• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

The Trinity

Can One Be Christian Without Believing in the Trinity?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • No

    Votes: 27 87.1%
  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Lemons

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
This is sort of inspired by the Resurrection thread, but one question I've always had is this: can one be a Christian without believing in the Trinity?

NOTE: Notice I never said "deny." I mean to simply just not believe in it.

I know that the Trinity is essential to Christianity, an integral foundation of our theology itself, and that the Church vehemently condemns the denial of it. I am not contesting this, nor am I contesting the doctrine itself.

But what I am asking is if it's really necessary for someone to believe in it.

For example, I have trouble believing that 1st century Jews and other simpletons would have really believed in the Trinity. The New Testament itself is silent about it, at least explicitly. The message always seemed to be that Christ is Risen, our God fulfilled his promise, salvation has come to the world etc.

That said, is it really necessary that someone ignorant to the Trinity would have to believe in it in order to be Christian? Because if so, I really doubt that most of the early Church believed in it. That's not to say that they willfully denied it--in which case, they would be heretics for not trusting the Church's authority--but that they simply were ignorant of it and therefore did not believe it.

So is believe in the Trinity necessary to be Christian? Even for the most simpleminded early convert peasant whose only understanding of Christianity would be that Christ is Risen? I can't help but see the doctrine as merely a matter of intellect--something that those knowledgable within the Church would have to believe since they are aware of it, but something that the vast majority of the Church wouldn't believe in, not because of denial, but simply because of ignorance and let's face it, its irrelevance to the main message that Christ is Risen. Sort of like heychasm, the essence-energy thing, and other really confusing dogmas which the Church affirms but which the vast majority is ignorant of.

So do you really consciously have to affirm belief in the Trinity to be Christian? I honestly don't think so. And until I see evidence that the earliest Christians--not just the educated, privileged Fathers and theologians, but the average layman--actually affirmed it, I'm not going to be convinced otherwise. Again, it seems like a doctrine which was mostly just confined to the educated like the essence-energies things before the Arian controversy later forced the Church to educate her laymen on it, but before then, I don't think it was necessary.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
Its the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (The Trinity)
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
JamesR said:
This is sort of inspired by the Resurrection thread, but one question I've always had is this: can one be a Christian without believing in the Trinity?

NOTE: Notice I never said "deny." I mean to simply just not believe in it.

I know that the Trinity is essential to Christianity, an integral foundation of our theology itself, and that the Church vehemently condemns the denial of it. I am not contesting this, nor am I contesting the doctrine itself.

But what I am asking is if it's really necessary for someone to believe in it.

For example, I have trouble believing that 1st century Jews and other simpletons would have really believed in the Trinity. The New Testament itself is silent about it, at least explicitly. The message always seemed to be that Christ is Risen, our God fulfilled his promise, salvation has come to the world etc.

That said, is it really necessary that someone ignorant to the Trinity would have to believe in it in order to be Christian? Because if so, I really doubt that most of the early Church believed in it. That's not to say that they willfully denied it--in which case, they would be heretics for not trusting the Church's authority--but that they simply were ignorant of it and therefore did not believe it.

So is believe in the Trinity necessary to be Christian? Even for the most simpleminded early convert peasant whose only understanding of Christianity would be that Christ is Risen? I can't help but see the doctrine as merely a matter of intellect--something that those knowledgable within the Church would have to believe since they are aware of it, but something that the vast majority of the Church wouldn't believe in, not because of denial, but simply because of ignorance and let's face it, its irrelevance to the main message that Christ is Risen. Sort of like heychasm, the essence-energy thing, and other really confusing dogmas which the Church affirms but which the vast majority is ignorant of.

