• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is the Trinity an essential doctrine?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tommiegrant

Active Member
Nov 20, 2005
125
8
55
Atoka, TN
✟295.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To answer your question ther is one God , what I have alluded to is a regular occurance in the Hebrew form of writting by using the plural as a form of majasty.
As to Old testament references how about Is.11:12 or Is. 61:1 these are just 2 that pop in mind but here are others throughout he Psalms. How about some New Testament passage that I can call to mind. for example John 14:23-26
[size=+1] 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. 25 " These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Or how about 2nd Cor. 13:14
[/size][size=+1] The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit [be] with you all. Amen.
Just a few need more.
In Christ, Tom
[/size]
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Then the better question might be, not if the Trinity is essential, but why the Trinity is essential.
Or perhaps more precisely, is the Christian conception of Trinity essentially different that that of, say that of Hinduism, or are they speaking of the same divine truth?

Not to deny that this is an historical development to our understanding of the Divine, with cross-cultural influences, but does not our Christian understanding of God as Trinity not fundamentally remain true to the Hebrew Tradition?

And other than the concept of "3", do not all attempts to synchronize the Christian Trinity with any other seem forced?
Are not the similarities between Shiva and Yaweh, or Krishna and Christ, superficial after all?

I would say that the the doctrine of Trinity is essential then, not because it reveals that the nature of God is triune, but because a relationship with the Three Persons of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as they relate to ourselves, and to each other, is essential for the salvation of our world.
 
Reactions: 5stringJeff
Upvote 0

urnotme

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2005
2,276
26
✟2,580.00
Faith
Nazarene
gopjeff said:
Greetings,

Just a quick question that I wanted to get other people's take on: Is belief in the Trinitarian nature of God an essential Christian doctrine?

I will post my answer a little later, I just wanted to know what others think.
It has been since nicea but I don't think it should be because the bible is subject to a wide variiety of interpretations. You don't have to believe it you just have to say you do. http://www.igs.net/~tonyc/trinity.html
 
Upvote 0

davidoffinland

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
575
30
85
finland
✟15,843.00
Faith
Lutheran
 
Upvote 0

Diane_Windsor

Senior Contributor
Jun 29, 2004
10,163
495
✟35,407.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
gopjeff said:
Greetings,

Greetings

gopjeff said:
Just a quick question that I wanted to get other people's take on: Is belief in the Trinitarian nature of God an essential Christian doctrine?

I will let Scripture speak for itself:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

Acts 16:30-31 (AV)

As for Church Councils, and the differing interpretations of Scripture-they are neither infallible nor are they binding.

Diane
 
Upvote 0

lightoflife

New Member
Jan 21, 2006
2
0
34
✟22,612.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Yes, it is a essential doctrine. It is for many reasons but one main one:The Deity of Christ. Whitout the Holy Trinity we as christians would be polythestic.(which we are not)
Do you know why? Because many verses show that Jesus is God(This would make two gods). Therefore, if there was no Trinity this would seperate the Godhead.Our God is a Trinity, this means there are three persons in one God, not three gods. The persons are known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and they have all always existed as three separate persons.
 
Upvote 0

davidoffinland

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
575
30
85
finland
✟15,843.00
Faith
Lutheran
From Finland.

This was sent to me. It may interest you in a Semitic focus.


Shalom


Having experience in the Greek & Russian Orthodox Churches the trinity is three persons and they mystieriously are one. This is one of the many reasons I left them. The idea is also shown by a icon that has three angels sitting at a table, which is suppose to be a visual aid of the trinity. There is a quote from a Jewish believer Andrew Roth who for me really sums this up and this is exactly how I believe on this as well. If I may quote him:

