is correct trinity belief required for salvation? - it's not in the OT

[Todd]

Actually for me Todd, believing on Jesus is one of the things in my life which is absolutely effortless. It's easier than breathing for me.

I personally prefer the term "phoney-believism" for those who know about Jesus Christ and practice "churchianity" but who don't know Him Himself in the biblical sense of absolute trust and adoration.

On the other hand, we should not abandon the tares as God is able to change the tares to wheat.

Hank, the very fact that Christ said tares would continue to grow alongside wheat as the end of time approaches should not cause us to undermine the role of sound Christology (as Craig has done throughout this thread). Rather, it should cause us to reinforce those great truths time and again so that potential believers will not be "carried along by every wind of doctrine" and join the cult groups. If we don't earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered (Jude 3), then what in this world will ever set us apart from the apostates that Jude warned against throughout the remainder of his letter to the church.

What bugs me is that self-professing Christians such as Craig get on here and act as though sound doctrine (including Christology) makes no difference at all - what really matters is that a person is believing on the right name (Jesus). This is ludicrous, and the saints of God shouldn't stand for it. Either Christ is the virgin born Second Person of the Trinity, or he's not! But to come in here and say that it doesn't really matter - that is loathsome. If we go the route that Craig is advocating, then there will no longer be anything that separates us from the cults and the false religions. Maybe that's what Craig wants, but I'm sure that's not what God wants.

 

[rjprince]

Todd,

You said, “So, Jacob didn't understand that He had wrestled with pre-incarnate Christ when he called the ground on which they wrestled "Peniel" (Gen. 32:30). So Moses didn't recognize the doctrine of the Trinity when he was inspired of God to write down the Pentateuch which affirms the Trinity in Gen. 1? Again, Moses didn't understand that it was Pre-incarnate Christ was said from the midst of the bush "I AM WHO I AM" (Ex. 3:14)? How about Manoah and his wife - don't you think they recognized the doctrine when they heard the Angel of the Lord say that His name was "wonderful" (Judges 13:18)? Do I need to provide more examples? Abraham, the children of Israel during the Exodus, Joshua - all of them must've recognized the Trinity through their encounter with pre-incarnate Christ.”

You certainly cannot be serious. Jacob understanding that he wrested with the pre-incarnate Christ? Genesis explaining the Trinity and not just dimly reflecting it? Moses seeing the pre-incarnate Christ? There is no indication of human form here! Manoah and his wife understanding the Trinity in Judges 13:8? Did not see the Spirit in there anywhere; nor with Jacob, nor Moses, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

EVEN IF I DID GRANT that they recognized the pre-incarnate Christ, that still does not give you understanding of the Trinity in the OT.

With a grad degree and on the way to a post-grad degree I cannot believe you are making these kinds of exegetical errors! You need to get and read D.A. Carson’s book, Exegetical Fallacies. If you have it, you need to REREAD it. IN FACT EVERY PREACHER HERE OUGHT TO GET IT AND READ IT, OR READ IT AGAIN! I try to read it again every few years. Will help guard against some VERY common exegetical errors.

Of course you may not have had time to respond to mine, too busy with Craigs.

Oh, but I do agree with most of what you wrote on the Christology issue, except for the violent way you flamed Craig, but then I do not know all the history there.

SEBTS, did you take any courses under Dr. Mo Robinson?

 

[HankD]

Finally, show me CLEAR teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity in Moses, or in the entire OT if you will. YES, there are references, shadows, and intimations – CLEAR teaching of even a rudimentary teaching as to the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit – NOT THERE!

Maybe, maybe not.

Genesis 1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our (Pl.) image (Sing.), after our (Pl.) likeness (Sing.):

“God” is Elohim, plural (not dual plural, more than two) persons, but has one image (Zelem) , although with a plural ending to correspond to the plural Elohim is singular in root, likewise one likeness is singular in root. God is plural in person but one in essence or Godhead.

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us , to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

First “the LORD God said”

LORD = Yahovay - the Tetragramatton, which is a functional title of God and is a concatenation of the past. Present (noun form) and future of the verb “to be”.

While it is true that Hebrew does not have a past, present or future in the same equivalence as English but pefect – simple past, Verbal noun/adjective or infinitve serves as simple present and imperfect – simple future, the Hebrew language grants eternality to Elohim by use of this word “Yahovay” whose meaning is “The Eternal One”.

