Must One hold to the Trinity in order to be saved then?

[JonC]

Your statement implies "all" Baptists were in agreement. I find that an improbability but not an impossibility. Just saying.

That is something you infer (it was not implied). Remember it was a reply to what @JesusFan had posted about how other Christians viewed Calvinism.

That said, for a time all baptists were in agreement that Calvinists were heretics and just another form of Roman Catholicism.

But when I wrote that comment I didn't have the 17th century in mind (I was thinking about writings from the late 19th and early 20th centuries). So no, if anything my post implied that some Baptists considered Calvinism a heresy akin to Roman Catholicism while others did not.

 

[JonC]

Yes it is essential. That isn't to say one has to know/understand the Trinity to be saved. But an outright denial is to deny God.

I agree that a denial is to deny God (it denies the Godhead). But speaking of it being essential, Im not sure your meaning.

Does one have to believe the gospel AND the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved?

Can one be a Christian, not denying the doctrine but at the same time not accepting it (say, out of ignorance...a new Christian who repented and believes the gospel of Jesus Christ, believes Jesus is God, but not yet contemplated the relationship beyond a simple faith)?

 

[JonC]

In that case, it is strange that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is firmly Calvinistic. "General Baptists" (non-Calvinistic) slipped into Unitarianism, and died out for a time. (Now, I would say the majority of Baptists here in the UK are non-Calvinistic).

The majority of Baptists here are non-Calvinistic if you take Calviniism to mean its response to the Five Articles.
But most are Calvinistic if you are talking about historical Calvinists (which would include Arminianism).

By "baptist" I mean congregations that hold to believers baptism (congregations Calvinists originally persecuted for holding to believers baptism).

But even today many Baptist churches in the US consider Calvinism to be a heresy.

Most Baptists here are non-Calvinistic (TULIP) but consider Calvinism as a philosophy that does mot affect salvation or one's standing on the congregation (a non-issue). A few years ago it was a issue here because young hyper-Calvinistic Baptists were causing divisions. But that seems to have calmed down.

 

[Salty]

Yes it is essential. That isn't to say one has to know/understand the Trinity to be saved. But an outright denial is to deny God.

So are you saying if a person does not believe in the Trinity - he will not go to Heaven?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

So are you saying if a person does not believe in the Trinity - he will not go to Heaven?

I'm saying an outright denial of the Trinity is a salvation issue - God has easily made known via scripture that He is triune. Whether one understands the Trinity, or is aware of the Trinity (ignorance) is a separate matter. Oneness Pentecostals, modalists, etc. are not my brothers, they are in the same camp as JWs.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Can one be a Christian, not denying the doctrine but at the same time not accepting it (say, out of ignorance...a new Christian who repented and believes the gospel of Jesus Christ, believes Jesus is God, but not yet contemplated the relationship beyond a simple faith)?

Absolutely. There is a distinction between ignorance/incomprehension/not sure, and an outright denial/actively fighting against it.

 

[Salty]

I'm saying an outright denial of the Trinity is a salvation issue - God has easily made known via scripture that He is triune. Whether one understands the Trinity, or is aware of the Trinity (ignorance) is a separate matter. Oneness Pentecostals, modalists, etc. are not my brothers, they are in the same camp as JWs.

Well, I was looking for a one word answer - ie Yes or no

 

[JonC]

Absolutely. There is a distinction between ignorance/incomprehension/not sure, and an outright denial/actively fighting against it.

I get you now. I absolutely agree.

 

[Aaron]

It that an essential of the Christian faith?

How is one saved? Is it the name of Christ despite the host of misconceptions held by even the best theologians?

Or is it a faultless understanding of incomprehensible truths?

 

[Wesley Briggman]

I'm saying an outright denial of the Trinity is a salvation issue

Who do you believe will challenge the born-again believer on this issue? At what point on their journey to heaven? If they deny the trinity and lose their salvation, will they be given an opportunity to reconsider? Are there any other questions on the test to get into heaven?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Are there any other questions on the test to get into heaven?

Do you believe there are doctrinal essentials? If you do then by your own standard you too have your own "test to get to heaven," if not, then you simply believe nothing. None of the Apostles under the inspiration of God considered relegating doctrinal essentials to be merely conjecture, and they clearly outlined God to be One, yet three distinct Persons. I stand by my statement.
EDIT: I want to make clear this is not meant to be a rude response.

 

[JonC]

Are there any other questions on the test to get into heaven?

Biblically, the only test is evidence of a spiritual birth (works accompanying salvation).

 

[KJB1611reader]

Biblically, the only test is evidence of a spiritual birth (works accompanying salvation).

This is wrong! Only test is the trust in the blood stained Gospel!

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Do you believe there are doctrinal essentials?

Yes.
(Jhn 3:3 KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(Jhn 3:7 KJV) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(1Pe 1:23 KJV) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

(1Th 1:4 KJV) Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

As God's elect I am sealed.
(Eph 1:13 KJV) In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

I understand and endorse the concept of the Trinity. As stated earlier, the thief on the cross was not challenged on this or any other doctrine by Christ.

 

[JonC]

This is wrong! Only test is the trust in the blood stained Gospel!

No, Scripture repeatedly instructs us to judge "fruit", that spiritual life begats spiritual fruit, that we are judged by our works whether good or bad. Scripture is against you here.

The text for doctrine is "what is written" in God's Word.
The text of Spiritual life is the fruit of the Spirit (the things God produces).

You seem to be making up phrases that sound Christian but are not.

"The blood stained Gospel"??? The Gospel is not stained with blood. It may sound pious but it is not.

We are saved in Christ, but we cannot test if we are in Chriat by saying we are in Christ. We are saved to do good works prepared beforehand that we should do them.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

No, Scripture repeatedly instructs us to judge "fruit", that spiritual life begats spiritual fruit, that we are judged by our works whether good or bad. Scripture is against you here.

The text for doctrine is "what is written" in God's Word.
The text of Spiritual life is the fruit of the Spirit (the things God produces).

You seem to be making up phrases that sound Christian but are not.

"The blood stained Gospel"??? The Gospel is not stained with blood. It may sound pious but it is not.

We are saved in Christ, but we cannot test if we are in Chriat by saying we are in Christ. We are saved to do good works prepared beforehand that we should do them.

Best I can figure his theology is fairly close to that of Zane Hodges, which is (falsely) called free grace theology. It is itself a false gospel.

 

[JonC]

Best I can figure his theology is fairly close to that of Zane Hodges, which is (falsely) called free grace theology. It is itself a false gospel.

I'm not familiar with Zane Hodge, but will read up.

 

[Layman]

I'm not familiar with Zane Hodge, but will read up.

His butchering of James 2 is next level.

 

[JonC]

His butchering of James 2 is next level.

I've just read a little about his theology.

It appears he does not understand what it means to believe on Christ. He rejects tge need fir repentance, denies many passages concerning life in the Spirit, the mind set on the Spirit, etc.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

No, Scripture repeatedly instructs us to judge "fruit", that spiritual life begats spiritual fruit, that we are judged by our works whether good or bad. Scripture is against you here.

The "quality" of the child of God's works determines their rewards. Our works do not determine our salvation or lack thereof.

(Rom 6:22 KJV) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
(Rom 7:5 KJV) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.