++++++++++++++++
Let us start this section with the basics:
Hear O Israel, YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one.
Deuteronomy 6:4
Now most Jews probably will just stop here in their thinking, and rightly so, when hearing about Trinity.
Let's be real: Three is not one, okay? Deal with and move on with your life. As the Greek text reads, or at
the very least, how it has traditionally been understood, the Trinity refer to three distinct and separate
persons of Elohim the Father, Elohim the Son and Elohim the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the three divine
persons are said to be equal, so the formula is:
Elohim the Father = Elohim the Son = Elohim the Holy Spirit
And they wonder why we roll our eyes! Those are THREE GODS!
Christians will counter though, "But they each have a different purpose", and my response is, "Okay, and
Zeus was the king, Hermes the messenger, and Poseidon the master of the sea. They each had a different
purpose too, didn't they?"
However, if they are really smart, they will look at Deuteronomy 6:4 with fresh eyes and say, "The word
for "one" is echad (dxa), and that can mean a unity of aspects. If Elohim was exclusively singular, it
would say yachid (dyxy) which can only mean one."
My answer: Yes and no.
Echad (dxa) does in fact have a compound singularity in it, such as having one synagogue with a hundred
people inside. However, the situation is more complicated than Christians would like to believe. The fact
is yachid is a very rare word, and in Hebrew, the number one is echad, so it also refers to things that are
exclusively singular.
Although, that does not mean that Christians are entirely wrong in using echad as a pointer to the Godhead.
Great Jewish rabbis, sages and mystics have been doing just that for centuries.
However, the difference that learned Jews understand that Christians do not is the reason behind Elohim
being echad. It is not so much as Elohim being divided into distinct persons as it is pointing to the fact that
Elohim is infinite. 1 Kings 8:27 relates this fact very clearly. Not even the uttermost reaches of the
heavens can contain Him. Therefore, we must say echad, because while He is One, the number one cannot
contain Him either. Infinity is greater than one!
On the other hand, is it entirely correct for conventional Jews to completely confine themselves to
Deuteronomy 6:4 in this matter? By no means, because:
By the Word of YHWH the Heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth, all their host.
Psalm 33:6
But a shoot will grow out of the stump of Jesse. A twig shall sprout from his stock. The Spirit of
YHWH shall alight upon him: A spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit
of devotion and reverence for YHWH.
Isaiah 11:1-2
"Listen to Me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am He--I am the first, and I am the last as
well. My own hand founded the earth. My right hand spread out the skies."
Isaiah 48:12
So here we have the Spirit of YHWH sending several spirits also from YHWH to alight on a man and the
Word of YHWH doing creation but--wait a minute--Isaiah says Elohim did that alone! What's going on?
The answer is simple. Once again, Elohim is One, and Infinity includes everything. That is why Trinity is
wrong, because it reduces Elohim to the level of His aspects, or the signs of His Infinity.
Now, in the century before the birth of Messiah, it is very much the case that Judaism was an incredibly
diverse and variegated phenomenon, with deep disagreements on just about every major issue. This
plurality of belief is not only mentioned in detail by the first century historian Josephus (Antiquities
18.1.2.) and in the New Testament itself with regards to messianic expectations, (Matthew 16:13-14), but it
also permeates just about every aspect of what we know about life in Israel during that period. Even so,
and of course acknowledging deep differences in opinion on the identity and power of Messiah, Torah just
before the dawn of the Common Era paints a different picture of the Godhead. Instead of three persons, the
infinite Elohim has spirits or aspects, and it is these aspects, imbued with His one divine nature, that
manifest themselves in various ways. This is echad (dxa), not Trinity.
After the advent of Messiah however, the Nazarenes (Acts 24:12-14), or Jewish believers who led the
movement during its first fifty years, revised this picture slightly. To them, the Word of YHWH (davar in
the Hebrew of Psalm 33:6) became the Arm of YHWH, or Messiah, (Isaiah 53:1). It is the Arm of
YHWH's job to save both flesh and souls, (Exodus 6:6). Additionally, the "spirit of counsel" mentioned in
Isaiah 11:1-2, was linked to the Holy Spirit that David prayed about, (Psalm 51:11), again the main point
being they all came from Elohim and share in the one divine nature.
++++++++++++

+++++++
Just like approaching the presence of God, there are some things that we do not have the tools to acheive, even if we take great stock in our capacity to embrace new ideas and concepts. The nature of God cannot be dissected or analyzed in an imperical fashion.
+++++++
That is so, very true. Yet, countless many try to do so.

This is just my humble two cents.


