was fact/truth,.... and I don't buy it. I don't believe it. The reason why, is every single instance in acts where a person was water immersed and a name was used during that event, it was always in the name of Jesus.

Paul also made this statement by The Holy Spirit,..

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

With evidence like that, the way I view it is this, if it was standard procedure for our first century apostles, then anyone doing it otherwise is wrong.

The decision to baptize in the name of the Trinity was made by the Church. And that decision was made with the authority of Christ. Jesus said to his Apostles:

Mat 18:19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.

Mat 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit ( Matthew 28:19). The Apostles baptized initially in the name of the Lord Jesus ( Acts 8:16); the Holy Spirit had to be received by the Samaritans for completion ( Acts 8:14-17). The disciples of John the Baptist sequence is close but a little different but the Holy Spirit is still the finisher ( Acts 19:1-7).

Apparently, things had to happen for the Apostles to fully follow the Lord’s command for baptism in Matthew 28:19. By the end of the first century, the Church was baptizing as the Lord said Matthew:



Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

1 Corinthians 12:13

 

[ARBITER01]

The decision to baptize in the name of the Trinity was made by the Church.

Let's make sure we have this right,.... that decision you're talking about was made by "your" church, for "your" followers.

It has nothing to do with anybody else in the body of Christ.

 

[HTacianas]

Let's make sure we have this right,.... that decision you're talking about was made by "your" church, for "your" followers.

It has nothing to do with anybody else in the body of Christ.

Actually it was made by the Church. Long before all these other groups cropped up.

 

[ARBITER01]

Actually it was made by the Church. Long before all these other groups cropped up.

Well I'm quite happy to follow the examples of our apostles from the 1st century, and I did and I have. To each his own.