click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?
by Rob BowmanOctober 20th, 2008
Be First to Comment
This is the first post in an occasional series that will appear on this blog, dealing with frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the doctrine of the Trinity. This series will not be providing an overview of the biblical teaching concerning the Trinity. For such an overview, please see my outline study on the Trinity, which cites about a thousand pertinent biblical references. If you have a question on the Trinity not addressed in that outline study and that you would like to see answered here, please email us with your question, and we will consider it for inclusion here. You can find our email address by visiting our ministry’s home page and clicking on “Email” in the upper right corner.
The first question I will address is perhaps one of the most popular objections to the doctrine, even though it does not address the positive evidence for the Trinity in Scripture. Here it is: If belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation, why is the doctrine not clearly or plainly set out, in so many words, in the Bible? Why does the Bible never say “God is a Trinity” or “There are three persons in the one God,” or something equally explicit as an affirmation of the doctrine? And if no such statement is there in the Bible, how can belief in the doctrine be essential for salvation?
The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation. There is no theology exam on which a person needs a passing score before God will accept that person’s trust in him for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace through faith, that is, through our trust and reliance on God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:5-8). On the other hand, deviation from the basics of sound Christian doctrine can be evidence that a person is either immature in faith (see Acts 18:25-26) or has not genuinely come into a saving faith relationship with Christ (Rom. 16:17-18). Resistance to doctrinal correction would generally be a tip-off that the latter problem is the case.
That having been said, what does the Bible tell us we need to know about the Trinity? Obviously, it does not tell us that we need to use words like Trinity or formulas like three persons in one God. These do not appear in the Bible. On the other hand, we are expected to make a faith commitment to the three persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as is evident from the injunction to make disciples by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Someone who denies that the Son is a divine person or who refuses to honor the Son with religious devotion, reverence, and worship, is giving evidence that he or she has not made that faith commitment and so has not yet come to a genuine relationship with the Son. Jesus himself stated, “Unless you believe that I am [he], you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). This means, minimally, that we must accept Jesus for who he really is if we are to be assured of salvation. So, if Jesus is indeed God incarnate, as the Bible does in fact teach, then we need to know and accept this truth about his identity.
Those who are saved as Christian believers, then, will have faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God, although they may not be able to articulate this in a doctrinal way very well at first. As they come to understand what the Bible says about this subject in conversation with the rest of the church, such believers normally will assent to the doctrine of the Trinity as the church’s historic and best articulation of the divine nature and relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If a person rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, that person has cut himself off from the church. It is interesting to note that all of the major (and as far as I know all of the minor) heretical religious versions of Christianity agree on one thing: they all reject the doctrine of the Trinity. This does seem to be the crucial, decisive theological issue separating orthodox from heretical forms of Christianity. Is it possible for someone in a non-Trinitarian religious group to be saved? I suppose it is, but it isn’t recommended. Again, doctrinal error may be a sign of spiritual lostness, or of spiritual immaturity, or perhaps of some other type of problem, and we aren’t in a position to judge definitively whether other people are saved or not. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to take a stand for the integrity of the church’s teaching, and cannot compromise on so basic a doctrine as the Trinity. We can do so with full confidence that what we are defending is biblical, because all of the essential elements of the doctrine of the Trinity are clearly taught in the Bible.
This is from my new blog. Feel free to visit.
Similar Posts:
- Heresies: Subordinationalism – A Lesser Christ
- "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
- The Great Trinity Debate Challenge
- The Great Trinity Debate: An Introduction
- In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? B: The Father Is Greater than All
Loading ...
178 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually DrG, Rob HAS to support the doctrine as a MUST for salvation.
He has not stated that he does not and he has to claim that it does in order to maintain his “orthodox tradition”. plus he would not be allowed to post such type of blogs that speak against it if he didn’t support it, especially on reclaiming the mind.
Ha! reclaiming the mind – almost sounds contradictory in essence and nature.
You ever peruse their curicculum?
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
Careful; often theologians have … interesting undertones, not explicitly stated.
To be sure, many pastors are committed publically to various dogmas, like the Trinity for example. IN part since their church insists on it.
Still, maybe we can see Mr. Bowman … broadening out from a very strict or literal belief in the Trinity; to suggesting …? That somehow to be sure 1) the Trinity seems problematic in many aspects.
And … 2) while perhaps emphasizing Jesus, our author seems to be suggesting, 3) from his examination of the Trinity, that it is hard to find such a concentration even on Jesus, entirely justified in the Bible itself.
Which would be … more daring than many would have thought?
