Only Trinitarians Saved?

[Leslie]

Oneness Pentecostals are one thing, JW's and Mormons are another matter entirely.

Mormonism is perhaps the most polytheistic religion ever due to the belief that you can become a god and indeed every god was once a man somewhere in the universe, and it goes on and on into infinite regression. The Trinity to them are three Gods acting as one essentially. The JW's preach that Jesus is the Archangel Michael and isn't divine at all! They also teach that the Holy Spirit isn't even a person, but a force.

Oneness Pentecostals MAY be saved despite their ignorance of the Trinity. Mormons and JW's worship a completely different deity to begin with, and focused on a works based salvation that will merit them heaven, instead of relying on the grace of God, through Jesus Christ.

So yes, I'de exclude Mormonism and JW's from being true Christians. That's why we must reach them before it's too late.

[Jill]

.

[Jeff]

I myself have been troubled by this question for awhile now. My current position is that a trinity belief is not necessary for salvation, but after true salvation a true Christian will accept the doctrine once they have been taught it. A willful rejection of the doctrine of the trinity is the fruit of an untrue salvation imo. My pastor recently addressed this question, but regarding the belief in the virgin birth. He pointed out that many children who are truly saved have no concept of the virgin birth, or even what virginity is for that matter. Yet once they become aware of the doctrine, that a true born again Christian will accept the doctrine. This logic seems reasonable to me.

[darinhouston]

I myself have been troubled by this question for awhile now. My current position is that a trinity belief is not necessary for salvation, but after true salvation a true Christian will accept the doctrine once they have been taught it. A willful rejection of the doctrine of the trinity is the fruit of an untrue salvation imo. My pastor recently addressed this question, but regarding the belief in teh virgin birth. He pointed out that many children who are truly saved have no concept of the virgin birth, or even what virginity is for that matter. Yet once they become aware of the doctrine, that a true born again Christian will accept the doctrine. This logic seems reasonable to me.

I'm missing the logic of this one -- if I have biblical reasons not to believe (I do, sort of) that the bible teaches the Trinity how would my rejection of it be fruit of untrue salvation? And, what version of the Trinitarian understanding would prove such a thing? I doubt any of us on here would have exactly the same understanding of how the Trinity "works."

[IsaacJ]

It's definitely interesting to think on. Earlier today I was going through one of Norman Geisler's DVD's on essentials of the faith. He brought out the distinction that there are essential things required for one to be saved and a larger list of things that we have to believe to stay on track with biblical Christianity (hopefully that makes sense, He said it way better.)

We know we're saved by belief / trust in Jesus Christ. We don't have to know much to make that decision, but if we've made that decision and continue to let Jesus and the word instruct us, certain truths become apparent and must be allowed to shape our thinking. Many of those truth's might not be required for us to be saved and belong to God, but if we really continue walking in belief and trust we must receive them as truth. An unwillingness to receive some of these truth's of scripture puts groups in the category of cult. Some cults' unscriptural beliefs still leave room for some to be saved, while others seem to nearly eliminate the possibility of being saved AND faithful to the cult since they touch on essentials for being saved.

Hope that made some measure of sense.

[Jeff]

It's definitely interesting to think on. Earlier today I was going through one of Norman Geisler's DVD's on essentials of the faith. He brought out the distinction that there are essential things required for one to be saved and a larger list of things that we have to believe to stay on track with biblical Christianity (hopefully that makes sense, He said it way better.)

We know we're saved by belief / trust in Jesus Christ. We don't have to know much to make that decision, but if we've made that decision and continue to let Jesus and the word instruct us, certain truths become apparent and must be allowed to shape our thinking. Many of those truth's might not be required for us to be saved and belong to God, but if we really continue walking in belief and trust we must receive them as truth. An unwillingness to receive some of these truth's of scripture puts groups in the category of cult. Some cults' unscriptural beliefs still leave room for some to be saved, while others seem to nearly eliminate the possibility of being saved AND faithful to the cult since they touch on essentials for being saved.

Hope that made some measure of sense.

I like that position, in fact better than my own.

[Jeff]

I myself have been troubled by this question for awhile now. My current position is that a trinity belief is not necessary for salvation, but after true salvation a true Christian will accept the doctrine once they have been taught it. A willful rejection of the doctrine of the trinity is the fruit of an untrue salvation imo. My pastor recently addressed this question, but regarding the belief in teh virgin birth. He pointed out that many children who are truly saved have no concept of the virgin birth, or even what virginity is for that matter. Yet once they become aware of the doctrine, that a true born again Christian will accept the doctrine. This logic seems reasonable to me.

I'm missing the logic of this one -- if I have biblical reasons not to believe (I do, sort of) that the bible teaches the Trinity how would my rejection of it be fruit of untrue salvation? And, what version of the Trinitarian understanding would proves such a thing? I doubt any of us on here would have exactly the same understanding of how the Trinity "works."

Well, maybe I shouldn't make a blanket statement that a rejection of the doctrine of the trinity would be the fruit of an untrue salvation. I'm sure there will be plenty of people in heaven that didn't hold trinitarian beliefs. I would be curious to hear what your reasons against the idea of a trinity are. I guess I've never heard a good explanation for what Jesus was/is that would make me think the trinity view is incorrect. That doesn't mean they are not out there though...

[darinhouston]

Well, maybe I shouldn't make a blanket statement that a rejection of the doctrine of the trinity would be the fruit of an untrue salvation. I'm sure there will be plenty of people in heaven that didn't hold trinitarian beliefs. I would be curious to hear what your reasons against the idea of a trinity are. I guess I've never heard a good explanation for what Jesus was/is that would make me think the trinity view is incorrect. That doesn't mean they are not out there though...

Fair enough... I don't necessarily have reasons against the idea of a trinity, just no real need to cling to the idea(s). The main objections I would see relate to the individual "personhood" of the Holy Spirit. I have no real objection to it, but I just don't see a lot to support the notion beyond a few pronouns. Basically, I think it's a pretty opaque topic for us to cling tightly to it as a defining normative belief. I've read some interesting statistics, for example, about Nicea attendants. For example, they hung together opposed to Arius (and the Arian view regarding Christ), but it seems the majority view may actually have been binitarianism (Jesus and Father as godhead with varying other views about the Holy Spirit) or other not strictly trinitarian views. The importance and centrality of the divinity of Christ brought them together against Arius, but it's interesting that there seems (at least) to have been a pretty diverse opinion about the subject in general even then.

[Homer]

In the scriptures we are informed what must be believed and confessed to be saved. Did those at the council of Nicea know more than the apostles? Once the Nicean creed was pronounced did that "raise the bar" for what must be believed and confessed? Or, as is the usual result of creeds, did Nicea result in division, exclusion, and/or persecution? Who dares require more than the apostles, and on what authority?

And is there a level of understanding that is satisfactory for salvation, but which must be exceeded upon further education lest a person be "cast away"?

Somehow when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats I do not anticipate a "trinity quiz" to be a determining factor.

[Jeff]

Well, maybe I shouldn't make a blanket statement that a rejection of the doctrine of the trinity would be the fruit of an untrue salvation. I'm sure there will be plenty of people in heaven that didn't hold trinitarian beliefs. I would be curious to hear what your reasons against the idea of a trinity are. I guess I've never heard a good explanation for what Jesus was/is that would make me think the trinity view is incorrect. That doesn't mean they are not out there though...

Fair enough... I don't necessarily have reasons against the idea of a trinity, just no real need to cling to the idea(s). The main objections I would see relate to the individual "personhood" of the Holy Spirit. I have no real objection to it, but I just don't see a lot to support the notion beyond a few pronouns. Basically, I think it's a pretty opaque topic for us to cling tightly to it as a defining normative belief. I've read some interesting statistics, for example, about Nicea attendants. For example, they hung together opposed to Arius (and the Arian view regarding Christ), but it seems the majority view may actually have been binitarianism (Jesus and Father as godhead with varying other views about the Holy Spirit) or other not strictly trinitarian views. The importance and centrality of the divinity of Christ brought them together against Arius, but it's interesting that there seems (at least) to have been a pretty diverse opinion about the subject in general even then.

As I think more on this topic, it seems as if the divinity of Jesus would be more of a litmus test than the trinity would be. When I originally posted this, I wasn't even considering the modalist view (Oneness Pentacostal view, etc.) I agree that the scriptural evidence for the personhood of the Spirit is much less than the evidence for the divinity of Jesus. I've read at least one Messianic view that is just that - Jesus is divine, but the Spirit is an impersonal force. I don't know if there is an actual name for that type of view. I'm pretty sure the majority view within the Messianic community is Trinitarian though.