Can one hold to non Biblical views on the Trinity and yet be saved?

[JamesL]

or is it if you miss the very nature of God, have a fake One?

For Oneness pentacostals, and those holding to Modualism do not have real God, correct?

I think maybe some clarification is in order. In my estimation, the word "nature" denotes substance.

In case that wasn't clear, let me use a few examples to better demonstrate how I understand "nature"

The nature or substance of water is hydrogen and oxygen.

The nature of plywood is wood and glue

The nature of a ball bearing is metal

And since the scriptures teach that the "substance" of God is Spirit, then what does nature have to with Trinity? Now, all I am doing is asking for clarification of one word.


Kenneth Copeland believes that God is a Spirit being with a body, who is about 9 feet tall. But He affirms a 3-in-1 Trinity of coequal Persons. How this would work, I cannot pretend to know

I would consider that he has missed the nature of God, but affirms the Trinity as described in the creeds.

So, I would surmise that someone can affirm what is considered a "biblical" Trinity, yet also miss on the nature of God. I don't see "nature" as necessarily corresponding to any concept of Trinity. It is possible that the two can be mutually exclusive

So can you clarify exactly what you're asking ?

 

[kyredneck]

"Let not conscience make you linger,
Not of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness He requireth
Is to feel your need of Him."

COME, YE SINNERS, POOR AND NEEDY

That song sounds more Old Regular than Primitive! That was the invitation hymn [Southern Baptist} the day I joined the local Church!

"Joseph Hart (1712 – May 24, 1768) was an 18th-century Calvinist minister in London. His works include "Hart's Hymns", a much-loved hymn book amongst evangelical Christians throughout its lifetime of over 200 years, which includes the well-known hymn, "Come ye sinners, poor and needy" ....."

Don't know if Hart was Anglican or Methodist, he was converted by George Whitefield and the song does appear in Methodist hymnals.

It's called 'I Will Arise and Go to Jesus' in the Old School Hymnal used by a lot of Primitive Baptist churches.

Invitation hymn? Lol, the first time I was ever in a Primitive Baptist church they sang 'Just As I Am' during the normal song service. Blew my mind.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think maybe some clarification is in order. In my estimation, the word "nature" denotes substance.

In case that wasn't clear, let me use a few examples to better demonstrate how I understand "nature"

The nature or substance of water is hydrogen and oxygen.

The nature of plywood is wood and glue

The nature of a ball bearing is metal

And since the scriptures teach that the "substance" of God is Spirit, then what does nature have to with Trinity? Now, all I am doing is asking for clarification of one word.


Kenneth Copeland believes that God is a Spirit being with a body, who is about 9 feet tall. But He affirms a 3-in-1 Trinity of coequal Persons. How this would work, I cannot pretend to know

I would consider that he has missed the nature of God, but affirms the Trinity as described in the creeds.

So, I would surmise that someone can affirm what is considered a "biblical" Trinity, yet also miss on the nature of God. I don't see "nature" as necessarily corresponding to any concept of Trinity. It is possible that the two can be mutually exclusive

So can you clarify exactly what you're asking ?

IF you hold to say Modualism, and believe that there is ONLY Onbe being known as God, who manifested himself as Father/Son/Spirit in history, but NOT as 3 seperate persons, just SAME person each time, how can you have a bilical God, how can THAT God actually save you?

And if , as Oneness do, see jesus ALONE as father/son/spirit, denying there are 3 seperate persons, how can TAHT jesus save you, as he is no different than a JW/Mormon one?

I agree do not need to understand the trinity to be saved by God, but can you believe in any other God but the One laid out in Bible, and still be saved by that falso god, that you created to worship?

 

[OldRegular]

I think maybe some clarification is in order. In my estimation, the word "nature" denotes substance.

In case that wasn't clear, let me use a few examples to better demonstrate how I understand "nature"

The nature or substance of water is hydrogen and oxygen.