So do you really consciously have to affirm belief in the Trinity to be Christian? I honestly don't think so. And until I see evidence that the earliest Christians--not just the educated, privileged Fathers and theologians, but the average layman--actually affirmed it, I'm not going to be convinced otherwise. Again, it seems like a doctrine which was mostly just confined to the educated like the essence-energies things before the Arian controversy later forced the Church to educate her laymen on it, but before then, I don't think it was necessary.
So what are you really trying to say? ...  :laugh:
 

kelly

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
3,812
Reaction score
0
Points
36
WPM said:
Its the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (The Trinity)
Yes, that's what the Trinity is.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I tend to take sociological approach on definition of being a Christian. If a person is a product of Christian culture and/or identifies as a Christian then he/she is a Christian. In the religious sense being a Christian is linked to the membership of the Church but as colloquial language is separate from theology the sociological approach is more convenient.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
The earliest Christian communities believed in the Father, and that the Father is God.  They believed that the Father sent His only Son, and that He became the physical embodiment of the divine will of the Father, and that all glory and majesty is due not just to the Father, but also to His Son, Jesus Christ.  The earliest community also believed in the Holy Spirit as something distinct from the Father and the Son, sent by the Son to His Church for the establishment of His Church.  By the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures were inspired and written, and by the Holy Spirit, people were baptized and anointed into the Church, and become co-heirs and sons to the Father similar in a way to Christ, and that like Christ, they will be risen from the dead by this same Holy Spirit.  This was the earliest and most basic ancient Christian belief, and the people believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Are you attempting to ask if one can be a Christian without perfectly understanding the Trinity?
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Age
73
Location
Finland
I voted 'other' in the poll since I know a couple Unitarians who say they're Christians.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
665
Reaction score
20
Points
18
Location
Atlanta, GA
I voted "no," since the doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental to Christianity. In the sociological sense, there are plenty of "Christian" groups that do not believe in the Trinity, or practice baptism, etc., but in the "full" sense, they cannot be Christians.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,281
Reaction score
163
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
JamesR said:
This is sort of inspired by the Resurrection thread, but one question I've always had is this: can one be a Christian without believing in the Trinity?

NOTE: Notice I never said "deny." I mean to simply just not believe in it.
What is the difference between "denial" and "unbelief"? 

For example, I have trouble believing that 1st century Jews and other simpletons would have really believed in the Trinity. The New Testament itself is silent about it, at least explicitly. The message always seemed to be that Christ is Risen, our God fulfilled his promise, salvation has come to the world etc.
First of all, just because they lived two thousand years before JamesR walked the Northern California doesn't mean they were simpletons. 

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I think you have something of a point in that the apostolic preaching about which we read in the NT is focused primarily on the Pascha of Christ and how it is the fulfillment of God's promises for our salvation.  They didn't start by explaining Trinitarian theology.  But I think it would be a mistake to think that they did not believe in the Trinity, could not believe in it, did not talk about it, etc.  Unfortunately, you make that mistake. 

Besides, you speak as if "Christ is risen" is not complicated.  Throughout the NT we see that the resurrection was something scoffed at as a fairy tale by "non-simpletons".  The resurrection is not easy-peasy stuff while the Trinity is hopelessly complex and esoteric.  They're both "simple" and "incomprehensible". 

That said, is it really necessary that someone ignorant to the Trinity would have to believe in it in order to be Christian? Because if so, I really doubt that most of the early Church believed in it. That's not to say that they willfully denied it--in which case, they would be heretics for not trusting the Church's authority--but that they simply were ignorant of it and therefore did not believe it.
If I'm a Hindu and I'm ignorant of the Christian teaching of the Trinity, and someone teaches me about Christ, I may come to believe.  But to become a Christian, I have to be baptised, and how do we baptise people?  Oh, that's right...in the name of the Trinity, during the course of a service in which the Trinity is proclaimed and confessed all over the place. 

At some point, you will have to deal with "the Trinity" in order to be Christian. 

So is believe in the Trinity necessary to be Christian? Even for the most simpleminded early convert peasant whose only understanding of Christianity would be that Christ is Risen? I can't help but see the doctrine as merely a matter of intellect--something that those knowledgable within the Church would have to believe since they are aware of it, but something that the vast majority of the Church wouldn't believe in, not because of denial, but simply because of ignorance and let's face it, its irrelevance to the main message that Christ is Risen. Sort of like heychasm, the essence-energy thing, and other really confusing dogmas which the Church affirms but which the vast majority is ignorant of.
I doubt most Orthodox could tell you much about Trinitarian theology.  They could probably tell you that there are three divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but there is only one God, not three.  If they pay attention to the liturgical services, they may have a few more words to use with which to describe that belief, but not much more than that.  That's not enough to write a book on Trinitarian theology and become a world-renowned Trinitarian theologian at some major university, but it is enough to believe in the Trinity.

