-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
is correct trinity belief required for salvation? - it's not in the OT
- Thread starter Aki
- Start date
Craig, I'm glad you asked these questions. It gives me a good opportunity to restate my convictions on this issue in a way that may be much more acceptable to everyone. You asked if Cryil or anyone else who had anything to do with the early Christological church councils said that a correct belief in the Trinity is required for salvation. Consider the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Apollonarius' Christology was basically "on trial" because he had asserted on many occasions that Jesus Christ, while He was fully God, couldn't have possibly been fully man. Because of the work of many like Cyril and others, an anathema was pronounced upon Apollonarius and he was branded as a heritic by the early church (as were his followers).
Here's the point: Someone can't possibly reject the full deity of the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit and possibly claim to be a Christian. That is tantamount to blasphemy (denying the Spirit's testimony and calling God a liar), and as I said earlier no unrepentant blasphemer will gain entrance into the kingdom of God.
As I was trying to state my convictions about this issue at the beginning of the thread, I should have chosen a better choice of words on a couple of occasions. Here's what I believe: When someone is saved, they profess that "Jesus is Lord" and they can only make such a profession by the Spirit's convicting power (1 Cor. 12:3). Inherent to the profession that Jesus Christ is Lord is an acceptance, by faith, that God is indeed who He says He is (the Triune God of Heaven and Earth). Here's where I may have confused some (and my choice of words was to blame): I don't think that someone must completely understand the biblical revelation of the Trinity in order to be saved, but they must place their faith in the Christ of the Bible by professing Him as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). The Spirit (by His illuminating power) will give a new believer an even better understanding of who He is and how He operates as that believer continues to be led by the Spirit.
However, the Bible is very plain that someone can't possibly reject any portion of the biblical revelation as they pertain to the Godhead and still be saved - that is blasphemy. This is in fact the sin that the quasi-followers of John 6:60ff were guilty of, and we know that they were surely not genuine believers in Christ because they rejected who He said He was and what He said they must do. So, in answer to your question, while I do not believe that someone must understand everything that the Scripture has to say about all the many dynamics of the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. in order to be saved, they can't possibly reject the Scripture's testimony in regard to those things and be saved. Rejection = Blasphemy. I hope this clear things up.
Craig, you lack genuine humility - time and again you have asserted that I am some mindless neanderthal just because I have exposed some of your unorthodoxy for what it is. Do you make it a common practice of spicing up your orthodox views with a little "unorthodoxy?" Seems like it (creation, Christology, etc.).
You assert that your views are "very orthodox," but even RJ noted that there was some unorthodoxy in your previously stated views. For instance, you implied that Christ couldn't be "fully God" if He submitted Himself to the Father's authority. Now, either you were doing that to "teach us all a lesson," or that is your heart-felt conviction. Either way, that doesn't give you the right to continue to take godless cheap shots at me or anyone else on this Board.
RJ, we are probably wasting our time in asking that Craig use a little class and demonstrate some Christian charity. This is the same guy who called me and other YECers "ignorant lunatics" on another thread. Don't think humility and grace are high on the priority list.
RJ, I think you and I are closer in conviction than I may have suspected a little earlier on. I don't agree with you on many of the OT saints lacking an understanding of the Trinity (as I think many examples to the contrary have been provided), but other than that I think there is much similarity.
I think we can both agree on this: Accepting that Jesus is Lord by the Spirit's guidance (1 Cor. 12:3) means that one is placing their faith in the God of the Bible. From there, the Spirit adds further illumination to who God is and what He does. If someone will not accept the Scripture's testimony to Christ, then that person can't possibly be saved. I think we can both find common ground here, don't you think?
I think we can both agree on this: Accepting that Jesus is Lord by the Spirit's guidance (1 Cor. 12:3) means that one is placing their faith in the God of the Bible. From there, the Spirit adds further illumination to who God is and what He does. If someone will not accept the Scripture's testimony to Christ, then that person can't possibly be saved. I think we can both find common ground here, don't you think?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Dear Brother Todd,
I will try to be nice and not condescending (however difficult that may be in this case
) in my reply. The council of which you are writing took place more than a millennium before the doctrine of once saved, always saved was introduced into the Church. In 381 A.D. the church very strongly believed that a man could be saved and subsequently become a heretic and lose his salvation. Certainly, therefore, you have not provided here any evidence that a correct understanding of the Trinity is necessary to be initially saved.Furthermore, if the doctrine of once saved, always saved is a true doctrine, and if the people who “branded” Apollonarius also decided that he was no longer saved, who, in this case, was the heretic?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Two peas in the very same pod.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I do not believe that it would be a display of “humility and grace” to call a fork a "spoon," and to do so would not display either honesty or integrity, but the serious lack thereof.