4) Some of us who have to defend the Dogmatics of this or that church, for this or that reason, will often find, on close research, that … 5) though God and Bible may be great, 6) various church doctrines, dogmas, are not.
Or 6) some even go on to question the Bible itself too.
7) Rather than go this far, most religious thinkers like to just present a sort of …. puzzlement over … biblical and church positions. A puzzlement that they suggest, has not yet been resolved.
Which allows a lot of openness on theological questions; an openness on questions about God, that is not quite as “dogmatic” or firm as most people might think.
Like or Dislike:
0
hrmph!
“”Careful; often theologians have … interesting undertones, not explicitly stated.
—To be sure, many pastors are committed publically to various dogmas, like the Trinity for example. IN part since their church insists on it.— “”
Are you imply-ing that there are preachers living and telling people they believe in something that they really do not and therefore are living a lie//?
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes I am.
Like or Dislike:
0
DrG,
Well i tought that we would agree, so moving forward.
Why is this? why do we insist on decieveing ourselves to “fit in” with the traditionalists and the orthodoxical crowd?
I can understand, sad as it may be, that some are still in contept of the Scriptures by clinging to traditional precepts that speak not of clarity but of a possible paganistic assimilation of the Truth. This is not only problematic with the scholarly, but the unearned as well. For the unlearned are questioning the Biblical ethics and the clarity of the Scriptures to what the learned are speaking and teaching. Then, when the young deny or refuse to accept, the learned shun them and woo them slowly away by their inability to grasp what the Scriptures ARE clear of concerning this issue. This leaves the young as prey, for their inability to clearly speak and teach the clarity of the Scriptures they decieve the young by stating that this doctrine is pertinant for salvation – yet they can not validate this claim by Scripture. And now the young have been devoured.
Should the one seeking the Truth, as you suggest, they will examine and test the doctrine by the use of Scritpure, then by the leadership of the Holy Spirit the Truth will be revealed. Prayerfully. Thus creating discernment and an ability to try the spirit(s).
Should we begin to question the Word, then we begin to question ourselves and whether we are learning truth or just another way of thought. Did we go to school to learn how to think -or- What to think? Dogmatics, are they of neccessity or for a lack of understanding what is clear? Thus creating arguementative dssentions within hte Body and disrupting the flow of the Spirit? So now we question the firmness of our Faith.
The Scriptures have given us a beginning and an end, what is there to be so discombobbulated over that we conjecture what is not clear and replace it with what is clear? Not only confusing ourselves, but making what we do not understand as a doctrine that is just as confusing as we are confuse in trying to explain it as a means for salvation? When the Scriptures ARE clear how Salvation is attained….
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
yo DrG, & Rob Bowman,
In his [http://www.irr.org/trinity-part-IV.html] under [F. Jesus has all the attributes of God #4 - Eternal: ]
He[Bowman] use Hebrews 7.3 in that he is using this verse to speak of Christ as being eternal. Yet he uses it out of context for the actual verse starts at v1. where the Authur is referring to Melchizedek and not Christ, the only referral to Christ is that He is the “Son of God”….
Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him. To him also Abraham apportioned a tithe of everything. His name first means king of righteousness, then king of Salem, that is, king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time.
Hebrews 7:1-3.
Maybe Rob could sign on and explain how/why he did this…
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus’ day.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kk,
Thats what the Word tells us, so then does that mean he was still alive when Jesus was Born?
But this does not releive Bowman for his mis-representation of the Word- does it now?
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
You are half right about Hebrews 7:3. Grammatically, the words “having neither beginning of days nor end of life…he remains a priest forever” refer to Melchizedek–but specifically as a type of Christ: “but made like [or "resembling"] the Son of God.” The author is not saying that Melchizedek literally had no parents, no birth or death, and is still a priest. He is using a Jewish method of typology to explain Psalm 110:4, a key verse in the author’s argument, which states that the Messiah would be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.” There was no literal priestly order or succession; the language is used poetically and typologically in Psalm 110:4. Melchizedek appears in the record in Genesis 14 without any mention of his parentage or birth, and nothing is said about his death. This mysterious lack of genealogical information (which stands in contrast to the patriarchs and other key figures in Genesis) makes Melchizedek a type of the Son of God, who really is our priest forever by virtue of his indestructible, eternal life (see Heb. 7:16). Jesus, of course, had human parents, a human birth, and even a death, but as “the Son of God” he existed without beginning (so also Heb. 1:1-3, 10) and will have no end of days (so also Heb. 1:11-12; 13:8). So my use of Hebrews 7:3 is fully in keeping with the immediate context in Hebrews 7 as well as the context of the whole book of Hebrews.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB and Dr. G.,
The criticism that some advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity might adhere to the doctrine merely to retain their position in an orthodox church is unworthy of this forum and irrelevant to this thread. There are people with less than noble motives in every religion; their shallowness is irrelevant to the question of what the true doctrine is.