The nature of plywood is wood and glue

The nature of a ball bearing is metal

And since the scriptures teach that the "substance" of God is Spirit, then what does nature have to with Trinity? Now, all I am doing is asking for clarification of one word.


Kenneth Copeland believes that God is a Spirit being with a body, who is about 9 feet tall. But He affirms a 3-in-1 Trinity of coequal Persons. How this would work, I cannot pretend to know

I would consider that he has missed the nature of God, but affirms the Trinity as described in the creeds.

So, I would surmise that someone can affirm what is considered a "biblical" Trinity, yet also miss on the nature of God. I don't see "nature" as necessarily corresponding to any concept of Trinity. It is possible that the two can be mutually exclusive

So can you clarify exactly what you're asking ?

Kenneth Copland and his Word of Faith heresy is a poor one to reference! It seems to me that you are "nit picking" over the word Trinity with no valid reason. That there are three different persons in the Godhead is clearly taught in Scripture as is the truth that there is one God. It is beyond mans capability to understand and must be accepted by faith as is the truth of salvation wrought by God!

 

[sag38]

Kenneth Copland and his Word of Faith heresy is a poor one to reference! It seems to me that you are "nit picking" over the word Trinity with no valid reason. That there are three different persons in the Godhead is clearly taught in Scripture as is the truth that there is one God. It is beyond mans capability to understand and must be accepted by faith as is the truth salvation wrought by God!

:thumbsup: We need a "Like" button here.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

:thumbsup: We need a "Like" button here.

I second that!:thumbsup:

 

[agedman]

Kenneth Copland and his Word of Faith heresy is a poor one to reference! It seems to me that you are "nit picking" over the word Trinity with no valid reason. That there are three different persons in the Godhead is clearly taught in Scripture as is the truth that there is one God. It is beyond mans capability to understand and must be accepted by faith as is the truth salvation wrought by God!

:thumbsup: We need a "Like" button here.

I second that!:thumbsup:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

OK gentlemen....I am expecting royalties.

 

[Yeshua1]

Kenneth Copland and his Word of Faith heresy is a poor one to reference! It seems to me that you are "nit picking" over the word Trinity with no valid reason. That there are three different persons in the Godhead is clearly taught in Scripture as is the truth that there is one God. It is beyond mans capability to understand and must be accepted by faith as is the truth of salvation wrought by God!

IF you hold to a non trinitarian viewpoint, hard to see how jesus could talk tot he father, and have Him respond back in a voice all heard!

And IF God was incarnated as jesus alone, who ran heaven while God was away?

 

[JamesL]

Kenneth Copland and his Word of Faith heresy is a poor one to reference! It seems to me that you are "nit picking" over the word Trinity with no valid reason. That there are three different persons in the Godhead is clearly taught in Scripture as is the truth that there is one God. It is beyond mans capability to understand and must be accepted by faith as is the truth of salvation wrought by God!

Why is Kenneth Copeland a poor example? I chose his case to make a specific point. It's not my fault if you didn't see the point.

I was simply asking for clarification from Yeshua1 on the word "nature", and how it relates to "Trinity". It seemed as though "nature" was being used to say that "Trinity" is God's nature, while I don't think everyone would use "nature" in that way.

Then, I used a specific example to demonstrate that it is possible to embrace the "orthodox" definition of "Trinity", and at the same time have a warped view of God's nature.

So, since a person can have an orthodox view of Trinity, yet a heretical view of God's nature, then the two can be mutually exclusive. I thought a little clarification was in order

And I as not nitpicking any notion of the Trinity, as I did not comment one way or another about it.

If I were nitpicking anything, it would be ambiguity. I don't think it's fruitful to discuss anything if the words don't all mean the same thing to everybody. If people understand the words differently, then two people holding opposite views can agree, not knowing that they actually disagree

This is what I was trying to get at in the Trinity video thread before it was closed - cut through the ambiguity, and clearly define all the words, or don't ask for agreement. I refuse to unwittingly nod with someone who I disagree with

What good is it if two people agree with what is said, yet have different understanding of what was meant? And I have seen this hundreds of times on another board. Two people nod in agreement, then months or years later find that they never did agree because they didn't define the words the same as each other

 

[OldRegular]

Why is Kenneth Copeland a poor example? I chose his case to make a specific point. It's not my fault if you didn't see the point.

I was simply asking for clarification from Yeshua1 on the word "nature", and how it relates to "Trinity". It seemed as though "nature" was being used to say that "Trinity" is God's nature, while I don't think everyone would use "nature" in that way.

Then, I used a specific example to demonstrate that it is possible to embrace the "orthodox" definition of "Trinity", and at the same time have a warped view of God's nature.

So, since a person can have an orthodox view of Trinity, yet a heretical view of God's nature, then the two can be mutually exclusive. I thought a little clarification was in order

And I as not nitpicking any notion of the Trinity, as I did not comment one way or another about it.

If I were nitpicking anything, it would be ambiguity. I don't think it's fruitful to discuss anything if the words don't all mean the same thing to everybody. If people understand the words differently, then two people holding opposite views can agree, not knowing that they actually disagree

This is what I was trying to get at in the Trinity video thread before it was closed - cut through the ambiguity, and clearly define all the words, or don't ask for agreement. I refuse to unwittingly nod with someone who I disagree with

What good is it if two people agree with what is said, yet have different understanding of what was meant? And I have seen this hundreds of times on another board. Two people nod in agreement, then months or years later find that they never did agree because they didn't define the words the same as each other

I admit the how of the Trinity is beyond human comprehension. However, it seems to me that the definition of the Trinity is quite clear and based on Scripture. The 1644 [1646 Edition] London Baptist Confession does a very good job of defining the Trinity though that word is not used in the Confession.

The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures.

In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.

From: http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/Articles/1644LondonConfessionOfFaith.htm

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If I were nitpicking anything ...

What do you mean, "if"???

 

[Rippon]

Joseph Hart (1712 – May 24, 1768) was an 18th-century Calvinist minister in London. His works include "Hart's Hymns", a much-loved hymn book amongst evangelical Christians throughout its lifetime of over 200 years, which includes the well-known hymn, "Come ye sinners, poor and needy"

Don't know if Hart was Anglican or Methodist, he was converted by George Whitefield.

Hart was a Congregational preacher at Jewin Street Chapel,London. It was packed with people. And apparently his hymns were also packed with doctrinally sound,practical,biblical words. His works have been neglected as have some others.

 

[JamesL]

What do you mean, "if"???

I mean "if" because i wasn't. But that seemed to be the perception - the running assumption.

Nitpicking has a motive to find baseless fault. I don't think the OP meant to be ambiguous, I think he assumed that everyone uses the same words in the same way.

I was simply asking for clarification, and gave an example, so that he could see the point I was trying to make. In other words, the basis for my request for clarity.

Are you content with giving a nod, even if you're not sure what someone meant? Are you not aware that our president won an election with an ambiguous promise? CHANGE was the promise. And there were many conservatives asking for clarification, so that voters would know what that meant, before they were asked to give him the nod.

I guess all of us conservatives were just nitpicking. How dare we ask for clarification, right?

Have you ever seen the warning that though a Jehovah's Witness uses the same words as Christians, they don't intend the same meaning? It is easy to think you're speaking the same language because you agree with the words, not knowing you disagree with the content of the meaning

Would you consider it to be nitpicking if I were to ask a JW to clarify his use of the word "saved", or to clarify what he means by " Jesus died for my sins" ?

Why should I be labeled a fault finder, just for trying to make sure we're speaking the same language? Maybe I'm different from most, but I find it impossible to agree or disagree if it's unclear what someone else means

 

[JamesL]

I admit the how of the Trinity is beyond human comprehension. However, it seems to me that the definition of the Trinity is quite clear and based on Scripture. The 1644 [1646 Edition] London Baptist Confession does a very good job of defining the Trinity though that word is not used in the Confession.

The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures.

In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.

I agree with this, and say this it is very scriptural.

But, if you'll notice the bolded part, it does not say that there are three beings which comprise a Godhead. It says that there is in this Being there is Father, Word, and Holy Spirit


And this is why I asked in the other thread if anyone would define "Person":

So, is a "Person" a being, a personality, a manifestation, a mode, a will, or something else? As I noted, one human person (not on this board) said that "Person" is a technical theological term, and then refused to elaborate.

Percho gave this answer, seemingly denoting three beings:

I would say person denotes, an individual, an entity of one and to be three persons would be three persons same as soul denotes one soul.

Though he didn't say it in plain words, it seems that he defines "Person" as a being. Thus, three beings. On that basis, I would reject his "Trinity" of "One God in Three Persons"


You quoted yourself with:

OldRegulars Understanding of PERSON
Man is a self-conscious or rational being. He is aware of his existence. He is able to interact and communicate with other men. He recognizes something within himself that distinguishes him from other creatures. That something is his person hood. He is able to discern and perhaps contemplate that which he may call ‘good’, in a moral sense, in the world about him. He is also able to discern that which is less good even ‘evil’ in his world. However, it must be acknowledged that there is a great disparity between what might be termed ‘good’ and ‘evil’ among different cultural groups.

But I wasn't asking for a definition of "person" as it relates to a man. I was asking for a definition as it relates to Three Persons of God


You also wrote:

Perhaps Scripture does not give a nice, neat definition of person but we can understand what "person" is from the many ways it is used in Scripture.

But I wasn't asking about how the bible defines person, because it never describes God as "Person" or "Persons". And you never answered whether you think "Person" is a being, a personality, a manifestation, a mode, a will, or something else?

It seems, from your answer, that you might understand "Person" as a personality. Maybe I'm wrong and you could correct me. But you were more ambiguous with your explanation than you were without it, so who knows what you meant?

Pray tell, what in the world is wrong with being clear as to our meaning? I know that none of us are perfect at it, but isn't clarity a vital aspect of honesty?

 

[kyredneck]

Hart was a Congregational preacher at Jewin Street Chapel,London. It was packed with people. And apparently his hymns were also packed with doctrinally sound,practical,biblical words. His works have been neglected as have some others.

Thanks Rippon.

 

[HAMel]

...'ya all know I ain't no Yale Graduate but to me, understanding the Trinity is quite simple. To me, it's not mysterious at all.

Compare said Trinity to that of any loving and kind parent toward their young children who provide all of the child's physical and emotional needs. Albeit, a brief period of time but enough time to raise the child in the admonition of the Lord. :thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with this, and say this it is very scriptural.

But, if you'll notice the bolded part, it does not say that there are three beings which comprise a Godhead. It says that there is in this Being there is Father, Word, and Holy Spirit


And this is why I asked in the other thread if anyone would define "Person":



Percho gave this answer, seemingly denoting three beings:


Though he didn't say it in plain words, it seems that he defines "Person" as a being. Thus, three beings. On that basis, I would reject his "Trinity" of "One God in Three Persons"


You quoted yourself with:


But I wasn't asking for a definition of "person" as it relates to a man. I was asking for a definition as it relates to Three Persons of God


You also wrote:


But I wasn't asking about how the bible defines person, because it never describes God as "Person" or "Persons". And you never answered whether you think "Person" is a being, a personality, a manifestation, a mode, a will, or something else?

It seems, from your answer, that you might understand "Person" as a personality. Maybe I'm wrong and you could correct me. But you were more ambiguous with your explanation than you were without it, so who knows what you meant?

Pray tell, what in the world is wrong with being clear as to our meaning? I know that none of us are perfect at it, but isn't clarity a vital aspect of honesty?

God is ONE eternal being, and residing within His One being are co existent/co eternal persons, father/Son/Holy spirit, as each one of them are God, yet God is still JUST One being, one God!

NOT 3 seperate Gods, nor just a single person, who manifests Himself at different times as the father, Son, or Spriit!

Nor id jesus Himself all the 3 persons in One!