Are the following passages of Scripture a display of humility and grace, or a display of honesty and integrity?
Matt. 23:23. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24. "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26. "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28. "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30. and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32. "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34. "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35. so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Lament over Jerusalem
37. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38. "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
Craig, it's one thing to think that you have a superior argument when in debate with someone else. Yet, it is quite another thing to be consistently condescending and to label others as "lunatics" who do not agree with you. What has surprised me is that you seem to show no remorse for being guilty of both those aforementioned things. IMHO, sarcasm and haughtiness have no place in the Christian life, and if you are consistently having problems with these things, then I recommend that you seek God's forgiveness and ask that He empower you by His Spirit to grant you victory over these things. As for me, I have no hard feelings - I just get weary worn of being branded as uneducated just because I don't agree with you. If you'll read some of the responses within this very thread, you'll see that several have taken notice of your haughtiness - I don't think that's the kind of witness you want. I share this in love and hope that it is received that way.
Alright, how about the Gnostics that John wrote against in his first letter to the church? Are you asserting that he viewed them as faithful followers of Christ? If so, why did he warn against their rejection of Christ's full humanity? How about the quasi-followers at the end of John 6:60ff? They rejected the Person and the teachings of Christ - do you think they will be with the saints in heaven? Apparently not, for they weren't even willing to follow Christ on Earth - only the genuinue disciples continued to follow (Jn. 6:67ff).
I could provide you with many more examples here, but I'm sure these will do. The burden of proof rests on you to answers the questions I have posed earlier: If someone can reject the Christ of the Bible and be saved (just because they believe in the "right name"), then who's to say that the "Jesus" of Satanism, Islam, the cults, etc. is not sufficient for salvation? If we accept your "it doesn't really matter" mentality, then we need to stop evangelizing the cults groups don't we? Tell me what you think.
Apollonarius was a heretic, as were his followers. That doesn't mean that rejecting "once saved, always saved" is non-heretical - I never once asserted that. Orthodoxy is not determined by the RCC, it is determined by the Word of God. It just so happens that the early church fathers got it right on Christ when it came to the heretical views of Apollonarius.
You cite Mt. 23 as an example of your posting ethic here on the Baptist Board. Does that mean you believe that a great number of the people who post here are lost, just like the Pharisees that Christ was handing this anathema to?
Further, if you say that you are driven by honesty, that must mean that you really do think of me as an "ignorant lunatic" as you stated on another thread. Well, it's good to know that you are being honest. And let me be perfectly honest with you when I say that you are a very proud person who needs to learn the merit of Christian charity towards other who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ, even if they do disagree with you and point out your unorthodoxy when it is necessary.
Dean, based on what I've studied about Cyril, he would argue that Christ performed His amazing miracles on account of the fact that He was full God. Of course, he would also say that Christ did those things while He was fully human - the Perfect Son of God and Son of Man who always accomplished the will of His Father. Cyril made a great contribution to Christology when he proposed the hypostatic union , for he was writing against two extremes that existed in his day. The first of those extremes was Apollonarianism - the false teaching that Jesus was fully God, yet not fully man (condemned in Constantinople in 381 AD). The other extreme was Nestorianism - the false teaching that sought to divide the two natures of Christ with emphasis on the human (condemned in Ephesus in 432 AD). Cyril said that Christ was "one Person out of (Gr. - ek) two natures," and he was almost right. The Council of Chalcedon built on his work and came up with the most crucial Christological statement to ever be constructed by the church - "Christ is one Person in (Gr. - en) two natures - without change, confusion, division, or separation."