In my case, I seriously doubted the doctrine of the Trinity for some time and gave the matter careful, sincere thought and study, refusing to back away from the difficult questions and challenges to that doctrine because I only wanted to know the truth. That is *still* my attitude. I adhere to the Trinity because I am convinced it is true and for no other reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob,
First thanks for the reply.
While i am somewhat impressed with your opening, i stop at the premise that Melchizede could not have been a Priest. For if he was not as you presuppose then we would need to explain the actions of Abram. Also, in this explaination we need to address why Abram thought that he would need to give tribute to one who was not or could not have been a Priest, then you need to explain how it is that some many century’s later, God inspired the author of the Psalms verse to again make mention the he was a Priest. See you have spun a web that needs attention.
Should we further compound your statement, then we need to inquire to God the Almighty why it is that He would inspire men to write that Melchizedek was a Priest and that His Son would be a Preist after this Order, per-chance that there was no such Order as you ascribe to.
Should we contend that the writer of Hebrews is using this language in a poetic and typological sense then we need to clarify how it is that the verse in Psalms, referring to century’s before, is content in holding that he was, in fact, a Priest.?
Do you not see the contention and the conflict that arises when we try to twist the Scriptures to suit our own needs and desires? – Or – we can accept the obvious and that he[Melchizedek] was a Priest and not after an order that was ordinary, but rather truly God Ordained. To wit the Scriptures are clear and to wit they stand in a Unified fashion that not only credits the earlier writings concerning Melchizedek but also gives proper Authority to what is being represented in the Letter of Hebrews.
Which brings us to Heb 1:1-3, but i think that i will stop here momentarily to give you time to digest what you posted and consider what i have posted…
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
I didn’t say that Melchizedek wasn’t a priest. I was saying that he was not literally a priest “forever.” Melchizedek the priest in Abram’s day was a type of Christ, our heavenly, eternal high priest.
Like or Dislike:
0
hrmph.
If he was a Priest – and he didn’t have a beginning nor end – then when did his Priesthood end[or begin] so that it was not – forever?
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
You seem to be making an assumption based on very little evidence.
We DO know that-
1.He was a Priest
2.He was Honored as a Priest
3 He was Ordained by God and not man
4.He had an Order as becoming a Priestly right
5.He apparently was Eternal.
-or- you have an issue not grasping the simplicity of what facts we do have and accepting them as they are.
But, should we say that it was a poetic and typological language and really something that is not real then we have an issue with the Scriptures and possibly God is lie-ing to us-?
so which is it?
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob:
1) RB, it seems, does not need a lot of historical evicence; he is making a point of Logic: that if our priest is without ending or beginning … then how can you say his priesthood is not eternal?
“Always be prepared to give a Reason” for your belief. So what is yours here?
2) To be sure, I cannot quite tell if RB is consistently supporting the Trinity or not; or supporting some complex understanding of it that is not conventional? Would RB like to outline again his idea of the Trinity, clearly? It would be interesting; he has given some thought to it obviously; and has a logical mind.
3) By the way, does one insult the Bible, if one asserts that it is “simple”? And/or, must a Christian be simple? Are the facts of Christianity really all that simple? In which case, why do we need Theology or Biblical scholars? Or this forumn?
Like or Dislike:
0
Or maybe we could just say, that the Bible is a bit “poetic” … without implying that God is lying to us; just acknowledging that his ways are complex, and hard for us to understand, or make simple, at times?
Like or Dislike:
0
Tho not address to me:
1) RB, it seems, does not need a lot of historical evicence; he is making a point of Logic: that if our priest is without ending or beginning … then how can you say his priesthood is not eternal?
Ans: I agree. Yet if we are to contradict the Scriptures where they are clear that Melchizedek’s Priesthood is Eternal, by saying that it was not then we are not understanding the clarity.
“Always be prepared to give a Reason” for your belief. So what is yours here?
It is based on the reality of the Scriptures as they speak, not some old wives tale that scholars for century’s have made speculations about and today we call it “”gods revelation”" – ?
2) To be sure, I cannot quite tell if RB is consistently supporting the Trinity or not; or supporting some complex understanding of it that is not conventional? Would RB like to outline again his idea of the Trinity, clearly? It would be interesting; he has given some thought to it obviously; and has a logical mind.