The “LORD God” is literally Yahovay-Elohim or the Eternal God.
become as one of us shows that the plurality of God in this passage is in persons and not attributes.

Each person of the Yahovay-Elohim Godhead is eternal so the plurality of persons is of deity and not angels which are created beings. God alone is eternal.

Even in the Shema:
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:,

the Word “God” is the plural form Elohim.

Psalm 2
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Jesus expected the Pharisees to accept His deity:

John 8
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Matthew 22
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

HankD

 

[Todd]

What you fail to understand is that although a correct understanding of the Trinity involves proper understanding of the Deity of Christ, the corollary is NOT necessarily true. A person could learn about the Deity of Jesus AND His substitutionary atonement prior to being taught about the Trinity! Just how much should we attempt to teach unbelievers before we teach them that they are sinners, that Jesus died for their sin, and there is no other way to escape the wrath of God other than personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit does not convict unbelievers of the truth of the Trinity, He convicts them of sin, righteousness, and judgement (John 16:8-11).

Where did I say that I do not accept the full Deity of Christ? Where did I say that someone could reject the deity of Christ and be saved? The Deity of Christ is not dependant on a proper understanding of the Trinity. Linking my statements to the cults? You have got to be kidding! Talk about smoke and mirrors! Oh well, if you cannot respond in substance, might as well start name calling.

RJ, I have not attempted to insult you are call you anything. Neither have I attempted to say that someone must understand all the intricacies of the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. in order to be saved. What I am saying is that someone can't reject the Trinity or the full deity of Christ and possibly be saved. Admittedly, someone may not understand all there is to know about the Trinity or the Incarnation when they are saved (I certainly didn't), but a rejection of those things that Christ says we are to accept by faith is nothing short of blasphemy. That's the point I've been attempting to make all along. I apologize if I have led you to believe otherwise.

The sin that shall not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come was rejecting the Spirit’s testimony about the Lord Jesus.

My goodness, don't men/women in today's world still "reject the Spirit's testimony about the Lord Jesus?" You obviously believe that the Spirit of God still convicts men of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Thus, the only way that men and women can accept the Scripture's testimony about the Person of Christ is through the Spirit's testimony. If someone will not believe what the Scripture has to say about Jesus, is that not a rejection of the Spirit's testimony (what you have defined as blasphemy)? Can you provide me with the name of one evangelical theologian who would say that the unforgiveable sin of blasphemy can no longer be committed today?

A mention of the Trinity before their salvation in Acts 10? I should have been more clear, there was no TEACHING about the Trinity in Acts 10. The focus of the message was on the sacrifice of Jesus for their sin. The mention of God (not called “the Father”), the Holy Spirit, and Jesus (“Lord of all”, not called “the Son”) is hardly equal to teaching on the Trinity, nor would such references even provide a basic elemental understanding to someone who did not read the text with a fuller understanding of the Trinity.

Two problems: First, we do not know everything that Peter said to Cornelius. Who's to say that more time wasn't spent discussing the particulars of the Trinity as Peter presented the Gospel to him? Further, just because Peter didn't present the elements of the Trinity in the way that you might prefer doesn't mean that they were not included in his presentation of the Gospel. Clearly, Peter's presentation of the Gospel made reference to each member of the Godhead, and we are led to believe that Cornelius was persuaded of everything that Peter had to say.

The Holy Spirit does not convict unbelievers about the truth of the Tri-unity of the Godhead (see John 16:8-11).

How can you make this statement - there's no way for you to verify this. You offer Jn. 16:8-11 as a "proof text," but those verses were never intended to be understood as the totality of the work of the Spirit in conviction. Further, it's only by the Spirit's illumination that we can know such things. I believe that such illumination comes with convition at the moment that someone places their faith in Christ.

The fact that John describes Jesus as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world” is not an indication that he understood that “Christ would lay down his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the Israel and all the world”!

What else could John's reference to Jesus as the Lamb of God have possibly meant? It is an obvious reference to Christ as being like the animals who were sacrificed on Yom Kippur during the OT days. Their blood was shed as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of Israel - how could John's reference to Jesus as the Lamb not also be understood in the same way by John?

RJ, I will reply with more later.

 

[rjprince]

HankD

The plurality of the Divine name is understood. Intimations at the Deity of Christ is certainly there as well. But to suggest that these shadows were clearly seen by OT saints! Still have not seen a passage that gives "CLEAR teaching of even a rudimentary teaching as to the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit" to quote me, and you quoting me, again.

I like all of your refs. I could add a few others. But NONE of them show OT understanding of the Trinity. Repeating them does not really help either. Again, even you show a verse that has the Trinity, you cannot show that it was understood.

And, thanks for the Hebrew lesson. Had a good bit of Greek, but no Hebrew. My loss. Just pick up what I can from commentaries, lexicons, etc.

 

[rjprince]

Todd,

I would agree that someone could not reject the Deity of Christ and be saved. Close to agree the same about the Trinity, just not quite ready to make orthodoxy a pre-requisite to salvation.

Not at my office, cant check my commentaries. The view I have espoused re the unpardonable sin is held by some reputable theologians. Cannot recall who off the top of my head. Started to suggest a few names, but will make sure. It is one of the three or four common views of the “unpardonable sin” though. Surprised that you were surprised by it, at least after you gave your credentials for Craig.

If you have Theo Journals on CD you might check Chafer Theo Journal (1999) and an excellent article by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He suggests that Israelogy should be made a branch of Syst. Theo. in a series of six articles. He holds an even more extreme position of my view and suggests that the sin in Matt 12 was a national sin and not an individual sin. Gives some good arguments. Not sure I agree with him, but he gives some good arguments.

As far as everything said to Cornelius, that is an argument from silence. Does not really prove much to assume what Peter must have said.

You quoted me “The Holy Spirit does not convict unbelievers about the truth of the Tri-unity of the Godhead (see John 16:8-11).” I guess I used an argument from silence. Sorry. Would have been more precise of me to have said – of the three things that Jesus lists that the HS will convict the unbelieving world concerning, the Trinity is not listed. Again, this may not prove much, but to me, based on all the reason I have given, the silence of Scripture regarding an understanding of the Trinity being a prerequisite to salvation, is deafening.

 

[HankD]

And, thanks for the Hebrew lesson. Had a good bit of Greek, but no Hebrew. My loss. Just pick up what I can from commentaries, lexicons, etc.

It's easier then folks think once one gets over the alphabet and reading from right to left.

Correct, what I posted is not exactly 1 John 5:7 but Genesis 1 and 3 contains a lot of food for thought concerning the Person of God.

HankD

 

[rjprince]

1 John 5:7, the comma johanneum! Are you KJVO?!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Here's the obvious problem with your statement: Just because Christ was capable of sin doesn't necessitate the belief that He did sin.

Todd, we all agree that He did not sin, but not everyone on this message board would agree that Christ was capable of sin. Indeed, most would not, for they have been taught and believe in the doctrine of the impeccability of Christ.

 

[dean198]

Indeed, most would not, for they have been taught and believe in the doctrine of the impeccability of Christ.

What does that mean? People say that they believe that the Lord was fully God and fully man - but they go one of two ways - either he functioned as God - knew everything, did all his miracles, etc, as God - or he functioned as any other man, and did his miracles as a man anointed by God with the Holy Spirit. I guess the whole idea of whether the Lord could have sinned is linked up with this question of how human was the Lord in the days of his flesh?

 

[dean198]

"1 John 5:7, the comma johanneum! Are you KJVO?!"

Not much support for that verse any more! I still think it might be genuine, and I am not KJVO. But then again, is isn't in any extant Greek manuscript (not in the main text anyway).

 

[Craigbythesea]

the very Christology that I am presenting to you long before we were ever born. Also, every orthodox Christian theologian would affirm the Christology that I'm presenting to you. Now, who would affirm yours...

You claim to have studied a tad bit of Christology, and apparently you have. So, then, Todd, can you post anything about my Christology that none of the mainstream Baptist theologians agree with? And in case you have not noticed, I am not arguing against your Christology, but against the radically absurd soteriological view that you are posting in that you claim that one has to believe in doctrine of the Trinity in order to be saved. The burden of proof lies in your lap because for me to prove that you are wrong, I would have to quote the entire Bible and say, “See Todd, the Bible does not say that anywhere.” All you have to do is provide some scriptures that say that one has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. But, of course, since you can not do that, you beat around the bush with a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo about how this man or that man might have figured out something about their being a trinity, but you have not shown any evidence at all that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. And the Mormons and the Russellites and their theologies have nothing to do with this. The question (from post #1) is simple, “Is a correct belief in the trinity required for salvation?” The answer is also simple, “No!”

 

[rjprince]

Dean,

Yeah, it is in two very late mss in the text, two more in the margin. If you want the #s I can look it up. Not in thousands of others. Erasmus only had it in one of his revisions. Have actually touched one of those originals and turned to the page. His disclaimer was in Latin and I did not have a digital camera with me. Still, it was pretty cool to handle one of those!

Anyhow, I believe it is spurious. Almost did not get ordained after that comment! If it had been known it would certainly have been used in some of the early church trinity debates. Not there. No early evidence for it. Michael Maynard's work is fanciful KJVO hogwash.

 

[rjprince]

Craig and Dean,

As already noted, the hypostatic union is one of the great mysteries of the Word. Debate it all you want, don't be too disappointed if you do not find resolution though.

And Craig, the way you worded some earlier comments did sound a bit unorthodox. But I do think Todd overreacted.

RJP

 

[dean198]

Yeah, it is in two very late mss in the text, two more in the margin. If you want the #s I can look it up. Not in thousands of others. Erasmus only had it in one of his revisions. Have actually touched one of those originals and turned to the page. His disclaimer was in Latin and I did not have a digital camera with me. Still, it was pretty cool to handle one of those!

Anyhow, I believe it is spurious. Almost did not get ordained after that comment! If it had been known it would certainly have been used in some of the early church trinity debates. Not there. No early evidence for it. Michael Maynard's work is fanciful KJVO hogwash.

Yeah, Maynard uses alot of imagination, and mixes his work with an equally imaginary landmark perspective. I wrote an article on the verse, but it needs updating....one of the fathers i said supported the verse doesn't. Need to change that.
Dean

http://www.geocities.com/radical_christianity/textual.html

Click on The Johannine Comma

 

[GeneMBridges]

Craig and Dean

With talk of Oneness Pentecostals earlier, I can't help but say...

All we need is Phillips to make a modalist trio !

 

[Craigbythesea]

For those who really want to understand this issue, I recommend you read what Cyril had to say about the hypostatic union some 1600+ years ago. He was instrumental in helping the Christian church define the person and work of Christ when the Council of Chalcedon wrote the most authoritative statement of Christ (outside the Bible) in the year 451 AD. In fact, if you have never studied the Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (432), and Chalcedon (451), then I would heartily recommend that you do so.

Did Cyril write that a correct belief in the Trinity is required for salvation?

Did ANYONE at any of the Church Councils claim that a correct belief in the Trinity is required for salvation?

Do you have ANY scriptures, quotes from the Church Fathers or Church Councils, or any facts that prove that a correct belief in the Trinity is required for salvation? Do you have anything at all but mumbo-jumbo and smokescreens? If you do, please post them.

CBTS

 

[Craigbythesea]

As already noted, the hypostatic union is one of the great mysteries of the Word. Debate it all you want, don't be too disappointed if you do not find resolution though.

I am not sure that Todd and I disagree regarding the hypostatic union; we disagree regarding the essentials for salvation

And Craig, the way you worded some earlier comments did sound a bit unorthodox. But I do think Todd overreacted.

If this were a secular message board, and Todd and I were posting on secular matters, I would find Todd’s replies to my posts to be hilarious. My theological views are very orthodox, but I do interject some slightly unorthodox theology into questions that I ask in order to make one or more points that, unfortunately, are often misunderstood. I suppose that I find it VERY difficult to communicate complex ideas to people who have never been exposed to such a thing.

 

[rjprince]

CBTS,

I certainly understand the concept of playing "devil's advocate".

You do tend to speak in a condescending manner sometimes. "I suppose that I find it VERY difficult to communicate complex ideas to people who have never been exposed to such a thing."

Dificult for others to really engage the idea when they feel personally attacked. One of you guys, put down the stick.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by rjprince:
CBTS,

I certainly understand the concept of playing "devil's advocate".

You do tend to speak in a condescending manner sometimes. "I suppose that I find it VERY difficult to communicate complex ideas to people who have never been exposed to such a thing."

Dificult for others to really engage the idea when they feel personally attacked. One of you guys, put down the stick. [/QUOTE}

I try to be open and honest in my posts. If you find that manner of posting to be offensive, you should probably ignore what I have to say. You certainly wouldn’t be the first one to do so.