If one really wants to have a sure understanding of orthodox Christology, I believe studying the aforementioned Councils will be very helpful in accomplishing that goal. If you are more interested in Cyril's theology, I would recommend Christ in the Christian Tradition by Aloys Grillmeyer. One word of caution though - Grillmeyer is not for the faint of heart. His was by far the hardest reading I had to do in seminary. He can provide some great insights into Cyril's Christology and its impact upon the early church.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Dear Brother Todd,
At least four times now you have brought up my use of the word "lunatics" in another thread. Apparently you were offended by my use of the word, but that was not my intention, nor was the comment addressed to you personally, nor was it used maliciously. The comment was a reference to Baptist extremists who hold to teachings such as KJOism, millennial punishment, new earth theology, and other such doctrines which are clearly contrary to fact, while at the same time Bob was repeatedly, over and over again, using the word “atheist” for people who believe in any theory of macroevolution (of which there are several on this message board and some in that thread, and thus, contrary to the rules of this board, Bob was implying that they are not saved—how many atheists do you know that are saved?). Nonetheless, I can now see that my use of the word "lunatics" was inappropriate and I apologize for hurting you feelings.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Let's concentrate on preaching and teaching the Gospel and leave the judging of others up to God.
Todd,
I do not think I missed any concession of the point, but we agree that one cannot reject the Deity of the Lord Jesus and be saved. That has been discussed, developed further, and discussed again in recents posts to this thread. I believe that most, if not all, of us are on the same page regarding the hypostatic union. And thanks for the historical background on the issue in the Fathers.
However, an acceptance of the Deity of Christ is not the same as understanding the Trinity. Do you still maintain that an understanding of the Trinity is PREREQUISITE TO SALVATION?
Or, have we refined our manner of statement, or presentation, if you prefer, to reflect more precisely the truth of the WORD?
I do not think I missed any concession of the point, but we agree that one cannot reject the Deity of the Lord Jesus and be saved. That has been discussed, developed further, and discussed again in recents posts to this thread. I believe that most, if not all, of us are on the same page regarding the hypostatic union. And thanks for the historical background on the issue in the Fathers.
However, an acceptance of the Deity of Christ is not the same as understanding the Trinity. Do you still maintain that an understanding of the Trinity is PREREQUISITE TO SALVATION?
Or, have we refined our manner of statement, or presentation, if you prefer, to reflect more precisely the truth of the WORD?
RJ, obviously I think that one can't have an orthodox view of the Trinity if they are not willing to affirm the full deity of Jesus (and of the Holy Spirit). Therefore, I think that if one rejects the full deity of the Son or the Spirit, then they are in essence rejecting the Trinity and they are lost in their sins.
For the sake of this discussion, the reason I was so adamant to defend the need for a correct understanding of the Trinity is because the deity of Christ is directly related (that's why we say J.W.'s, Mormons, etc. are not saved). I guess the best thing that has been accomplished throughout this thread is that we have defined what we mean by "correct understanding of the Trinity." As I have already said, I don't believe that someone who rejects the full deity of any member of the Godhead can be saved, for that would make them a blasphemer. Yet, I certainly don't think that someone must know all the intricacies of the Trinity, Incarnation, hypostatic union, etc. in order to be saved (as no human has exhaustive knowledge of these things). God's lone requirement for salvation is that someone receive God's forgiveness by accepting the Christ of the Bible as Savior and Lord by faith alone. If someone has placed their faith in the Christ of the Bible, then the Spirit of God will deepen their understanding of the Godhead, incarnation, etc. by His illuminating power.
As far as prerequisites to salvation, I only know of that which Paul mentioned: "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (the Christ of Scripture) and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rm. 10:9). Anything less than a full affirmation of the Scripture's testimony to Christ is tantamount to blasphemy. This discussion has reminded me of Mt. 18 where Christ said that we must be converted unto little children in order to be saved. Think of your own childhood - you may not have always understood everything about mom and dad, but you knew that you must place your faith and trust in them in order to live a happy life. I think it's very much that way with the issue we have discussed here - someone may not understand all the wonderful mysteries of God when they come to Christ, but they come by faith believing that He is who He says He is and He will do what He has said He will do.
For the sake of this discussion, the reason I was so adamant to defend the need for a correct understanding of the Trinity is because the deity of Christ is directly related (that's why we say J.W.'s, Mormons, etc. are not saved). I guess the best thing that has been accomplished throughout this thread is that we have defined what we mean by "correct understanding of the Trinity." As I have already said, I don't believe that someone who rejects the full deity of any member of the Godhead can be saved, for that would make them a blasphemer. Yet, I certainly don't think that someone must know all the intricacies of the Trinity, Incarnation, hypostatic union, etc. in order to be saved (as no human has exhaustive knowledge of these things). God's lone requirement for salvation is that someone receive God's forgiveness by accepting the Christ of the Bible as Savior and Lord by faith alone. If someone has placed their faith in the Christ of the Bible, then the Spirit of God will deepen their understanding of the Godhead, incarnation, etc. by His illuminating power.
As far as prerequisites to salvation, I only know of that which Paul mentioned: "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (the Christ of Scripture) and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rm. 10:9). Anything less than a full affirmation of the Scripture's testimony to Christ is tantamount to blasphemy. This discussion has reminded me of Mt. 18 where Christ said that we must be converted unto little children in order to be saved. Think of your own childhood - you may not have always understood everything about mom and dad, but you knew that you must place your faith and trust in them in order to live a happy life. I think it's very much that way with the issue we have discussed here - someone may not understand all the wonderful mysteries of God when they come to Christ, but they come by faith believing that He is who He says He is and He will do what He has said He will do.
Craig, so you're not willing to say with 100% certainty that the Gnostics John warned against and the quasi-followers of John 6 (if they remained unrepentant) were unbelievers whose fate was a Devil's hell upon their death?
And since I've asked this question of you at least twice now, how about unrepenant Muslims, J.W.'s, Mormons, etc? They all believe in Jesus, but it is not the Jesus of Scripture. If they remain unrepentant, are you unwilling to say with 100% certainty that they will die and go to Hell? I think these are questions that deserve some answers. If we can't even answer these most foundational questions with 100% certainty, then how will we ever be able to provide answers to the complex questions of our faith?
Remember, John (the very person who warned against the Gnostics) also charged believers to "test the spirits, whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 Jn. 4:1). Clearly, God has called us to use spiritual discernment in an attempt to ajudicate the spiritual condition of others. Thus, I don't think its satisfactory for us to say "let's just leave all the judging up to God and focus on being obedient." Christians can't possibly "be obedient" unless they are willing to use spiritual discernment in an attempt to discern the spiritual conditions of those who are around them. It's only by using said discernment that we can determine (to the best of our ability) who our brothers and sisters in Christ are and who it is that we are to be co-laborers together with.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
It is my personal belief that these people, whoever they were and whatever they believed, are dead and that their fate is sealed. God did not ask me for my judgment on the matter and I highly doubt that He needed it.
If God should ask me for my opinion regarding the appropriate fate for these people, I would be glad to give it to Him, but in the meantime I have other responsibilities to attend to.
I believe that that Bible teaches that there are times when Christians need to discern the spiritual condition of others, and that some individuals have been given the gift of discernment. However, I believe that it is contrary to the teaching of the Bible to say that Christians should use their discernment to adjudicate (I assume that is the word that you intended—you wrote “ajudicate”) the spiritual condition of others.
Matt. 7:1. "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. (NASB, 1995)
Oh, WAIT! We don't have the originals!!!
Sorry, just could not resist that tired old KJVO line. Just kidding though.
I know that you meant the apographs in the original languages, not the autographs. After a little time on some KJVO boards I almost feel that I cannot speak of the Greek MSS without specifying "apographs" not "autographs". Did not mean to bring my paranoia with me to this one. It just seems to follow me wherever I go.
I talked to my shrink about it and he said, "Ray, just because you are paranoid it doesn't prove that they are NOT out to get you!"
To which I replied, "Well Doc, at least I am not schiziphrenic!" Brief pause, I continue, "Hey, me neither!"
HAH!
Just kidding! And I do understand the difference between schizophrenia and MPD (multiple personality disorder). ME TOO!
Sorry, just could not resist that tired old KJVO line. Just kidding though.
I know that you meant the apographs in the original languages, not the autographs. After a little time on some KJVO boards I almost feel that I cannot speak of the Greek MSS without specifying "apographs" not "autographs". Did not mean to bring my paranoia with me to this one. It just seems to follow me wherever I go.
I talked to my shrink about it and he said, "Ray, just because you are paranoid it doesn't prove that they are NOT out to get you!"
To which I replied, "Well Doc, at least I am not schiziphrenic!" Brief pause, I continue, "Hey, me neither!"
HAH!
Just kidding! And I do understand the difference between schizophrenia and MPD (multiple personality disorder). ME TOO!