No. for a surety I do not support the orthodoxical cathololistic paganistic implications of the trinity as put forth by the same.
3) By the way, does one insult the Bible, if one asserts that it is “simple”? And/or, must a Christian be simple? Are the facts of Christianity really all that simple? In which case, why do we need Theology or Biblical scholars? Or this forumn?
Yes the Bible is simple, it is the Spirit that brings it to Life, and no i do not think that it is an insult to say that it is simple. Someone ask me once about the “”grey” areas of the Bible, in reply i said there were no “”grey” areas, but things that we just do not understand and that by the Direction of God. Why can’t a Christian be simple, after all it is not us that Lives but Christ that Lives in us. To some degree i agree with you, in that we as the creation attempt to make christianity complex, especially when we state that one “MUST” believe a particual doctrine that we ourselves are not “SURE OF” in order to be Saved, show me where this is in the Bible? that i “MUST” believe in it to be saved and i will show you that you are wrong…-thence should i show you that you are wrong will you accept the simplicity of Salvation?..
Buzz on 09 May 2009 at 12:17 pm #
Or maybe we could just say, that the Bible is a bit “poetic” … without implying that God is lying to us; just acknowledging that his ways are complex, and hard for us to understand, or make simple, at times?
Should we ‘say’ that the Bible is poetic, since i really do not spend alot of time reading poetry, when would i read the Bible? If it is only a typology of what poetry ‘could be’ then again when would i read it- since it is a typology based on poetic language? This would make it questionable as to its validity would it not?
Yes, God’s ways are complex to us, because we can not grasp His fullness, atleast not at the moment. Yet to say that Heb 7:1-3 is poetic, then that imply’s that Genesis is poetic as well, thus did it really happen? Did Jesus really die on the Cross? was He really buried and Rise again? —or is it Just “Poetic and Typological Language”? To say that this passage again is poetic when it describes and gives us a little more information about Melchizedek is just poetry in motion, then what about v14-17, esp v17- was God just being “poetic” in setting His Son as a Priest after “poetic fokelore” that never really existed?
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
First, what religion are you? Please identify the religious group with which you affiliate or the theological system to which you adhere so that we may place your comments in context. At present, I really cannot figure out what it is you believe. (If you told me before, I have forgotten.) All I really know is that you’re against the Trinity.
Second, are you serious about claiming that Melchizedek himself is literally a priest forever? If so, over whom or in relation to whom is he a priest? And does this mean you think he literally never died? If so, what happened to him? Indeed, do you think he was literally never born? If so, what sort of being is he?
Third, the point at issue was whether Hebrews 7:3 teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, is eternal. You now seem to be arguing that Melchizedek is eternal but Jesus is not. Please tell me you are not adopting such an absurd position!
Fourth, please go read the discussion of Hebrews 7 in some good recent exegetical commentaries. Most of them take the view that I do and will confirm and explain in detail that interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob,
First: i am a Christian, the same as you would ascribe Acts 11.26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. As to an affiliation, are you attempting to “label” me to fit some predetermined criteria? Non-trinitarian, but i see no relevance in how this can put my comments into a “context” since they been straightforward, and Biblical. that is unless of course you can show me to be incorrect-?
Second: Yes i am, for that is what the Word states, does it not? or are you saying that the Record God gave us is incorrect? Plus, you have not demonstrated that His is NOT, have you? The Word does not say to whom or over whom he is a Priest does it, unless you can show through Scriptures that there is mention of the same. V3, makes this clear, yet can you provide evidence that deny’s what God has Recorded that denounces Gods Inspiriation to the Writer of the verse? I do not know-do you? Again v3. Umm good question, Being, well possibly had a human recognition, how could Abram know him? but again this is speculative thought, yet should he have been an angel i am sure that it would be recorded properly, don’t you think so? Could have possibly been a theophony, eh(?).
Third: Well i never said Jesus was not Eternal, did i? But i do not believe that Jesus existed before Jesus was Born. Should he have then the Gospel accounts are wrong-would you not agree? Also, should Jesus have existed before Jesus was Born through Mary, does this mean that Mary existed before Mary was Born as well?