Shalom Aleikhem
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
davidoffinland said:
Furthermore, the three divine
persons are said to be equal, so the formula is:
Elohim the Father = Elohim the Son = Elohim the Holy Spirit
And they wonder why we roll our eyes! Those are THREE GODS!

And then we have to stop the discussion right here, because 'three gods' is not the Christian concept of the Trinity. As long as that idea is in your head, you are not discussing the Trininty.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
tommiegrant said:
Very simply YES! Without the doctrin of the Trinity we have a huge mess that makes no sense what so ever. Tom

hmmm, the first 3 centuries the disciples of Yeshua had no such mess.
but, reading a lot of similar posts, it is obvious to see that a lot, a whole
lot of stuff not originally thought true has been added to the religious pattern.
according to several posts of tri. acceptors themselves, the doctrine of
the tri. wasn't even in place until after the 3rd or 4th century - by which
time the faithful martyrs had been driven into hiding by the government,
by both secular and religious leaders intent on consolidating power.
how come the history of the true believers isn't taught???(another thread?)

so, check out the origin, the beginning of this doct. before you decide for
yourself if it is even true, let alone necessary.
(previous posts show the scripture verses that show it is not necessary,
and on other websites is revealed if it is true or not, the history thereof)
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Some where at or about 390 AD, Augustine wrote this concrening the "trinity."