The "really confusing dogmas" are actually rather simple.  They aren't simple in the sense that they are easy to understand: we can't totally comprehend the Trinity, for example.  But there are some very basic claims and they are being claimed for a reason: they are necessary for our salvation.  The "really confusing" part is there to set boundaries within which we are safe, but outside of which we are in danger.  It's good to study and know those things, but not knowing them the way some church fathers or scholars know them isn't going to be a hindrance to one's spiritual life.  That doesn't mean, however, that everything is unnecessary. 

So do you really consciously have to affirm belief in the Trinity to be Christian? I honestly don't think so. And until I see evidence that the earliest Christians--not just the educated, privileged Fathers and theologians, but the average layman--actually affirmed it, I'm not going to be convinced otherwise. Again, it seems like a doctrine which was mostly just confined to the educated like the essence-energies things before the Arian controversy later forced the Church to educate her laymen on it, but before then, I don't think it was necessary.
You are quite mistaken. 
 

Napoletani

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello Mor Ephem. You said:

They aren't simple in the sense that they are easy to understand: we can't totally comprehend the Trinity, for example.  But there are some very basic claims and they are being claimed for a reason: they are necessary for our salvation.
So all those people saved in the NT believed in the Trinity? The guy next to Jesus on the cross had to believe in it? It does not seem so from the text.
 

Luke

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
7,206
Reaction score
68
Points
48
The Creed does not mention the word "Trinity," but it does profess Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,281
Reaction score
163
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Napoletani said:
Hello Mor Ephem. You said:

They aren't simple in the sense that they are easy to understand: we can't totally comprehend the Trinity, for example.  But there are some very basic claims and they are being claimed for a reason: they are necessary for our salvation.
So all those people saved in the NT believed in the Trinity?
Which "people saved in the NT"? 

The guy next to Jesus on the cross had to believe in it? It does not seem so from the text.
I don't think anyone supposes the "Good Thief" to represent a typical case.  If he was, then thievery and murder are paths to sanctification. 
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
ZealousZeal said:
Are you attempting to ask if one can be a Christian without perfectly understanding the Trinity?
Sorta-kinda.

What I'm asking is one has to consciously affirm belief in the Trinity in order to be Christian.

For example, we have to consciously affirm belief in the Resurrection to be Christian since the Resurrection is Christianity itself. What I'm asking is if the Trinity is another doctrine like this--something that has to consciously be affirmed otherwise you're not Christian by definition.

This is what I have trouble with. Again, I believe there is a difference between denial and disbelief. The former means to consciously disbelieve and implies that one accepts their own understanding over the Church. The latter means simple ignorance. Can someone be Christian while being ignorant of the Trinity? Or do they have to consciously affirm belief in it just like the Resurrection?

I just have trouble believing that if I were to go back to 1st century Palestine and interview the first Christians--again, not the theologians, wealthy, and intellects like the Fathers--but the everyday laymen, that they would really affirm the Trinity. I imagine they would mostly be ignorant of it. Again, ignorance isn't the same as denial. I'm sure if I informed them that their Church affirms the Trinity and then asked the same question again, they would answer yes simply because they trust the Church's authority on doctrinal matters (even if it exceeds their understanding).

But it just seems very illogical to me to assume that the Trinity was always so fundamental like the Resurrection that every single layman had to consciously affirm belief in it to be Christian. The message of the New Testament seems to be Pascha. Whenever the apostles preached, they never said "Christ is Risen! And turns out our Jewish God you once thought is just one is actually 3 persons undivided in 1 essence!"

That's not to say it wasn't always a doctrine of the Church and that the intellects didn't always affirm it. But I have trouble believing that every single laymen consciously affirmed it, and thus with the notion that you have to consciously affirm it like the Trinity to be Christian.

That just seems reactionary to the Arian controversy which probably forced the Church to make the Trinity a matter of more importance than it previously was.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
Mor Ephrem said:
What is the difference between "denial" and "unbelief"?
The former is a conscious decision to trust your own understanding over the Church's. The latter is just ignorance. For example, there are many things in our theology which I do not understand, and therefore disbelieve in since belief would require proper understanding. But I wouldn't say I deny them. Against my better judgment, I still trust the Church, even in matters that exceed my understanding. Essentially it seems that there doctrines in Christianity which you have to consciously affirm belief in to be Christian, and there are those that you can remain ignorant of (and thus disbelieve in).

What I'm questioning is if the Trinity really falls under the first category. It seems more like the latter to me. I can understand why we would come to see it as being of the first sort, given the Arian controversy and all, but it seems like historical revisionism to read a change back into history.
 

Arachne

Matriarch
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
12,271
Reaction score
161
Points
63
Age
48
Location
Camulodunum
I fail to see how one can be 'ignorant of the Trinity' while chanting the Creed every Sunday. Never mind attending a single Theophany service.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,281
Reaction score
163
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
JamesR said:
Mor Ephrem said:
What is the difference between "denial" and "unbelief"?
The former is a conscious decision to trust your own understanding over the Church's. The latter is just ignorance. For example, there are many things in our theology which I do not understand, and therefore disbelieve in since belief would require proper understanding. But I wouldn't say I deny them. Against my better judgment, I still trust the Church, even in matters that exceed my understanding. Essentially it seems that there doctrines in Christianity which you have to consciously affirm belief in to be Christian, and there are those that you can remain ignorant of (and thus disbelieve in).
"Ignorance" =/= "disbelief"

What I'm questioning is if the Trinity really falls under the first category. It seems more like the latter to me. I can understand why we would come to see it as being of the first sort, given the Arian controversy and all, but it seems like historical revisionism to read a change back into history.
Nope.  See the rest of my earlier post. 
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Arachne said:
I fail to see how one can be 'ignorant of the Trinity' while chanting the Creed every Sunday. Never mind attending a single Theophany service.
Some folks never attend Sunday School or adult religious education classes.
 

scamandrius

Merarches
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Omaha
If one can be a Christian without believing in the Trinity, then the Church wasted a lot of time and effort for the first few hundred years of its existence. 
 

Arachne

Matriarch
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
12,271
Reaction score
161
Points
63
Age
48
Location
Camulodunum
Maria said:
Arachne said:
I fail to see how one can be 'ignorant of the Trinity' while chanting the Creed every Sunday. Never mind attending a single Theophany service.
Some folks never attend Sunday School or adult religious education classes.
The True OrthodoxTM don't recite the Creed during Liturgy?
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Arachne said:
Maria said:
Arachne said:
I fail to see how one can be 'ignorant of the Trinity' while chanting the Creed every Sunday. Never mind attending a single Theophany service.
Some folks never attend Sunday School or adult religious education classes.
The True OrthodoxTM don't recite the Creed during Liturgy?
Of course we do, but some so-called "True Orthodox" are Orthodox in name only. It is the converts who are on fire.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,807
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
50
Maria said:
Arachne said:
Maria said:
Arachne said:
I fail to see how one can be 'ignorant of the Trinity' while chanting the Creed every Sunday. Never mind attending a single Theophany service.
Some folks never attend Sunday School or adult religious education classes.
The True OrthodoxTM don't recite the Creed during Liturgy?
Of course we do, but some so-called "True Orthodox" are Orthodox in name only. It is the converts who are on fire.

So converts to 'True Orthodoxy' are now truer than True?


 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Every single first century Palestinian "layman" will tell you they were or their kids were baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
 

hecma925

Stratopedarches
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
20,190
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Age
159
Location
The South
DeniseDenise said:
Maria said:
Arachne said:
Maria said:
Arachne said:
I fail to see how one can be 'ignorant of the Trinity' while chanting the Creed every Sunday. Never mind attending a single Theophany service.
Some folks never attend Sunday School or adult religious education classes.
The True OrthodoxTM don't recite the Creed during Liturgy?
Of course we do, but some so-called "True Orthodox" are Orthodox in name only. It is the converts who are on fire.

So converts to 'True Orthodoxy' are now truer than True?
lol
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
DeniseDenise said:
Maria said:
Arachne said:
Maria said:
Arachne said:
I fail to see how one can be 'ignorant of the Trinity' while chanting the Creed every Sunday. Never mind attending a single Theophany service.
Some folks never attend Sunday School or adult religious education classes.
The True OrthodoxTM don't recite the Creed during Liturgy?
Of course we do, but some so-called "True Orthodox" are Orthodox in name only. It is the converts who are on fire.

So converts to 'True Orthodoxy' are now truer than True?
Yes, just like converts to Roman Catholicism are zealous and are often warned not to be holier than the pope, so likewise new converts to Eastern Orthodox are sometimes warned not to be holier than Patriarch Bartholomew.  There have been several humorous blogs on convertitis and the things that they do.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
minasoliman said:
Every single first century Palestinian "layman" will tell you they were or their kids were baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
And you know some who are still alive?  :laugh:

Fantastic!
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
lol?

Anyway, let us also find out what else a first century Christian might believe:

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 15)

I would not be surprised if many Christians all over the world believe something similar to this.  The liturgy was probably continued by Judaic practices to be prayed to the Father in Christ by the Spirit.  Therefore if baptism is in these three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and it is by the Spirit we cry "with Christ" to the Father as co-sons and co-heirs, then it sounds like there is something Trinitarian going on within the structure of the belief of first century Christians.  This is inescapable.  No one in the first century say "one ousia, three hypostases", but they did worship the three, and the "one God" was the Father.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
minasoliman said:
lol?

Anyway, let us also find out what else a first century Christian might believe:

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 15)

I would not be surprised if many Christians all over the world believe something similar to this.  The liturgy was probably continued by Judaic practices to be prayed to the Father in Christ by the Spirit.  Therefore if baptism is in these three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and it is by the Spirit we cry "with Christ" to the Father as co-sons and co-heirs, then it sounds like there is something Trinitarian going on within the structure of the belief of first century Christians.  This is inescapable.  No one in the first century say "one ousia, three hypostases", but they did worship the three, and the "one God" was the Father.
Some writers suggest that true believing Jews did believe in a Triune Godhead. Genesis gives us hints when it says: Let US create man in OUR own image.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Well, this is not very clear.  I want to make it that first century Christians, there was a clear belief in "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".  What that means became clearer and clearer generation after generation.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
minasoliman said:
I want to make it that first century Christians, there was a clear belief in "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".  What that means became clearer and clearer generation after generation.
Of course. The Ecumenical Councils helped to clarify the teaching on the Holy Trinity, especially with the writing of the Nicene Creed.
 

Napoletani

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Napoletani said:
Hello Mor Ephem. You said:

They aren't simple in the sense that they are easy to understand: we can't totally comprehend the Trinity, for example.  But there are some very basic claims and they are being claimed for a reason: they are necessary for our salvation.
So all those people saved in the NT believed in the Trinity?
Which "people saved in the NT"? 

The guy next to Jesus on the cross had to believe in it? It does not seem so from the text.
I don't think anyone supposes the "Good Thief" to represent a typical case.  If he was, then thievery and murder are paths to sanctification.
Well, typical or not, this does not really matter. If he could be saved without having any idea about a trinity then so other men can. Unless there was a new revelation about this given at Pentacost.

46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts 2:46-47

To read into the text that they had to believe in the Trinty seems really forced. Especially when even Tertullian, much later, still did not develop the Trinitarian theology as it later was formulated by Nicea etc.
 

Napoletani

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Well, this is not very clear.  I want to make it that first century Christians, there was a clear belief in "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".  What that means became clearer and clearer generation after generation.
Honnestly, this is question begging. You are assuming what must be proven. One can believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit but not in your sense. If you would ask arians back then, they believed in it too. Tertullian also. Yet Tertullian could say that there was a time the Son was not. Now, the clearer and clearer thing looks like Newman oak tree. A rationalisation aposteriori of why one's theology is not found of old.
 

Minnesotan

Archon
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Napoletani said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Napoletani said:
Hello Mor Ephem. You said:

They aren't simple in the sense that they are easy to understand: we can't totally comprehend the Trinity, for example.  But there are some very basic claims and they are being claimed for a reason: they are necessary for our salvation.
So all those people saved in the NT believed in the Trinity?
Which "people saved in the NT"? 

The guy next to Jesus on the cross had to believe in it? It does not seem so from the text.
I don't think anyone supposes the "Good Thief" to represent a typical case.  If he was, then thievery and murder are paths to sanctification.
Well, typical or not, this does not really matter. If he could be saved without having any idea about a trinity then so other men can. Unless there was a new revelation about this given at Pentacost.

46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts 2:46-47

To read into the text that they had to believe in the Trinty seems really forced. Especially when even Tertullian, much later, still did not develop the Trinitarian theology as it later was formulated by Nicea etc.
I've read some arguments that the Good Thief belongs in the same category as the Old Testament righteous, or at least is a transitional case, since he died before (or at the same time as) Christ did, and before the Resurrection or Pentecost. So asking whether he believed in the Trinity might then be like asking whether King David or Jonah the Prophet did.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Napoletani said:
minasoliman said:
Well, this is not very clear.  I want to make it that first century Christians, there was a clear belief in "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".  What that means became clearer and clearer generation after generation.
Honnestly, this is question begging. You are assuming what must be proven. One can believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit but not in your sense. If you would ask arians back then, they believed in it too. Tertullian also. Yet Tertullian could say that there was a time the Son was not. Now, the clearer and clearer thing looks like Newman oak tree. A rationalisation aposteriori of why one's theology is not found of old.
Is James asking whether first century Christians believed in the Trinity or whether first century Christians believed in the Nicene formulation of it?  I think you are misrepresenting Tertullian somewhat.  He was a lot more complicated than Arius, kinda like Origen's theology in a way.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,281
Reaction score
163
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Napoletani said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Napoletani said:
Hello Mor Ephem. You said:

They aren't simple in the sense that they are easy to understand: we can't totally comprehend the Trinity, for example.  But there are some very basic claims and they are being claimed for a reason: they are necessary for our salvation.
So all those people saved in the NT believed in the Trinity?
Which "people saved in the NT"? 

The guy next to Jesus on the cross had to believe in it? It does not seem so from the text.
I don't think anyone supposes the "Good Thief" to represent a typical case.  If he was, then thievery and murder are paths to sanctification.
Well, typical or not, this does not really matter.
If your faith is "Torah", I suppose not. 
 

Napoletani

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Minnesotan said:
Napoletani said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Napoletani said:
Hello Mor Ephem. You said:

They aren't simple in the sense that they are easy to understand: we can't totally comprehend the Trinity, for example.  But there are some very basic claims and they are being claimed for a reason: they are necessary for our salvation.
So all those people saved in the NT believed in the Trinity?
Which "people saved in the NT"? 

The guy next to Jesus on the cross had to believe in it? It does not seem so from the text.
I don't think anyone supposes the "Good Thief" to represent a typical case.  If he was, then thievery and murder are paths to sanctification.
Well, typical or not, this does not really matter. If he could be saved without having any idea about a trinity then so other men can. Unless there was a new revelation about this given at Pentacost.

46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts 2:46-47

To read into the text that they had to believe in the Trinty seems really forced. Especially when even Tertullian, much later, still did not develop the Trinitarian theology as it later was formulated by Nicea etc.
I've read some arguments that the Good Thief belongs in the same category as the Old Testament righteous, or at least is a transitional case, since he died before (or at the same time as) Christ did, and before the Resurrection or Pentecost. So asking whether he believed in the Trinity might then be like asking whether King David or Jonah the Prophet did.
Ok, but then at wich moment did they believe in the trinity?
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,504
Reaction score
266
Points
83
Age
41
minasoliman said:
Every single first century Palestinian "layman" will tell you they were or their kids were baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
What do you make of the references in Acts to people being baptized "in the name of Jesus"? (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5)
 
Top