Fourth: i already have and it appears you are just repeating what they say and not what the Spirit has given you inghts to, or did you miss something—–
*****
—–
Like or Dislike:
0
Now:
You are apparently reading Hebrews with a trinitarian mindset, In that Jesus ‘per-existed’. So much so that you need to justify how it is that Melchizedek came before Christ when you believe that Christ is before everything, thus somehow excluding the Gospel account of His Birth that came many many years later. You want to say that Jesus’ Priesthood could not have came after Melchizedek’s, even though it is clear that Christ’s Priesthood is -after- that of Melchizedek’s, as so Directed by God as set forth in the Letter of Hebrews. But the trnitarian mindset cannot contend with this unless they discount Hebrews 7:1-3. In that they then say that this passage is poetic and typological in nature, not really considering the consequences of this statement, nor in respect to the Inspiration of God for the Writer to pen as directed by the same that Jesus is -after- Melchizedek: v.11, 15, 17.
Most Bibles have a subtitle that gives a relative insight as to the passge, some say “Melchizedeks priesthood like Christs’ yet when you read the whole chapter you can see that this is incorrect, it is actually reverse. For this subtitle gives the impression that Christ came before Melchizedek, but the Scriptures have recorded just the opposite, an oversight by man maybe, or a forethought to implicate a trinitarian mindset?
Apparently, you are also under the influence that Melchizedeks Priesthood was not Eternal, but i believe that in the proper reading of v3, it makes it clear that Melchizedek’s Priesthood – ‘made like the Son of God’ – remains forever. We all know that the Son of God did not exist untill His Birth, or else there would be mention of an existing Son in the OT, but i have failed to find anything in the OT that brings to clarity that God has/had a Son prior to His[Jesus] Birth – have you?
So Melchizedeks Priesthood was fashioned so that when Christ had finished the work he was meant to do, the Priesthoods would be similar, thus Melchizedeks remains forever, and after God ‘Appointed Chirst as a Priest’, he was Appointed -after- that of Melchizedeks.
This can be understood in v11-17, [the indestructable life- He IS RISEN!!] Now should Jesus be Eternally living v25, then there is clarity in that His Priesthood does not end, and since Melchizedeks Order is Eternal v15, then we can see how Christs and Melchizedeks are similar in Eternality, and there is an existing parallel, since neither are now dead v3 & v25, taking into account v23 & 24 by way of death, and since you have been so gracious to point out the there is no geneaology of Melchizedek and v3 states why, then the Order of Melchizedek never ended, bringing us again to v15 ‘the likeness of Melchizedek’ – now tell me the Scriptures are wrong and this is just poetic typology again, please…
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
Can you please tell me how you explain these verses if you don’t believe that Jesus, God’s Son, existed before His birth:
John 1:1 ” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
J0hn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
And John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth”
The next verses go on to make it plain that this “Word” being spoken of was Jesus.
Then there is Colossians 1:16 which says, speaking of the Son (Jesus):
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
Your unwillingness to identify your specific religious or theological perspective demonstrates a lack of honesty in this exchange. You naturally find it easier to take pot-shots at the beliefs of others than to stake out a coherent position and defend it.
As Cheryl rightly points out, there are numerous biblical texts that teach that Jesus Christ preexisted before the universe. Your attempt to spin Hebrews 7:3 is irrelevant.
Jesus existed before he was conceived and born, because his conception and birth pertain to his human nature–his “flesh”–which he assumed in the Incarnation (John 1:14). Mary, of course, did not exist before her conception and birth, because she is only a human being. Jesus was much more than that–he was God in the flesh.
RB, if you refuse to be honest and forthright about your own beliefs, I will refuse to bother responding to your comments any further.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sure, if you will answer this:
The trinity doctrine states that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that would make all three, God.
Heres the question;
In Matthew 26:36-46, we see that Jesus is struggling with the will. Now if God is the Father AND the Son, then the Will of the Father would be the same as the Will of the Son since both are God, correct.?
But we can clearly read that it is not….Right.
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
What about the Scriptures I listed above? Specifically the John chapter one verses? You know,: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There it plainly speaks of the Word both being with God and being God. And remember, if you read the rest of the chapter, it makes it very plain that the Word was Jesus.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
You said, “Now if God is the Father AND the Son, then the Will of the Father would be the same as the Will of the Son since both are God, correct.?”
Would you please clarify something for me? I may be reading something into this comment that you didn’t intend at all. Are you saying here that you do not believe that Jesus, the Son, is actually God? You may have made this clear elsewhere, but I can’t remember if you have.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well rob, again i can see that you are wrong, So instead of answering my post, you hide behind a label. Instead of a dialogue where two “christians” discuss Biblical clarity and understanding, you would rather dismember Eph 4 by division by way of denominational stereotpyes.