They who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God, or not very God, or not with the Father the One and only God, or not truly immortal because changeable, are proved wrong by the most plain and unanimous voice of divine testimonies; as, for instance, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." For it is plain that we are to take the Word of God to be the only Son of God, of whom it is afterwards said, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," on account of that birth of His incarnation, which was wrought in time of the Virgin. But herein is declared, not only that He is God, but also that He is of the same substance with the Father; because, after saying, "And the Word was God," it is said also, "The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." Not simply "all things;" but only all things that were made, that is; the whole creature. From which it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom all things were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and all that is not creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then He is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by Him; but "all things were made by Him," therefore He is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so He is not only God, but also very God. And the same John most expressly affirms this in his epistle: "For we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given usan understanding, that we may know the trueGod, and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."
10. Hence also it follows by consequence, that the Apostle Paul did not say, "Who alone has immortality," of the Father merely; but of the One and only God, which is the Trinity itself. For that which is itself eternal life is not mortal according to any changeableness; and hence the Son of God, because "He is Eternal Life," is also Himself understood with the Father, where it is said, "Who only hath immortality." For we, too, are made partakers of this eternal life, and become, in our own measure, immortal. But the eternal life itself, of which we are made partakers, is one thing; we ourselves, who, by partaking of it, shall live eternally, are another. For if He had said, "Whom in His own time the Father will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality;" not even so would it be necessarily understood that the Son is excluded. For neither has the Son separated the Father from Himself, because He Himself, speaking elsewhere with the voice of wisdom (for He Himself is the Wisdom of God), says, "I alone compassed the circuit of heaven." And therefore so much the more is it not necessary that the words, "Who hath immortality," should be understood of the Father alone, omitting the Son; when they are said thus: "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: whom in His own time He will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen." In which words neither is the Father specially named, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; but the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; that is, the One and only and true God, the Trinity itself.
11. But perhaps what follows may interfere with this meaning; because it is said, "Whom no man hath seen, nor can see:" although this may also be taken as belonging to Christ according to His divinity, which the Jews did not see, who yet saw and crucified Him in the flesh; whereas His divinity can in no wise be seen by human sight, but is seen with that sight with which they who see are no longer men, but beyond men. Rightly, therefore, is God Himself, the Trinity, understood to be the "blessed and only Potentate," who "shows the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in His own time." For the words, "Who only hath immortality," are said in the same way as it is said, "Who only doeth wondrous things." And I should be glad to know of whom they take these words to be said. If only of the Father, how then is that true which the Son Himself says, "For what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise?" Is there any, among wonderful works, more wonderful than to raise up and quicken the dead? Yet the same Son saith, "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will." How, then, does the Father alone "do wondrous things," when these words allow us to understand neither the Father only, nor the Son only, but assuredly the one only true God, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
12. Also, when the same apostle says, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him," who can doubt that he speaks of all things which are created; as does John, when he says, "All things were made by Him"? I ask, therefore, of whom he speaks in another place: "For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." For if of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so as to assign each clause severally to each person: of Him, that is to say, of the Father; through Him, that is to say, through the Son; in Him, that is to say, in the Holy Spirit,-it is manifest that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, inasmuch as the words continue in the singular number, "To whom be glory for ever." For at the beginning of the passage he does not say, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge" of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, but "of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" "How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." But if they will have this to be understood only of the Father, then in what way are all things by the Father, as is said here; and all things by the Son, as where it is said to the Corinthians, "And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," and as in the Gospel of John, "All things were made by Him?" For if some things were made by the Father, and some by the Son, then all things were not made by the Father, nor all things by the Son; but if all things were made by the Father, and all things by the Son, then the same things were made by the Father and by the Son. The Son, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the working of the Father and the Son is indivisible. Because if the Father made even the Son, whom certainly the Son Himself did not make, then all things were not made by the Son; but all things were made by the Son: therefore He Himself was not made, that with the Father He might make all things that were made. And the apostle has not refrained from using the very word itself, but has said most expressly, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God;" using here the name of God specially of the Father; as elsewhere, "But the head of Christ is God."
13. Similar evidence has been collected also concerning the Holy Spirit, of which those who have discussed the subject before ourselves have most fully availed themselves, that He too is God, and not a creature. But if not a creature, then not only God (for men likewise are called gods ), but also very God; and therefore absolutely equal with the Father and the Son, and in the unity of the Trinity consubstantial and co-eternal. But that the Holy Spirit is not a creature is made quite plain by that passage above all others, where we are commanded not to serve the creature, but the Creator; not in the sense in which we are commanded to "serve" one another by love, which is in Greek douleuein, but in that in which God alone is served, which is in Greek latreuein. From whence they are called idolaters who tender that service to images which is due to God. For it is this service concerning which it is said, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." For this is found also more distinctly in the Greek Scriptures, which have latreuseij. Now if we are forbidden to serve the creature with such a service, seeing that it is written, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (and hence, too, the apostle repudiates those who worship and serve the creature more than the Creator), then assuredly the Holy Spirit is not a creature, to whom such a service is paid by all the saints; as says the apostle, "For we are the circumcision, which serve the Spirit of God," which is in the Greek latreuontej. For even most Latin copies also have it thus, "We who serve the Spirit of God;" but all Greek ones, or almost all, have it so. Although in some Latin copies we find, not "We worship the Spirit of God," but, "We worship God in the Spirit." But let those who err in this case, and refuse to give up to the more weighty authority, tell us whether they find this text also varied in the mss.: "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God?" Yet what can be more senseless or more profane, than that any one should dare to say that the members of Christ are the temple of one who, in their opinion, is a creature inferior to Christ? For the apostle says in another place, "Your bodies are members of Christ." But if the members of Christ are also the temple of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is not a creature; because we must needs owe to Him, of whom our body is the temple, that service wherewith God only is to be served, which in Greek is called latreia. And accordingly the apostle says, "Therefore glorify God in your body."

- On the Trinity;
Chapter 6.-That the Son is Very God, of the Same Substance with the Father. Not Only the Father, But the Trinity, is Affirmed to Be Immortal. All Things are Not from the Father Alone, But Also from the Son. That the Holy Spirit is Very God, Equal with the Father and the Son.

While I don't agree with everything he taught, just like a stopped clock is right twice a day, Augustine did get this right.
 
Upvote 0

depthdeception

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,863
151
44
✟4,804.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married

Are you talking about the "Scripture" which the trinitarian-church codified and passed onto you? How convenient that you feel you can ignore everything they say...
 
Upvote 0
D

Dmckay

Guest
It depends on what you are asking. Is it essential for salvation? No, absolutely not. Paul preached Christ and Him crucified. Most Christians don't have an understanding of most doctrines at the time that they become believers. Is it essential for Spiritual growth? then the answer would have to be yes. You can only trust someone as far as you know them. Since faith and spiritual growth depends on our knowledge and understanding of G-d, His existence, attributes and G-dhead, then really knowing G-d would require belief and acceptance of the triune G-dhead.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.