I’m the Spirit that goes out knocking on doors inviting people to come to church and here how God loves them while you sit in your office writing blogs with information that you copied and slightly re-wrote that is far from the truth…
i’m the Spirit that goes out to visit the elderly and the widows if only to share in their remorse and sorrow while you sit at home hoping someone will visit them….
i’m the Spirit that you see standing on the street corner telling people to repent and sharing the Gospel openly while you wait on God to send someone your way…
i’m the Spirit that is sitting in the booth behind you shairing Christ with someone while you sit there eating and listening in thinking how foolish i am…
i’m the Spirit that goes to gay rally’s not to protest and slander them but to be subtle in passing out flyers created on a home laptop while you and others stand in the pulpit and sit at home and talk with your fiends condeming them but do not go out and tell them that they can recieve Redeemtion…
i’m the Spirit that walks the neighborhood asking God to allow His Spirit to lead me to that one who may be contemplating suicide while you sit at home and ask God why it is that the world is in such chaos…
i’m the Spirit that sits in the back and listens to other preachers and wonders why they are telling people to give their life to God and be a witness for Him, yet do not do as they preach…
Honesty, Honesty is what i have been sending you but somehow it eludes you, the same way that Melchizedeks Eternal Priesthood does, doesn’t it?………God still Loves you, Rob.
But i could be wrong about you, eh(?)
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
Since it is obvious that RB is not going to answer my questions, I went back and did a bunch of reading of the older comments. For any one else that is confused, has forgotten or maybe never read through this whole long thread, RB does not believe that Jesus is God and he does not belieive that the John 1 Scripture I asked about shows that he is.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
I apologize if you have answered this question elsewhere. If you did I missed it.
I quoted Colossians 1:16 above. It says: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”
The context of this verse makes it very plain that the one being spoken of is Jesus.
Now we all know that in Genesis it says that it is God that created the heavens and the earth.
So, if in Colossians Paul says that all things were created by Jesus, how could He not be God when we know that God is the one that did the creating?
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
You are a hypocrite. You have no problem referring to those who hold my view as “trinitarians” but you criticize me when I ask you to identify what specific form of Christian belief you hold. The rest of your post attempts to draw self-serving contrasts between you and me despite the fact that you obviously don’t know enough about me to describe me as you do.
Please do not post again on this thread. Your participation is no longer welcome.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB on 09 May 2009 at 11:01 pm #
Rob,
First: i am a Christian, the same as you would ascribe Acts 11.26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. As to an affiliation, are you attempting to “label” me to fit some predetermined criteria? Non-trinitarian, but i see no relevance in how this can put my comments into a “context” since they been straightforward, and Biblical. that is unless of course you can show me to be incorrect-?
***********
see you missed it again:
Non-trinitarian.
thanks cheryl – http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm
Back to you rob: we are all hypocrites, thanks for allowing me and the others reading to see firsthand that you are still confused..[even cheryl caught that]
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob Bowman:
I’d like “RB” to continue if possible. I think he’s 1) identified himself as a Christian non-trinitarian. And 2) he seems pretty good at giving excellent reasons, logic and scripture, for his faith.
So could you re-admit “RB” to the discussion and fellowship … in the tradition of Christian charity and tolerance? And intellectual challenge?
To Cheryl: to try to prove that Jesus was there at the beginning, you cite for example: “In the beginning was the word.” But after all, it does not clearly identify the “word” as Jesus. You say that this is clear in the context of the rest of the section … but do not show evidence. Nor in fact is that clear to many of the rest of us.
Likewise, Col. 1:16.
Actually therefore, I think, there seems is a pretty good case in support of RB and/o non-trinitarian claims.
And therefore, I believe firmly that he should be allowed to speak; and hope that you both, will not silence him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl:
For example, look at Col. 1:16, which you cited as an example of Jesus being included with God, from the beginning: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation. For by him all things were created.”
But let’s learn to read our Bibles, their language, a little better. Here in fact, first of all, note the ambiguity of the pronoun, by “him”; 1) note the uncertainty of its “referent,” as they say.
That is to say, who is “Him” here? It could be a) Jesus; but also could be b) God.
So, confirming RB’s anti-trinitarian leanings, this sentence does not clearly identify Jesus as being there, at the beginning.
2) Nor for that matter, does it identify as being any more than the “image” of God; as are we all.
In fact Cheryl, if we learn to look closer at our Bibles, and especially the ambiguity of their language, we will find they are far, far more complex and less dogmatic, than we thought.
Specifically, I submit, we could go through dozens of such examples, and find that the Bible systematically allows for a non-trinitarian reading … in each and every one.
Though I myself do not have the time to do this, I personally am greatful for RB for taking the time.
Like or Dislike:
0
Some words of importance
The Hebrew word for God in Genesis 1 is Elohim…and we all know any word ending in “im” do indicate plurality.
Adonai means Lord, and we see it applied by both David and Abraham. Paul says Enoch prophesied of these things saying I saw the Lord’s returning with ten thousands thousands of His saints.
Baruch et Adonai…blessed be the name of the Lord.
Shema Y’Israel Adonai eloheinu Adonai echad…Hear Oh Israel, the Lord God the Lord is one…
David who was faithful to follow that said “I saw the Lord at the right hand of my Lord”
Abraham bowed down and called the three men at his tent door and called them Adonai.
The Bible indicates Adonai as being someone who is coming back, someone who sits at the right hand of God and someone who makes physical appearances. Isaiah said he saw the Lord high and lifted up.
If we say Adonai is merely a word to indicated titleship, then the name Ba’al which also means master could just as easily apply. But we know Ba’al is also the name of a god worshipped by semites. And it is not the same god as Yaweh. Therefore Adonai is a word meaning Lord, opposite of the understood name Ba’al and Adonai was physically witnessed by Abraham, David, Enoch, Moses, Elijah and Isaiah.
If you don’t accept the Jewish imagery (which is real by the way) then you won’t get a clear view of what Paul was talking about. Paul referred back to Enoch…the seventh from Adam. He saw Adonai’s returning with ten thousands thousands…returning? You have to go away to return.
Like or Dislike:
0
“BUZZ”,
We know from many former posts over the last months (am I not correct?) that you find the Bible to be so ambigous about anything and everything that to even try to come to some concrete conclusion about what it means in a conversation with you often seems to be an exercise in complete fulitily. So I don’t think I will even try this time.
And if by chance I am not correct in what I said, surely you are his twin brother!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl & RB & Robert:
Doesn’t the very endlessness of these discussions – and the presentation of good arguments on both sides, in case after case, in hundreds of cases – suggest to you that the Bible itself, is just not as firmly in favor of some doctrines like the Trinity, as our churches insisted? That in fact, the Bible itself is … even deliberately ambiguous about, entertains two opinions, about many issues?
Don’t just take my word for it; look now at RB’s suggestions – which are good. Consider the ambiguity of the language, or the possible other meaning, of all your last examples. Then multiply this by a thousand. And then you should begin to suspect that the Bible itself is deliberately ambiguous, on many issues. And that the Bible itself – probably deliberately – is by far not firm at all, at many things they told you in church.
No matter how many examples we look at here, one after another, counter-examples and objections will be found to each one; all too consistently. Suggesting finally that the Bible itself is intended to be at best ambiguous; open to many different things. (Or even in the case of RB and the Trinity … the Bible is actually intended to go against much of what you heard in church).
Which leads us finally to what? To endless frustration? Or to … a God, a Theology, that is far, far less dogmatic and fixed, than our everyday preachers have lead us to believe. To a God that is not adequately described by everyday, unequivocal sermons.
In fact, it is this very insight, that is the first step in part, in moving past what we learned in church … to real “Theology.”
And I suggest that you keep pursing THIS sense of God and the Bible; which will lead you to real Theology. And finally, to the one who will say to you, “I am the one you seek.”
Since we are endlessly “seeking” him, in this model? (Note the ambiguity, the double meaning, of even our very last quote).
Like or Dislike:
0
Buzz,
2 Ti 3:16 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
I Ti 4:16 “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
John 1:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. ”
Sorry, but I don’t believe that God meant for us to see Him and His Word as ambigous, with multiple meanings that can never be pinned down.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G, alias BUZZ,
I know writing styles and yours is the same as Dr. G.’s, You have apparently morphed into BUZZ. Is that like in a fly or bee, or in off? And so, at least in that ambiguous sense your last quote makes sense:
“Since we are endlessly “seeking” him, (BUZZ or Dr. G.) in this model? (Note the ambiguity, the double meaning, of even our very last quote).”
Well noted. And in an unequivocal way, which is one of G’s favorite BUZZ words too.
Some of us are on to you.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Lord Jesus Christ
is
Father , Son and Holy Ghost
God bless you all in Jesus name
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl:
Maybe you’d like to read Lisa’s new Guide on this blog; on “Ten Questions” to ask as you read your Bible. Reading the Bible is not as easy or simple as many might think.
Lisa recommends that when you read the Bible, for example, you should keep in mind many different possible theologies, that would give any given passage a slightly different meaning.
No doubt, God wants us to know him through scripture. But the question is: what finally is God like, when we do get to know him? Perhaps he is very multi-dimensional.
I feel that the perpectual quest for a very simple view of God, is an insult to God; to his complexity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mr.Bowman,
I noticed how quickly you ask RB to refrain, yet i see nothing in these post that support your position as to the Priesthood of Melchizedk other than to critique RB.
Please Mr.Bowman, for those of us who read more than post, please support your position by postings a rebuttal as to why you seem to think that RB is incorrect in his Scriptural rendering and why you are correct.
Like or Dislike:
0
Bluedart,
One thing I have noticed here is some authors make inflammatory doctrinal statements then coil up when someone responds back, as though the authors are the only ones allowed to be prejudiced but not allowed to have anything said back to them.
I have noticed they like to bait also, waiting for the unsuspecting person to wander across their blog post and comment.
Like or Dislike:
0
Bluedart,
Please see my post #109, where I explained the basis for my view concerning Melchizedek.
RB’s original point was that I had supposedly misinterpreted Hebrews 7:3. According to RB, this verse cannot be used to support the conclusion that Jesus Christ is eternal. I defended my claim not only by explaining Hebrews 7:3 in context but pointing out that several other passages in Hebrews teach the same thing. He made no attempt to answer these arguments.
The reason I asked RB not to continue posting in this thread is that he refused to answer a simple and germane question as to his own religious beliefs. He was happy to attack the doctrine of the Trinity but not prepared to explain his own position and put it in some theological or religious context. His continuing to repeat the same objections while refusing to be as open about his views as I am about mine serves no constructive purpose in a supposed discussion or dialogue.
Like or Dislike:
0
In all due respect Mr.Bowman, you really did not answer my question. For the sake of redundancy and repitition i will repeat my question which was not that i wanted you to dish RB, but:
Please Mr.Bowman, for those of us who read more than post, please support your position by posting a rebuttal as to why you seem to think that RB is incorrect in his Scriptural rendering and why you are correct concerning Melchizedek.
Like or Dislike:
0
Bluedart,
If you really “read more than post,” then please read my response to you again. I specifically pointed you to post #109, in which I explained why I hold to the view that I do concerning Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:3. That is where you will find why I think I am correct and RB is incorrect. So I did answer your question.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
I know you are non-Trinitarian. This does not answer the question. Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Armstrongites, and many other religious groups are non-Trinitarian. I want to know to which *specific* religious group and/or theological system you attach yourself. Give us a designation that we will all recognize as referring to a specific religious group or doctrinal position. This isn’t an unreasonable request. Only someone who has something to hide would refuse.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mr.Bowman,
Drawing your attention to your post #109, you state: “The author is not saying that Melchizedek literally had no parents, no birth or death, and is still a priest. He is using a Jewish method of typology to explain Psalm 110:4, a key verse in the author’s argument, which states that the Messiah would be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.”” I would like to read your reasoning why you disagree with the Bible, if the Bible states that he was a Priset, why do you say that he was not?
Because then you state, “There was no literal priestly order or succession; the language is used poetically and typologically in Psalm 110:4.”. You give me, and I would think others as well, the impression that you don’t agree with what the Bible states concerning the Priesthood of Melchizedek.
Gen 14:18: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Bluedart,
You made the same mistake in reading my post that RB did. I already corrected that mistake in post #112. For your convenience, I will repeat it here:
“I didn’t say that Melchizedek wasn’t a priest. I was saying that he was not literally a priest ‘forever.’ Melchizedek the priest in Abram’s day was a type of Christ, our heavenly, eternal high priest.”
Please do not post any more on this thread until you have actually read my posts and made sure you are not criticizing something I’m not saying (Prov. 18:13).
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob Bowman:
Surely RB doesn’t need to present credentials that he’s a member of any particular church, to be heard here? He’s said he is a non-trinitarian Christian. That should be enough.
And he seems in fact, to vociferously defend Christianity; it seems his claim to be a Christian, is sincere.
Could you therefore officially invite him back into the conversation? In the interest of Christian Charity, and intellectual challenge?
No doubt, it is very disturbing to see a good, strong, multifacted and well-exampled, logically-argued case made here by RB, that the BIble itself does not support the Trinity. Yet to be sure, we should not be afraid of seeing many fundamental beliefs questioned, in a theology blog.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB does not only not support the trinity. He does not believe that Jesus is God. Seems to me that is getting a bit far afield of orthodox Christian belief.
Like or Dislike:
0
Joe, BUZZ, Dr. G,
As you have also refused to answer questions concerning your background, it is no surprise that you jump to RB’s defence. The refusal to answer questions just raises more questions.
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »