# Revisted: Is belief in the Trinity... necesary for salvation



## Stope (Mar 17, 2016)

Part of the reason I joined the PB was to seek a sound response to the question "Is belief in the Trinity-specifically the 3 persons of God-neccesary for salvation?". I searched and found a similar thread already that existed and I didnt ever end up seeing a response (I just ended up seeing responders being less than generous to the poster, with whom i agree that he never really got a good response). Having said that, please let me ask the question again:

*Is belief in the Trinity-specifically the 3 persons of God-necessary for salvation?*

Now, please allow me to share what I am *NOT* asking:
-Im not asking if the Trinity is true, rather if it required for salvation
-Im not asking to be shown the case for a belief in the Trinity
-Im not asking to hear a general quote by a church authority that a belief in the trinity is required for salvation unless of course they have reasons 
-Im not asking how a lack of belief in the Trinity will result in confusion in other areas...

Up to this point the following have been the key arguments, that I have seen why people say belief in the tri is necessary for salvation:
1. Because most all the fathers and leaders believe it (and dont get me wrong I think this is compelling, but that is not what Im looking for at this point)
2. If its not true then the atonement itself doesnt work (Im not asking if the atonement will work or not if one doesnt believe in the tri)
3. (This is the best response Ive heard yet) Those who come to Him must come to Him in Spirit and truth.. That is, to be saved by God you must know who He is as he reveals himself and he has reveled himself as the trinity. But to this my response is simple, NONE of us have a proper understanding of who God is (even in the areas he has revealed already..). Some of us grow in our understanding, some of us are much further along then others in their understanding of God... In other words, many Christians believe that God is, for the most part, is a somewhat angry God and is a bit on the harsh side when he sends folks to hell. We see from this example the believe is all over the place, but this is an area people grow in (and sometimes dont) and I think its safe to say that most of these people will be saved despite their incorrect understanding of God/Jesus

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

Blessings,
Jason


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 17, 2016)

I am not sure what you're asking but I will just say this.

Romans 10:9.
Jesis is Lord, Lord is the same word that the LXX uses for name of God, YHWH. Paul and other NT writes do this. The verse also says confess with your mouth, then surely you are supposed to believe Jesus as part of the divine identity. 
As for the Holy Spirit, its quite obvious He is God in the OT and the NT as he comes to dwell in you like He did in the temple.


----------



## Stope (Mar 17, 2016)

Thanks for the response!!!

I believer in the truth of the Trinity, what I am asking however is:

Is belief in the Trinity-specifically the 3 persons of God-necessary for salvation?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 17, 2016)

I don't know for sure, but there are some things I can point out.

1. Whenever I share the Gospel or hear other people share it, there is never a focus on pointing out that the Holy Spirit is God. Our main focus is the deity of the Father and the Son. Not saying it's wrong to share the Gospel explaining the Trinity, but I just don't hear it. 
2. I've heard John Piper say that he's not sure anyone would have to know the Holy Spirit is God in order to be saved. But the Father and Son, yes, because the Psalms teach that no man can ransom another. This is stating that we must embrace the deity of Christ. 

So with those things in mind, it might be necessary to embrace the Trinity for salvation, but I would say you at least have to embrace the deity of the Father and Son. I'm not sure about the Spirit. Although, I would say if someone was told of the deity of the Holy Spirit and rejects it willingly, this would seem to be a vital error. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## johnny (Mar 17, 2016)

Stope said:


> Thanks for the response!!!
> 
> I believer in the truth of the Trinity, what I am asking however is:
> 
> Is belief in the Trinity-specifically the 3 persons of God-necessary for salvation?



Hi Jason,

Are you willing to say that belief in the trinity is not necessary for salvation?
In other words, what is your position on your own question.


----------



## Stope (Mar 17, 2016)

Ryan&Amber,

Thank you for that response. I actually found it to be refreshing!

Good point when you bring up at point 1

As far as point2 when you said:
"...the Psalms teach that no man can ransom another. This is stating that we must embrace the deity of Christ"
-----Indeed I agree that no man can ransom another, and I agree that Jesus (divine) ransomed us, however it doesn't follow that we must mentally adhere to the fact that Jesus was divine for it to be efficacious, rather the fact that Jesus did what he needed to do was the efficacious part. In other words, I might not know all the ins and outs of HOW salvation was wrought about, but I do know it was wrought about be Jesus

Thanks,
Jason


----------



## Stope (Mar 17, 2016)

johnny,

At this point I dont want to respond to that question so as not to, even in the slightest, be derailed from the question at hand (you know what they say, its rude to awnser a question by asking another 

After this thread has filled I will tell my thoughts...

Having said that I do hope you can offer a response to the general question above!


----------



## MW (Mar 17, 2016)

You have a vehicle and it runs by means of a motor. The person driving the vehicle (as a sine qua non condition) depends on the motor. Must he believe there is a motor? Theoretically he might get by with driving the car without believing there is a motor, since his father or someone else might take the responsibility for topping up water and oil; and he might fill the vehicle with petrol (gas) without any idea what it is for; and he might hear that rhythmic whirring sound without any curiosity as to what is making it. But practically, no, sooner or later he must be faced with the reality that there is a motor on which he depends and for which he must assume responsibility.

Truths like the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the hypostatic union, etc., are essential to salvation. While it is theoretically possible that a person might be saved without believing them, and while God might extraordinarily save a person without the belief of these, yet in the ordinary course of Christian discipleship and growth these truths are a vital part of faith and life. There is a moral obligation to learn and live these precious truths which God has revealed for His glory and our good.


----------



## Paul1976 (Mar 17, 2016)

There is no evidence anyone in the OT understood the Trinity as we do, but at least a remnant were saved. I would venture that, were one of us to go back to Israel before Christ and try to explain the trinity to OT saints, they would probably be assembling a mob and looking for some good rocks in short order. They were still saved through faith, but a forward-looking faith to God redeeming his people. 

If my church history is reliable on this point, it took a few centuries before the church codified the doctrine of the Trinity. I agree that, on evaluation of the entirety of the testimony of scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity is clear. But I would maintain that, prior to this point, it would have been hard for an average believer to develop a belief in the Trinity as we enjoy today. Were such a doctrine essential to salvation, I would think it would be more clearly presented.

I don't know that either of these ideas are strong enough to convince me either way, but I would lean towards salvation being possible without a full doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously, problems with a doctrine as central to Christianity as the Trinity will lead to deficiencies and will limit how far one can correctly understand the Christian faith. But, we are saved by complete grace through faith, not through fully developed doctrine. And faith itself is a free gift of God.


----------



## rickclayfan (Mar 17, 2016)

No. If a person does not believe in the Trinity, he merely believes in a god in a legion of other gods that have been invented by man. For a person to genuinely believe, it is required that he believe in Christ, not some abstract deity. 



> "He who does not adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as equal in divine majesty, worships not the true God, but a creature of his own imagination" (Witsius).



Now, you may inquire about those who do indeed believe that there is such a one as Christ, but in a Sabellian manner. I am compelled that such do not indeed believe in Christ, but in a Christ of their own imagination. Their unbelief and stubborn unwillingness to submit to the clear testimony of Scripture attests to the fact that they have not been spiritually illumined and, therefore, have not been regenerated. We cannot set up our reason against the revelation of One who is infallible.

This is all pertinent of course with the assumption that people have access to Scripture and have full Gospel revelation (OT saints may have had it slightly different, vaguer conception).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2016)

The question is not "what was required of the OT faithful for salvation," but rather what does Scripture require now? Before Christ's incarnation, the faithful were summoned to believe everything so far revealed at to the divine Person and Nature, his revelation by whatever modes he chose, and to put hope in the Messiah who should come and deliver, answering to all our defects. They possessed nothing so clear to deny as the NT teaching.

As for what various councils of the church accomplished in history, by way of helping the church with such fixity of expression regarding this or that doctrine--including the Trinity--that errors threatening the life of the church and the souls of individual Christians might be extirpated from our midst:

That work never created a new doctrine; but it put the Scripture's teaching into a tight form. Did the church prior to the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) have a doctrine of the Trinity? It was Tertullian, prior to A.D. 225, who gives us the first use of the term "Trinity," and he may have coined it himself, in order to simplify the teaching effort. But he is defending the teaching he received as a convert.

A glance at the _Apostles' Creed,_ earliest forms of which are dated not later than the late second century, show plainly by the structure of this baptismal confession the coordinate work of the three Persons. The Didache, which some date as early as the first century, declares baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (per Mt.28:19), which is a statement of Christ pertaining to the *name* (singular), followed by the three Persons--just one of many Scripture proofs giving accurate understanding to the student of divine things.

As Rev.Winzer stated, a cavalier attitude toward the doctrine that explains "Which God your faith is in," is hardly the reasonable stance of someone who understands that embracing a false-Christ is no better than having no Christ at all. Of course, therefore, the NT church from its very origin is going to be concerned to teach the essentials of what eventually a council must define as THE doctrine (What the Bible teaches) concerning the Trinity, over against manifold errors that threaten souls.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 17, 2016)

To put a fine point on some of what has been said already:

Worship of and faith in the God who exists (who is Triune) is essential to salvation. If someone is worshipping and trusting in a god who is not Triune, he cannot be saved. His god doesn't exist.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 17, 2016)

While there are some areas in which Christians might disagree, we must agree on the essentials. I cannot imagine a doctrine more essential than the doctrine of the very nature of God. A denial of the Trinity is unquestionable heresy, and it is not hard to see that it leads to countless other errors.

Imagine a keystone of an arch. If the keystone crumbles, the arch will collapse. Likewise if we allow our central doctrines to be altered or subtracted, the rest of our doctrine will fall to pieces. As you began to point out, the atonement has no validity if, for instance, Christ was merely man.

A gospel without the Trinity is a very different gospel indeed. The gospel of Christ is the power of unto salvation for everyone who believes.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 17, 2016)

Here's a long thread dealing with the matter. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...-the-3-persons-of-God-neccesary-for-salvation


----------



## johnny (Mar 18, 2016)

Stope said:


> johnny,
> 
> After this thread has filled I will tell my thoughts...



Okee Dokee


----------



## Stope (Mar 18, 2016)

MW

I thank you for your very very helpful analogy. But where you end up I don't (at least for argument sake).

If I own a car, my father changes the oil and fills it up, and I fully am aware that there is a motor allowing me to move about then it's safe to say that I trust the mysterious workings of the motor. I am not however required to know how many valves it has, how many MPGs it gives, or even how a a combustible engine works. All that is needed for the motor to be efficacious for me is simply that I see that that motor will take me where I need to go.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stope (Mar 18, 2016)

@contra

The fathers indeed have a vague notion of the trinity, but almost all of them were a lil unorthodox in their understanding of it prior to the council. Yes they already believed various "versions" of how the tri worked itself out theologically, but with the heretics making clear mistakes as to the nature of Christ, the fathers then took the time to think together the implications and really clarify what they believed up to that point. 

All that to say I think Paul1976 is correct - the fathers prior to nicea indeed had the ingredients to the sound systematized doctrine of the trinity they did not yet have the final product. And if this is the case we must then say these men were not saved... And I think we'd agree that, as off as some were, they were in right standing before Christ 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2016)

Stope said:


> I am not however required to know how many valves it has, how many MPGs it gives, or even how a a combustible engine works. All that is needed for the motor to be efficacious for me is simply that I see that that motor will take me where I need to go.



I would equate the technicalities of the motor with the intricacies of the doctrine as discussed by theologians. You don't need to know how to fix the motor in order to drive the car. That is what mechanics are for. Likewise there are theologians who look at the mechanics and dynamics of the doctrine. But a Christian as a Christian is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A Christian as a Christian receives the Trinitarian benediction. A Christian as a Christian learns that salvation is brought to pass by the three persons executing unique offices, as taught in Ephesians 1. A Christian as a Christian engages in prayer to the Father, in the name of the Son, with the help of the Spirit. As the operation of a vehicle requires some concept of the motor, so the life of the Christian requires belief in the Trinity to be a distinctly and genuinely Christian life.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 18, 2016)

Yes, God is triune. But I am not convinced that is is necessary to believe this for salvation. 

I would use the simple example of a new believer. If someone has been affected by the Holy Spirit and accepts Christ as their savior, they are saved, no? Their theological sophistication could be anywhere. Some Christian take a while to "get" the notion of a triune God, but certainly we cannot say that they remain unsaved until they fully understand the doctrine. 

Or can we? I am not convinced that belief in the Trinity, in and of itself is required for salvation. 

Of course, a mature and sincere Christian will almost certainly be led in that direction, but that is not Stope's original question.


----------



## tangleword (Mar 18, 2016)

I think that if someone does not believe in the Trinity, they are not considered to be a Christian, and I would not give them any assurance of salvation, which really is the basis on how we should interact with people since we never know on the outside if someone else is saved. 
Whether salvation is tied to it is tricky in cases of those who just don't understand it yet, in that case I would lean towards saying that some could be saved when they believe even if they don't believe/fully know what the trinity is or have an incomplete understanding of it (normally this would be belief in Father and Son, but unsure of role of Holy Spirit). These people would just need to be informed and would believe in the Trinity as they are informed about it, but their salvation might not be tied to when they fully understand/know the trinity, it might have been at an earlier point when they trusted in the Lord. Though even writing this makes me queasy cause it is looking at salvation from man's timeline instead of from God's perspective of whether there names are in the book of life and their salvation being determined not at a point in time but from eternity. 
However those who reject the trinity are rejecting scriptures teachings, and essentially rejecting God and believing in their own God as said above. For those I would think that there no salvation, if that is the category of people you are talking about.


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> I would use the simple example of a new believer.



I would use the example of a believer with a developmental disorder.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 18, 2016)

Rejecting the trinity is not the same as not accepting the trinity. Conscious rejection is different from ignorance and the two should not be confused.

More on point, can we really say that spiritually young Christians (as one example) are not saved because they have not affirmed the doctrine of the trinity? Can we say that they are not Christian? I doubt that very much.


----------



## Toasty (Mar 18, 2016)

I think the intend of the OP is "Can someone be saved without knowing about the doctrine of the Trinity?"


----------



## Paul1976 (Mar 18, 2016)

I think the reason that people here (including me) are hesitant to say that one doesn't require the doctrine of the Trinity is that there is very good cause for concern in most cases where people reject it.

When we picture individuals we've known or read about who reject the Trinity, they generally have a degree of scripture knowledge and have heard a basic presentation of orthodox theology on the subject. They are rejecting it because they have an idolatrous concept of god they would rather believe in than the Triune God revealed in scripture. In those cases, there is very good reason to question the salvation of that person. But, I would argue their problem is much deeper, and their view on the doctrine of the trinity is merely a symptom. They aren't unsaved because they are rejecting the trinity; they are rejecting the trinity because they are unsaved.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2016)

Luke 5:20-21 (ESV)
20 And when he saw their faith, he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” 21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Threads like this make me sad about the state of Biblical understanding and the Christian faith in general that a question like this would be posed.

There are a number of unstated assumptions in the way the question is often posed and the manner in which people consider what it is to be "saved".

The first problem I see is the unstated assumption that there is some intellectual bar that a person reaches and then God says: "That's good enough. I accept that faith as the instrument by which you have laid hold of Christ." Under this assumption, then, we speculate about how many truths of the Scriptures can be peeled away to leave a "bare bones" belief that a person can know and then still be saved.

The second problem I perceive is that it considers the individual believer in isolation from the normal operations of the means of grace. It's not so much stated outright as implied that what we really need to know is what the individual needs to understand with no relation to whether Christ has been preached or the Sacraments have been administered to ministerially set the individual apart in the visible Kingdom of God and to regularly strengthen him therein.

My experience is that the question about the necessity of the Trinity arises from a general sense that the doctrine is generally irrelevant to most Christians. They don't perceive any experiential value to it. They know that the Church affirms the doctrine as essential but that's more of a creedal formulation that theologians worry about. It doesn't really impact _me_, does it?

Why has the Church universally insisted that the Trinity is so essential to the Christian faith that a person cannot be saved apart from it? Why were they willing to divide the Body of Christ over whether the Logos Incarnate had a real human mind and will?

The men who fought over these truths were concerned with this question: what kind of God is revealed that saves us from our sins?

Do we consider the distance between God and man to be so great that, unless God condescends to us by way of Covenant, that we can have no fruition in Him? Perhaps, in contrast, we don't really think God is much different from us and we can ascend to divine things without Him descending.

Do we really believe that the sin of our first parents enslaved us to sin and misery and that it took the gracious act of almighty God to save His people through the One Mediator, Jesus Christ - the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world? Perhaps, in contrast, we don't really sense a need for a Mediator. God just loves us and so he hears our prayers and is delighted in any moves we make in His direction.

Do we marvel that the Father sent the Son into the world not to condemn that which was already condemned but to save all who would believe in the Son? 

Does it matter that the Son of God became flesh to stand, truly, in His Person as the Second Adam? Does it matter that He accomplished all righteousness and served as both Priest and Victim as the propitiation for our sins? Does it free us to consider that the Son of God condemned sin in the flesh and broke sin's power to enslave all who look upon Him? Do we not live as the Son rose from the dead with an indestructible life? Do we not rejoice that that the Son of God is ascended on high and now ever lives to reign and to intercede for His Saints?

Do we consider it a small thing that the Father and the Son send the Spirit into the world to apply the work that the Son has accomplished? Are we not thankful for the gifts that the Son sends through the Spirit of pastors and teachers who build us up in the unity of the faith? Are we not dependent upon the Spirit to make the preaching of the Word powerful to save and to seal the Sacraments to those to whom the graces belong?

Are we so unaware of all of these that we would ever ask: "Yeah, all that is good stuff but what I really want to know is whether a person can be utterly unaware of Christ's Mediatorial work and still be in Christ?"

The secret things belong to the Lord, the revealed things belong to us and our children that we may live by them. It is utterly pointless to speculate upon where the Sovereign God might lay hold of someone. Yes, I believe that the mentally incapacitated can be saved by such a God as I've described. No other God exists to save them. Yes, an infant can be saved by such a God from the womb. No other God exists by which we might have confidence that there is a Mediator between God and man.

It belongs to the Church, the Visible Kingdom, to make disciples by baptizing and teaching them everything our Savior has commanded. We proclaim and teach no other Christ than He Who is the Word became flesh. We proclaim no other Christ than He Who is not the Father but is one with the Father. We proclaim no other Gospel than that which is empowered by the Spirit of God.

What possible sanctified purpose is there in a Christian speculating what part of God's self-revelation is potentially disposable with respect to determining the hypothetical salvation of a person?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 18, 2016)

This presents a very thin line to walk, because we are not saved by works, and that must, I assume, include believing a doctrine. However, there _are_ things which must be believed in order to be saved, namely, that Jesus is Lord. I will not at this moment give any Scriptural reasons (there has been plenty of that already), but rather just my opinion. I would say that one does not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved, since I imagine there are many people who are presented with the gospel and are converted without having the slightest knowledge of the Trinity (I have remote tribes in mind). However, I think one of the evidences that someone is regenerate is that if or when they are presented with Scripture's teaching on the Trinity, that they _will_ accept it. If they do not, it may be evidence that they are unregenerate. This fact does not mean that they are not saved because they will not believe in the Trinity, but because they do not take God at his word. Nor does it follow that one then must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Unfortunately, this answer is *not* a "yes" or "no" question; the answer, as I did above, simply must be nuanced.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 18, 2016)

My old UPC friend, now a Calvinist trinitarian, trusted God entirely for her salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ on the cross. She was led to the Lord by UPC people, taught modalism deception about the nature of God as well as quite a bit of legalism ( could not trim her hair or wear pants) but came out in time. I am certain she was elect and saved and justified through her faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ, even while she was in error. 

I know a Mormon who came out...they think God had children and Jesus and Satan were spirit brothers. But this lady loved the Lord and ended up in the PCA in her 20s after a childhood in Mormonism. I don't know how to determine the time of her salvation, in that the Mormon's worship "another Jesus"....but she was elect as a Mormon. 

I also know plenty of RCCs who got saved and got out....but some of them still prayed to Mary and dead saints for a little while in their Catholic charismatic groups, before they ended up in Protestantism.

I think "word of faith" is another gospel ( see D.R. McConnell's book A Different Gospel for the hideous source of Hagin's teachings that now infect millions). They have another Jesus too, one whose death on the cross did not save, he had to go to hell and become sinful and get born again. Crazy stuff. But I know Christians who to various degrees are influenced by these TV preachers. 

So I would say many people with great errors about God and Jesus are elect, and will come to the truth, and many may be saved even while in the errors. Hard to tell for sure. I tend to give mercy to the lay people in deception, and none to the teachers of it. I may be wrong about that.....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2016)

I"m always perplexed by the stories that a person once denied something about the salvation offered in the Scriptures but came along, thereafter, to a saving knowledge of Christ. Saving faith is not an assent and resting on truths that we work within ourselves. It is a condition produced by the reality that Christ procured faith for His people. It is the Father Who gives the sheep to the Son and these the Son will never cast out but He will raise them again on the last day. Christ thanks the Father for revealing the Son to His people and that the Son makes the Father known to them. It's all Trinitarian.

When I was a Roman Catholic I was taught the doctrine of the Trinity. My knowledge of the Trinity did not save me. Nevertheless, the Trinity which the Church confesses saved me.

Did I remain in ignorance after embracing the Christ Who saves? No. I was taught by a Church that was faithful to the Gospel.

It belongs to the whole idea of disciple that he/she is disciplined (paidea) into the whole realm of what it means to be a citizen of the Kingdom. Everything in the NT Scriptures is saturated with Trinitarian theology where we're constantly exhorted to consider the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit in not only looking retrospectively at what has been accomplished but how the ongoing work of redemption is crucial to our life and holiness. It is our future hope as we encounter suffering in this present age. Where do we reasonably conclude that we can "leave it at that" and God can work salvation anyway? He hasn't revealed any other way of training.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 18, 2016)

What of ignorance? I would argue that one can understand Christ's sacrifice (intellectual) and be saved (spiritually reborn) without knowing of the triune nature of God. Could one not view the Holy Spirit as a mere assistant, for example. (Of course in the long term this is dangerous and leads to all manner of error but that is not the issue.)

Are misguided Christians and young Christians unsaved because they have not grasped this doctrine?


----------



## Stope (Mar 18, 2016)

@Reformed Fox - very good stuff, time and time again, thank you. I think you and I might be on the same page.

@tangleword - good stuff

@Taylor Sexton - I think you have hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!!!!

@lynnie - wow!!!! this post was brilliant, really moving beyond mental adhering to something else, something greater... I will have you know the reason I even brought this up is because my wife is an X Mormon and after she was very mush saved she still hadnt developed a "sound" doctrine of the trinity, yet she fully trusted in the blood of the lamb and, as she said, "i wasnt sure what was going on, it was all kind of a mystery...". Again, I hope more folks read what you wrote. Bless you dear friend. (by the way, spot on when you said "I tend to give mercy to the lay people in deception, and none to the teachers of it." haha, so true... And you know, in other subject, I often think some "less informed" Mormons might possibly have a greater chance to be saved, because on the surface, and of thats all they know, it very much looks like Christianity - its only when you get deeper in the bowels of the cult that you see how whakadoodle that "establishment" is)

@toasty - thanks for keeping us on track (it seems folks want to instead answer the question I posed, proceed to wax on about:
1. Scriptural proof of why the Trinity is true
2. Reasoning that if the trinity didnt exist then salvation wouldnt work in the first place
(And both of these are true and good, but they are NOT The question I asked)

@MW - your words are very insightful, thanks for sharing (please see below for a direct response to your last post)

@Semper Fidelis - I only dont respond to your response simply because you and I are completely different pages at where (and why) Im coming to this... You have read far to deep into this (as far as my asking it)

@Paul1976 - Your quote was spot on when you said "I think the reason that people here (including me) are hesitant to say that one doesn't require the doctrine of the Trinity is that there is very good cause for concern in most cases where people reject it.", having that thought, please allow me to update my question with a few qualifications (also please "Taylor Sextons" very helpful response "#26"):

UPDATED QUESTION VERBIAGE
Is belief (mental adherence) in the Trinity-specifically the 3 persons of God-necessary for salvation (I will qualify it by saying that they arent REJECTING the Trinity, but they merely dont see it that way as we have understood it or at least havent read the Word enough to know. Also I will qualify that the fruit in their lives is sound)?


BEST ANALOGY SO FAR:
MW, again, I appreciate your feedback especially as it attemots to really be objective and draw some clear lines and reasoning. I said "I am not however required to know how many valves it has, how many MPGs it gives, or even how a a combustible engine works. All that is needed for the motor to be efficacious for me is simply that I see that that motor will take me where I need to go." and then you said "I would equate the technicalities of the motor with the intricacies of the doctrine as discussed by theologians. You don't need to know how to fix the motor in order to drive the car. That is what mechanics are for. Likewise there are theologians who look at the mechanics and dynamics of the doctrine. But a Christian as a Christian is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A Christian as a Christian receives the Trinitarian benediction. A Christian as a Christian learns that salvation is brought to pass by the three persons executing unique offices, as taught in Ephesians 1. A Christian as a Christian engages in prayer to the Father, in the name of the Son, with the help of the Spirit. As the operation of a vehicle requires some concept of the motor, so the life of the Christian requires belief in the Trinity to be a distinctly and genuinely Christian life."

Please see my responses below:
"I would equate the technicalities of the motor with the intricacies of the doctrine as discussed by theologians. You don't need to know how to fix the motor in order to drive the car. That is what mechanics are for. Likewise there are theologians who look at the mechanics and dynamics of the doctrine..."
---I would chalk up the understanding of the Trinity exactly as a technicalities (just like how a spark plug works), and as such the common user doesn't need to be aware of aforementioned realities in order to have it be efficacious to them. As much as we Christians want to claim that the trinity is "so clear, black and white, taught in the Bible" we cant (I mean yes we can say it is black and white when the scripture taken in its entirety and then pieced together and systematized then it its "easy" to see. But if it was so easy and so black and whit, why were there so so so many heresies, about the nature of Christ and new words were invented to describe it other than it was quite detailed and mind blowing (and beautiful)?).

"...But a Christian as a Christian is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
---It doesn't, however follow that all three must be one though

"A Christian as a Christian receives the Trinitarian benediction."
---It doesn't, however follow that all three must be one though

"A Christian as a Christian learns that salvation is brought to pass by the three persons executing unique offices, as taught in Ephesians 1."
---Not sure where you are going with this one...

"A Christian as a Christian engages in prayer to the Father, in the name of the Son, with the help of the Spirit. "
---It doesn't, however follow that all three must be one though

"As the operation of a vehicle requires some concept of the motor, so the life of the Christian requires belief in the Trinity to be a distinctly and genuinely Christian life."
---I couldn't disagree more. Well, when we say "some concept of the motor" is needed for the successful operation of vehicle all that is needed is TRUST that that vehicle will do what I believe it will do. That is, when my 2 year old daughter sits on her Barbie Power Wheel she has ZERO understanding of HOW that works, but she knows she trusts it to work.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2016)

It is not wise to appeal to that which is abnormal to establish a fact about what is normal. Someone can get by without legs; but we don't go to the legless person to learn how to walk. We would think it rather strange to see a person who can walk giving up his legs, so to speak, in order to get about like a person with no legs.

In the normal Christian life people are discipled and grow in relation to Three to whom they attribute divine honour -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. As a matter of ordinary intelligence a person will believe "something" about those Three. If Trinitarianism is not taught to the person there are alternatives like modalism or Tritheism. Do we teach people to be saved by becoming modalists or Tritheists? Of course not. The normal course of Christian discipleship teaches people to believe in the Trinity and live out the Christian life in that conviction.

We are not saved by doctrines, but doctrines are a necessary part of being saved. The understanding of man needs saving as much as anything else.

Perhaps the deeper concern here is the minimalist understanding of salvation which is required in order to affirm that people can be saved without belief in the Trinity. What is your understanding of salvation? From what are you saved? To what are you saved? Salvation is not an eternal life insurance policy. You must pass from death to life -- judicially and personally. You become a new creature, put on the new man, are renewed in the spirit of your mind, live for a new purpose, follow a new Lord. You change from being natural to being spiritual. You are translated from one kingdom to another. Your conversation and citizenship are transferred from the earthly to the heavenly. And this is lifelong! While there are definitive aspects to it, there is also progressive growth in salvation, as well as a forward-looking motion to the consummation of it. There is a warfare, a race, a labour involved in it. The whole armour of God is needed. We must lay aside every hindrance. Every effort must be made.

The deeper issue, then, is what do you believe about "salvation?"


----------



## Stope (Mar 18, 2016)

@MW

It is not wise to appeal to that which is abnormal to establish a fact about what is normal. Someone can get by without legs; but we don't go to the legless person to learn how to walk.
---However we will see that a legless person does have the ability to use their quad muscles (a sort of case study). I think it is very fitting and a welcome addition

We would think it rather strange to see a person who can walk giving up his legs, so to speak, in order to get about like a person with no legs.
---Im not saying that the person has outright reject their "legs"and "gave them up", rather (and here is where the analogy breaks sown), they never knew they had legs

In the normal Christian life people are discipled and grow in relation to Three to whom they attribute divine honour -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. As a matter of ordinary intelligence a person will believe "something" about those Three.
---Spot on when you say "As a matter of ordinary intelligence a person will believe "something" about those Three." Indeed, they see "something", a sort of mystery, something is going on there, but no human way of wrapping their mind around it... Unless of course church history and deep prayer and meditation step in to teach (but even then that doesn't always come "easy")

If Trinitarianism is not taught to the person there are alternatives like modalism or Tritheism. Do we teach people to be saved by becoming modalists or Tritheists? Of course not. The normal course of Christian discipleship teaches people to believe in the Trinity and live out the Christian life in that conviction.
---Again, Im not saying they are "rejecting" the Trinity, rather they have no understanding, and possibly at this point no words or frame of reference to explain it and so they might, for some time be a modalist and then after further reading see that they reject that, and perhaps arrive at a sound belief in the trinity, BUT, they dont just all of a sudden arrive there

We are not saved by doctrines, but doctrines are a necessary part of being saved.
---Yes and No. But not, in my opinion, belief in the Trinity is not "necessary" (well at least, for arguments sake, i say this)

The understanding of man needs saving as much as anything else.
---Touche brother!

Perhaps the deeper concern here is the minimalist understanding of salvation which is required in order to affirm that people can be saved without belief in the Trinity. What is your understanding of salvation? From what are you saved? To what are you saved? Salvation is not an eternal life insurance policy. You must pass from death to life -- judicially and personally. You become a new creature, put on the new man, are renewed in the spirit of your mind, live for a new purpose, follow a new Lord. You change from being natural to being spiritual. You are translated from one kingdom to another. Your conversation and citizenship are transferred from the earthly to the heavenly. And this is lifelong!
---SO far in your very apt defining of a true salvation, please notice you didnt bring in "o yeah, by the way belief in the hypo-static union"... Can you imagine how unsound it would be if you inserted that statement in the lines above? (by the way brother, please dont read into my words here as being rude or anything of the sort, I very much appreciate your thoughts)

While there are definitive aspects to it, there is also progressive growth in salvation, as well as a forward-looking motion to the consummation of it. There is a warfare, a race, a labour involved in it. The whole armour of God is needed. We must lay aside every hindrance. Every effort must be made.

The deeper issue, then, is what do you believe about "salvation?"
---A very good question... Perhaps another thread should be started (?) because I have a few thoughts and questions about this


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2016)

"I believe in the church." There is an ordinary means of instruction and discipleship. And there is the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth by this means. Anyone who has been discipled in this ordinary means will be acquainted with this process. One who has not been discipled in this ordinary way could be a Christian in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of man there is no visible way of ascertaining it. "Outside of the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 18, 2016)

Stope said:


> @MW
> 
> ---A very good question... Perhaps another thread should be started (?) because I have a few thoughts and questions about this



Brother Jason, a very interesting topic you've brought up. When you quote text if you don't delete the {Quote} thingies in front of, and behind the text you're quoting it will be much easier for us poor readers to discern what is quoted, and what is new. As you can see from the layout of this quoted post in the text box. Particularly in quoted text that runs at length. Blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> What of ignorance? I would argue that one can understand Christ's sacrifice (intellectual) and be saved (spiritually reborn) without knowing of the triune nature of God. Could one not view the Holy Spirit as a mere assistant, for example. (Of course in the long term this is dangerous and leads to all manner of error but that is not the issue.)
> 
> Are misguided Christians and young Christians unsaved because they have not grasped this doctrine?



Gregory,

This is very frustrating for me and I'll try to be patient but you have completely missed the point.

The author of the Hebrews reproves his listeners at the end of Hebrews 5 by noting this:


> Hebrews 5:11–14 (ESV)
> 
> 11*About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12*For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13*for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14*But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.



One might well ask: "What was the 'milk' of the Gospel? If I can only know what the _milk_ is then I know what it takes to get somebody over the bar of salvation."

What, exactly, is the author of Hebrews trying to communicate to his listeners who are shrinking back into potential apostasy?

Several concepts that are Trinitarian by their very nature!

What was the danger if they remained dull of hearing and refused to be trained?

Apostasy.

Once again, I return to my concern that so many Christians view salvation as some bar of minimal intellectual knowledge whereby we can determine doctrines that may or may not be essential to their salvation.

The problem lies in the posture of the questioner.

Does my 4 year old understand the Trinity? Of course not. As I said before (which is why I'm dumbfounded that you would ask the question), it is not that the Christian is saved by first apprehending the nature of the Trinity but it is only the Trinitarian God Who saves and it is only by growing in maturity _into_ the knowledge of the God _as He has revealed Himself_ that a person is kept in the faith.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 19, 2016)

With all due respect, I am under the impression that many on this board are missing my point. 

I am not arguining that the trinity is unimportant, or trivial. I am well aware of the many errors which spring from a misunderstanding of God's nature. I am not saying that we should be flippant about apostasy or heresy or being lukewarm. 

My only contention is that it is possible for one to be saved and not to have grasped fully the triune nature of God.

So far as I can tell, there are no requirements for salvation beyond faith in Christ (monergistic of course).

Or, put another way, the elect are the elect because they were selected by God, they are not the elect based on doctrinal orthodoxy.

P.S. I was also not very clear earlier. When I said "could one not view the Holy Spirit as a mere helper" I did not mean to say that this was a legitimate position (it certainly is not). I meant to say that one who honestly holds such a view, though dangerous and misguided, is not in danger of not being saved.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Stope said:


> @Semper Fidelis - I only dont respond to your response simply because you and I are completely different pages at where (and why) Im coming to this... You have read far to deep into this (as far as my asking it)



Jason,

I'm goint to insist as an Admin that this topic be re-focused. Yes, we are on different pages. I noted that in my first post and I didn't read into anything. In fact your further responses only confirmed what I wrote and why I wrote it.

You are not approaching this topic from a fully Biblical perspective.

Matthew and I and a few others are trying to help you to see this and you are parsing analogies in order to argue points about engines or legs and completely missing the reason the analogies were used to begin with.

Let me use another analogy.

Suppose I didn't know a great deal about engines and I went to a mechanic and said: "I've seen many threads about engines but none of the answers satisfy my curiosity."
The mechanic says: "Well, I hope I can answer your question."
I respond: "Can an engine run without an oil cap?"
The mechanic starts to reply with how, technically yes, the engine can run without an oil cap but then starts to explain the lubrication system and how important it is to keep friction down and that eventually...
I interrupt: "You're not answering my question by appealing to all that other information..."

You see, Jason, you think that if you can get an answer to your question in the manner in which it has been proposed that you are attaining to some knowledge about the nature of salvation and how knowledge of the Trinity relates to it.

Yet, as Matthew and I have been trying to relate to you, the assumptions behind the question are all wrong. You're not challenging what your assumptions about the nature of salvation are. I can read it in your response and the way you parse others and tell others how insightful they are for confirming to you what you already think you know about the topic.

We simply cannot have a fruitful dialog on this board when you insist that you will control the nature of the conversation and decide what is and is not in bounds based on your assumptions.

Consequently, if you want to continue the dialog then I agree with Matthew that you really need to define what salvation _is_. What is salvation? How are the Persons of the Trinity related to salvation? What does it mean to be justified, sanctified, and glorified? What is the relationship of Scriptural truth to the saint who is being saved?

If you don't think that those questions bear upon your initial question then this bold faces the real issue. If you think that it's possible to answer your question without reference to those basic questions then whatever answer you think is satisfying will not lead you into Biblical truth.

In writing all of this, I'm not writing it to mock you or to put you down. I'm genuinely sad that Christians don't have a ready answer to this question.

Let me address an issue that is on the surface of the discussion: Of course it is possible for people who were completely ignorant or denied the Trinity to become saved. Witness the Apostle Paul. I already noted my own journey from spiritual death to life.

What I'm trying to get you to see, however, is that knowing that people come from death to life doesn't answer your question. In fact, Paul led with the Trinity in all His sermons proclaiming the risen Christ as God. His hearers did not need a course in Systematics to understand that Paul was telling them that Jesus was God. Find me any Epistle as well that is not saturated with Trinitarian theology. It is simply not possible, using the Scriptures, to avoid the Triune God in understanding our salvation. The Trinity is not a sidebar to the topic of salvation but is intricately woven into the fabric of salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> With all due respect, I am under the impression that many on this board are missing my point.
> 
> I am not arguining that the trinity is unimportant, or trivial. I am well aware of the many errors which spring from a misunderstanding of God's nature. I am not saying that we should be flippant about apostasy or heresy or being lukewarm.
> 
> ...



Gregory,

Who is Christ? What does it mean to have faith in Him?

Regarding the elect. Who are they elect in? Who elected them? How were they saved?


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 19, 2016)

Again you misunderstand me. I am not saying the trinity is unimportant. I am certainly not saying that the trinity is not relevant to election. All members of the Godhead participate.

I contend only that this election does not require, and is not contingent on the intellectual assent of the individual on points of doctrine or a possession of theological rigor.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 19, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> Again you misunderstand me. I am not saying the trinity is unimportant. I am certainly not saying that the trinity is not relevant to election. All members of the Godhead participate.
> 
> I contend only that this election does not require, and is not contingent on the intellectual assent of the individual on points of doctrine or a possession of theological rigor.



I think I agree with this. Otherwise, when we share the Gospel with someone, we would always have to explain the intellectual intricacies of the Trinity, which I'm pretty confident we probably don't do. 

If we phrased the question in another way, this might help bring better understanding: Will someone go to hell if they don't know the Holy Spirit is God? I don't see this as a requirement for salvation anywhere in the Scriptures. 

Here is what I see as the Biblical requirement for salvation: 

1 Cor 15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. *By this gospel you are saved*, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> Again you misunderstand me. I am not saying the trinity is unimportant. I am certainly not saying that the trinity is not relevant to election. All members of the Godhead participate.
> 
> I contend only that this election does not require, and is not contingent on the intellectual assent of the individual on points of doctrine or a possession of theological rigor.



Gregory,

You keep saying I am misunderstanding you but I understand what you are saying perfectly well.

What is happening, however, is that I asked you a question about the nature of salvation itself and then you said I misunderstood you when I was not even making a statement. I was trying to get you to ask yourself the question to see what the relevance of the Trinity is to the very topics you are raising.

You contend that election "...does not require, and is not contingent on the intellectual assent of the individual on points of doctrine or a possession of theological rigor."

Of course it doesn't. Election is not based on anything foreseen. God does not choose on the basis of foreseen faith. Nevertheless, God's electing love has an _aim_ in mind for those whom He has cast His love upon.

If you would reflect upon the nature of saving faith and the _object_ of that saving faith in the way that the Scriptures unpack them then you will see that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever say: "This is all you _really_ need to know to be saved."

Now, as you just read it, I'm going to anticipate that you are reading me as saying: "See, you just said that a person needs to have a full-blown understanding of the Trinity...."

I did not.

I am simply trying to get you (and others) to think through this idea that, even in 1 Cor 15, there is some sort of minimal Gospel that saves a person that has no essential Trinitarian content within it. Even 1 Cor 15 is Trinitarian.

I will say it again that the Triune God Who saves does not require faith (which includes knowledge and trust) as a condition for salvation in the sense that God waits for the saved person to come to some intellectual assent to some doctrine and then resting in that doctrine and then God says: "OK, good, you've passed the test, I unite you to the living Christ." Faith is the gift of God. It is the Spirit of God reaching the sinner's hand out to Christ. The Spirit Himself produces the condition by which the sinenr is united to the whole Christ Who was sent by the Father because the Father loved that sinner before the earth was formed.

That new child of God may know very little, intellectually, of the nature of God but he is baptized and made a full member of the visible Kingdom of God where he is then disciplined into the faith. I really wish I could get this across but I simply urge you to continue to study more deeply the Epistles because there is simply no such thing as "salvation" proper that excludes the entire life of the Kingdom.

We keep going back and forth in this thread because salvation is conceived as the point of justification where a sinner rests upon the Savior but Scripture does not teach that salvation can be fully understood as simply justification. It includes the entire "realm" into which the sinner has now been transported. He is now no longer in Adam but in Christ. Does he understand this fully at first? No, but part of being in this new life, this new realm, being "in the Spirit", he is to consider Himself dead to sin and alive to Christ. 

How is he to understand this? By being taught by the Scriptures about what the Father, Son, and Spirit have done, are doing, and will do for Christ's Body. There is simply no way for the believer to be left at a point of "trusting in Jesus" where he is then cut off from what it means to be in this new reality. The Scriptures know nothing of an idea of stopping at the "point of entry" into the Kingdom and asking if certain doctrines are required as a theological test. It totally misses the point. God's purpose in election is revealed to be the calling of a people to Himself that would be made beautiful by the Spirit's work of sanctification (see Ephesians 2:1-10). There is no "running the race" without understanding in Whom we run the race and by Whose power we are enabled to endure.

In short, salvation has three aspects in the Scriptures:

1. We have been saved (Justification)
2. We are being saved (Sanctification)
3. We will be saved (Glorification)

All are salvation. All are in Christ. All were prepared beforehand by the Triune God for the salvation of the people of God.

We keep debating about whether there is some minimal content about the Trinity (or even no content at all) where a person could be justified and still not understand the Trinity.

The reason is that salvation is being centered upon and stopped at the point of Justification under the assumption that _this_ is the totality of what it means to be saved.

I'm trying to get Christians to see that there is no way to speak Biblically about the true idea of salvation (which includes sanctification) without reference to the Trinity and its operations. It is simply not possible to be sanctified, according to the Scriptures, without understanding what the Scriptures teach us about the Father, Son, and Spirit's work. I urge you to consider this more deeply.

Here are three sermons that you might want to listen to that develop the relationship of our position in Christ to salvation as a whole:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=117161754160
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=83015164105
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=712151811421


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 19, 2016)

I am often asked the question being discussed.

I answer, "Can one be saved without believing in the Trinity?" with the same question already asked of the OP, "What does 'be saved' mean to you?"

The One doing the regenerative act in the believer is the Third Person of our Triune God, Who then takes up residence in the regenerated elect. Is the house of the Godhead divided? No.

If one is regenerated, then one is in union with the Second Person of our Triune God.

If one is regenerated, then one has been declared justified and no longer a child of the wrath of the First Person of our Triune God.

_Ordinarily_ then, no one is regenerated that does not believe (know, assent, and trust) in the Triune God, for it is Their triune working that grants that very belief the regenerate now _possesses_, not merely _professes_. We therefore wisely leave the extraordinary matters in the Hands of the One who always does right (Deut. 29:29).

Accordingly, the degree to which a more bountiful understanding of the grand and wonderful mystery of the Trinity is apprehended by the regenerated elect, a matter of the degree of one's assurance, is the only remaining topic worthy of discussion. I have no quibbles with a Socratic method for a season, but eventually the ball cannot remain hidden. I appreciate Rich's call to move in a more worthy direction versus the current _whack-a-mole_ tenor.

EDIT: I cross-posted with Rich, who has captured the matter more perspicuously. Thank you, Rich.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> EDIT: I cross-posted with Rich, who has captured the matter more perspicuously. Thank you, Rich.


Patrick,

I appreciated your post. It wasn't at all redundant.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 19, 2016)

The original question though was "is it necessary to believe in the trinity to be saved". There is a very bad habbit of members on this board to answer questions they thoughtwere asked, or that they would have liked to been asked, as opposed to the question which was actually asked.

This is why I think I am being misunderstood. To the original question which was asked on this thread my answer is "no, belief in the trinity is not required for salvation". 

And for the sake of clarity I did not want to to into any more depth than was necessary. Of course the subjects of salvation or the nature of God could and should be elaborated upon but such information is beside the point (of the thread).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Gregory,

Read my last post. "To be saved" includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. Everything I have written is directly relevant to the question. The problem is not in my answer but in the assumption that everything that I have been teaching is irrelevant to the question. The original question is whether belief in the Trinity necessary for salvation.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 19, 2016)

Elder Rich, would you say the legal one time declaration of justification would entail a knowledge of the Trinity? For example, if you shared the Gospel with a man on the street (the holiness of God, his sin, the atoning work of Christ, His death, resurrection, repentance and faith), and that man embraced it all with joy, and then crossed the street and was killed by a drunk driver, do you think he would be innocent before God? Or would you have had to tell him about the deity of the Holy Spirit as well in order for him to be received into heaven? 

I think this might help us figure out where you stand. Thanks so much!


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 19, 2016)

^(My point exactly.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Elder Rich, would you say the legal one time declaration of justification would entail a knowledge of the Trinity? For example, if you shared the Gospel with a man on the street (the holiness of God, his sin, the atoning work of Christ, His death, resurrection, repentance and faith), and that man embraced it all with joy, and then crossed the street and was killed by a drunk driver, do you think he would be innocent before God? Or would you have had to tell him about the deity of the Holy Spirit as well in order for him to be received into heaven?
> 
> I think this might help us figure out where you stand. Thanks so much!



Ryan,

I believe I was fairly plain so far but I will state this again for clarity's sake.

Let's use Acts 2 as an example. 



> Acts 2:37–41 (ESV)
> 37*Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38*And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39*For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40*And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41*So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.



Now notice first that there is some Trinitarian language here and prior but let's give the early believers the benefit of the doubt that they surely did not understand everything.

For those who were united to Christ by faith, they were _justified_. They were saved from their sins.

But the text goes on...



> Acts 2:42 (ESV)
> 42*And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.



They were now _being saved_ - sanctified by the work of the Spirit through the Word, Sacraments, and Prayers.

So, yes, a person leaving Peter's sermon that day might have been struck on his way home by a chariot and died. He was united to Christ by faith and was just in God's sight.

Yet, this does not exhaust what it means to be saved.

Those who continued in the Church would battle temptation and indwelling sin. They had been brought from death to newness of life and the work of the Spirit in Word, Sacrament, and Prayer were vital to their salvation as a whole.

When we talk about salvation we cannot merely talk about the former as if the _real_ issue of salvation is whether the person may never live a Christian life because they might die that very day before they ever get a chance to be instructed/disciplined into the Christian life. We certainly don't know the day and the hour and it is sufficient to receive Christ and die that very hour and never have to grow in holiness but that's not what the Scriptures are focused upon. Christ taught us to keep His commandments. The Apostles and the Prophets left us the Scriptures that we might be wise unto salvation and built up for every good work.

As I have pointed you all unto, the Scriptures declare that the pupose of God in election is our sanctification - our growth in holiness. He makes us alive and justified in Christ (we have been saved) in order that we might be conformed to Christ-likeness (being saved).


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 19, 2016)

I think I'm catching on to what you're saying. So a person doesn't need to grasp the Trinity to initially be justified, but after they are initially justified, there is a great importance of them having correct doctrine in their sanctification? So as a person is devoted to the things of God and walking with the Lord, it will be vitally important that they understand the Trinity, and if they don't embrace this teaching, this may be a sign that they don't know the true God and aren't justified? 

Thanks!


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 19, 2016)

I don't want to nag, but can we have a straight answer to Ryan's question with the man on the street?

Is knowledge of the deity of the Holy Spirit (a prerequisite to trinity) a requirement to be saved? Or, as Ryan implied earlier, are all apologetic enterprises which do not explain the intricacies of the trinity in vain?


----------



## Stope (Mar 19, 2016)

Someone earlier asked my position, I think this is a good time to respond;

1. I do NOT think belief in the trinity (as qualified by Ryan&Amber2013) is required to be saved.

2. Having said that, I have a few unresolved thoughts;
A. If someone is outright taught it, yet reject it, this seems risky (but again, I can scripturally confirm nor deny if this person is saved... But it seems suspicious)
B. Ok, say the deepest a person gets is they say "I don't know, there seems to be some sort of unity amongst the three, but I don't understand it, as of now I think there might be 3 Gods (Father, Son, Spirit)...", this person wouldn't be guilty for not fully comprehending the Trunity, but perhaps they are guilty for thinking there are 3 gods.
C. Or maybe they don't think there are 3 gods, but they might think Jesus is, in some way between Mary and the Spirit the LITERAL (in a "heavenly" sense) "son" of God. 
D. Anybody who comes must come in truth... Yet if they believe untruth about the nature of God then they kind of haven't really come as required by God (but of course, NONE of us have an accurate view about the nature/workings of Jesus, so we found ourself at the beginning - exactly what is the "minimum" that must be believed, and what is to "off" that one is excluded?)
...These 4 issues above give me cause for concern


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 19, 2016)

I wonder if this quote from Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones would be helpful ?



> "Great Doctrines Of The Bible; God The Father, God The Son", page 37 ;
> 
> "The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do not know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.
> 
> ...


Obviously MLJ did not mean that we do not attempt to the best of our ability to understand what we can, and no one loved exegesis and exegetes more than MLJ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I think I'm catching on to what you're saying. So a person doesn't need to grasp the Trinity to initially be justified, but after they are initially justified, there is a great importance of them having correct doctrine in their sanctification? So as a person is devoted to the things of God and walking with the Lord, it will be vitally important that they understand the Trinity, and if they don't embrace this teaching, this may be a sign that they don't know the true God and aren't justified?
> 
> Thanks!


Ryan,

I encourage you to listen to the sermons I linked to. It's what I am very concerned that Christians grasp about the nature of salvation.

You've mostly understood it. Yes it is true that a person may not grasp the Trinity and be in a state of saving grace but I wouldn't quite put it the way you did about sanctification. I've studied/taught on the Epistles so many times that the concept of union with Christ literally leaps off the pages for me. There's a tendency for many Christians to sort of stop at the idea of saving faith and the state of justification as sort of ultimate aim or definition of salvation and they're not really catching on to what the Apostle Paul is unpacking in the whole of Romans as one example. Paul calls the whole letter "his Gospel" and not merely Romans 3-4. One needs to really wrestle with the "realm" of sin and death that a person is enslaved to in Adam. This is what brings condemnation and leads to unrighteousness. Christ as Mediator not only satifies the wrath of God for sin and grants His righteousness to believers in justification but His death and resurrection literally break the bonds of sin and death. The believer, united to Christ in justification is now dead to the power of sin and death and alive in Christ for righteousness. He is no longer dead in Adam but alive in Christ. God _converts_ us in order to justify, adopt, and _sanctify_ us.

There is a reason why the _ordo salutis_ (order of salvation) extends from eternity past (foreknowledge, election) to present (calling, regeneration, faith/repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance) to future (glorification). The Scriptures link these together in numerous locations as aspects of God's saving work.

How does the Lord accomplish this? Through the preaching of the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. The Holy Spirit attends to these as means by which we are built up in our union with Christ who lives and reigns as our Prophet, Priest, and King.

To put it simply, there is simply no Biblical category in the NT for a person to be able to be sanctified and to persevere in the faith who are not vitally united to the one Mediator (the God-Man) by the Spirit. I keep reading a lot of speculation about whether someone might be able to just "get by" after being justified. What does this mean Biblically? Where would we go in the Scripture to see how we could determine what such a Saint looks like? We have a lot of "personal experiences" being offered and ideas that "this just seems to be the case" but I'm throwing us back on everywhere that Paul and the other Apostles talk about our salvation there is a consistent Trinitarian message about the Father sending the Son, the Son accomplishing redemption, and the Spirit applying redemption. These truths are not (as I've said before) "sidebars" to sanctification and perseverance but all of it (including God electing us) are the very means the Son uses by the Spirit to conquer all of His and our enemies.

I'm very saddened that the Apostles labor to present all of the same arguments I've been using about how we are being saved and kept for salvation only to be responded to that it seems quite odd or not really "on the mark" with respect to the issue of what salvation entails.

I urge you to dig into Romans and Hebrews and see the themes I've been expressing unfold.




Reformed Fox said:


> I don't want to nag, but can we have a straight answer to Ryan's question with the man on the street?
> 
> Is knowledge of the deity of the Holy Spirit (a prerequisite to trinity) a requirement to be saved? Or, as Ryan implied earlier, are all apologetic enterprises which do not explain the intricacies of the trinity in vain?


I'm not going to dignify this with a response. I have spent many hours today trying to help you to understand the faith you confess and I do not appreciate that you are failing to take the time to actually read and understand before you fire back carelessly.


Stope said:


> Someone earlier asked my position, I think this is a good time to respond;
> 
> 1. I do NOT think belief in the trinity (as qualified by Ryan&Amber2013) is required to be saved.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to permit your "unresolved thoughts" to be answered. You're simply not wrestling with what I've presented so far.

You may not like this answer but this is a Reformed board. You listed the Westminster Confession as your confession. That Confession is intended to be a summary exposition of what the Scriptures teach. You are shooting from the hip and acting as if what I'm responding to you with is some formulation that is completely irrelevant to the topic of salvation.

You *must* wrestle with these things because you're completely missing the boat.

Calvin writes in his Institutes:


> We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible (1 Tim. vi. 16), is a kind of labyrinth,—a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it.



Stop thinking you can run to the truth by speculation. Be content to limp along the way that God has ordained that we would understand these things.

If you cannot articulate salvation's several aspects and back them up with exegesis then this discussion is fruitless.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 20, 2016)

Is belief in the God who is, necessary for salvation? Yes. Is God one in essence and three in persons? Yes. So, is belief in the Trinitarian God necessary for salvation? Yes. How can you believe in the triune God who is (Heb. 11) and not think that the triune God is necessary for salvation?

It strikes me that someone could read the entirety of scripture, let alone the Gospels, and conclude that the triune God is not necessary for salvation. 

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 20, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Is belief in the God who is, necessary for salvation? Yes. Is God one in essence and three in persons? Yes. So, is belief in the Trinitarian God necessary for salvation? Yes. How can you believe in the triune God who is (Heb. 11) and not think that the triune God is necessary for salvation?
> 
> It strikes me that someone could read the entirety of scripture, let alone the Gospels, and conclude that the triune God is not necessary for salvation.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Precisely, Andrew.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2016)

What does the Trinity being a "mystery" have to do with the issue? We believe Christ died for our sins and rose again the third day "according to the Scriptures." There is nothing in nature or reason which can search out these precious truths. They are as foolish to the natural man as the doctrine of the Trinity. The unwarranted appeal to "mystery" only serves to undermine the importance of believing ANY doctrine as a necessary part of salvation.

As for the person who hears and believes on the street only to be killed the next moment -- this is just another appeal to an abnormal case in order to establish a normal principle. In normal circumstances the person would make profession of Trinitarian faith before the church, be baptised in the Trinitarian faith, and would henceforth live out their Trinitarian faith in communion with like-minded believers. The abnormal circumstance that someone is killed before he can enter on the normal course means that we leave the person with God who alone knows the heart of the individual.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 20, 2016)

MW said:


> What does the Trinity being a "mystery" have to do with the issue? We believe Christ died for our sins and rose again the third day "according to the Scriptures." There is nothing in nature or reason which can search out these precious truths. They are as foolish to the natural man as the doctrine of the Trinity. The unwarranted appeal to "mystery" only serves to undermine the importance of believing ANY doctrine as a necessary part of salvation.
> 
> As for the person who hears and believes on the street only to be killed the next moment -- this is just another appeal to an abnormal case in order to establish a normal principle. In normal circumstances the person would make profession of Trinitarian faith before the church, be baptised in the Trinitarian faith, and would henceforth live out their Trinitarian faith in communion with like-minded believers. The abnormal circumstance that someone is killed before he can enter on the normal course means that we leave the person with God who alone knows the heart of the individual.



Excellent.

As I was meditating more on the necessity of this doctrine today something struck me about Galatians and then we were studying the same thing in Philippians 3 today where Paul is warning the Church about the Judaizers:


> Philippians 3:1-3 (ESV)
> 
> 1*Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
> 2*Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3*For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—



What is Paul saying here and elsewhere?

Who or what, precisely, is a Christian depending upon if they do not believe they are united to Christ and empowered by the Spirit of God for the exercise of the Christian life?

It is their own effort with no reference to the Spirit.

Paul laments in Galatians that they "...began in the Spirit..." and are they now going to be perfected "...in the flesh?"

The Christian who does not understand the works of the Trinity in their Salvation does not understand the animating principle behind their Christian life.

What does Paul consider a "gospel" that has no reference to the operations of the Spirit of Christ to free men from bondage to sin and death?

He calls it _another gospel_.

He calls it _no gospel at all_ with specific reference to how the Galatians were understanding their _sanctification_. He calls the Judaizers dogs and evildoers for promoting a gospel that looks to our natural capacity to accomplish righteousness with no reference to union with Christ and the operation of the Spirit.

Again I say that the Trinity is not a sidebar doctrine that is part of some theological test but is absolutely _embedded_ in how we are to encourage, rebuke, reprove and exhort one another. A Christian who hears a "gospel" with no reference to the operations of the Trinity is not hearing the Gospel.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2016)

Rich, the "animating principle" is essential teaching, as you have well observed. "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" is presented as a deficiency.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 20, 2016)

Yes!


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 20, 2016)

MW said:


> As for the person who hears and believes on the street only to be killed the next moment -- this is just another appeal to an abnormal case in order to establish a normal principle. In normal circumstances the person would make profession of Trinitarian faith before the church, be baptised in the Trinitarian faith, and would henceforth live out their Trinitarian faith in communion with like-minded believers. The abnormal circumstance that someone is killed before he can enter on the normal course means that we leave the person with God who alone knows the heart of the individual.



That was a great response. I agree with this. I think the normative Christian life entails embracing the Trinity, but there are those exceptions where one might not get a chance to hear the Trinity explained, and still be in the state of grace. Thanks for the clarification, friends.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 20, 2016)

If I may, I'll insert that faith is usually defined as assent and consent to the truth, which assumes that there is a knowledge of the truth. I think that's an important element in this whole discussion. If a person does not have a rudimentary understanding of the Cristian religion, he doesn't have anything to give assent or consent to.


----------



## Stope (Mar 20, 2016)

This scenario is a very real one. Consider X Mormons who have their entire life read the scriptures with a literal reading of Jesus as "Son" of God. No doubt, after conversion, as time goes by these people will begin to be taught of the Spirit and be able to more clearly grasp the true nature of Christ (first digesting the milk of the word), but first they have the long journey of having to see this truth - hence it is not such abnormal situation, rather it is one I am familiar with first hand. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 20, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> The original question though was "is it necessary to believe in the trinity to be saved". There is a very bad habbit of members on this board to answer questions they thoughtwere asked, or that they would have liked to been asked, as opposed to the question which was actually asked.
> 
> This is why I think I am being misunderstood. To the original question which was asked on this thread my answer is "no, belief in the trinity is not required for salvation".
> 
> And for the sake of clarity I did not want to to into any more depth than was necessary. Of course the subjects of salvation or the nature of God could and should be elaborated upon but such information is beside the point (of the thread).





Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Elder Rich, would you say the legal one time declaration of justification would entail a knowledge of the Trinity? For example, if you shared the Gospel with a man on the street (the holiness of God, his sin, the atoning work of Christ, His death, resurrection, repentance and faith), and that man embraced it all with joy, and then crossed the street and was killed by a drunk driver, do you think he would be innocent before God? Or would you have had to tell him about the deity of the Holy Spirit as well in order for him to be received into heaven?
> 
> I think this might help us figure out where you stand. Thanks so much!



It seems to me this is trying to pry into the secret things of God....who could could know them? If the triune God has set His electing love on that one, he will be saved, by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, justified, sanctified and glorified. 
Secondly, Rich has nailed it; when you try to seperate (he used the term "parse out") these "things" from the Author of these things, it's like trying to anchor a row boat to leviathan in a hurricane. It is the difference in thinking about these things in a Reformed manner (the whole counsel of God) and the American evangelical manner; to think about things in a disjointed, disconnected and atomistic fashion.
God is simple....
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/the-lord-is-one/


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 21, 2016)

Stope said:


> This scenario is a very real one. Consider X Mormons who have their entire life read the scriptures with a literal reading of Jesus as "Son" of God. No doubt, after conversion, as time goes by these people will begin to be taught of the Spirit and be able to more clearly grasp the true nature of Christ (first digesting the milk of the word), but first they have the long journey of having to see this truth - hence it is not such abnormal situation, rather it is one I am familiar with first hand.



Jason,

You really need to think more clearly. The scenario is the "struck by a car" scenario. Consequently, are you saying it is common for Mormons to hear and understand the Gospel properly for the first time and then they are struck by a car on their way home after believing the Gospel? I'm not aware that Mormons are coming to Christ in large numbers only to have them struck by a car the moment after they believe.

You need to slow down and engage your mind carefully on this subject. You're so set on getting the answer you want that you're not learning from the answer you _need_ to hear.

I want you to consider Paul's letter to the Galatians. He is writing to actual Church members. These are Christians in a Church he planted. He knows who they were and what they believed.

Now follow me carefully Jason. Engage your mind carefully.

He is shocked that they are abandoning the Gospel.

How? Because they believe they can be perfected apart from the Spirit by falling back on a crass un-Biblical form of law-keeping that throws them back into circumcision and obedince to Torah.

He warns them over and over and over again that they are abandoning the Gospel not on the point of some minimal entry point of belief but on what they are _presently_ putting their confidence in with respect to their growth in holiness.

What concerns me Jason is that you're worried about what others understand concerning the Gospel and your responses leave me worried that _you_ have a very weak hold of the Gospel with respect to how you think you are standing in the faith. I implore you to meditate on these things more deeply for it may not be others about whom you need to worry understand the Gospel but yourself.


----------



## puppydlog85 (Mar 21, 2016)

Guys, perhaps I missed this but does not Hebrew 2 address this very topic? The author in 1:10-12 identifies Jesus as Jehovah then moves immediately on to say NOT to neglect this message, that it is vital to your "great salvation"? Or am I reading too much into this? Thanks!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 21, 2016)

puppydlog85 said:


> Guys, perhaps I missed this but does not Hebrew 2 address this very topic? The author in 1:10-12 identifies Jesus as Jehovah then moves immediately on to say NOT to neglect this message, that it is vital to your "great salvation"? Or am I reading too much into this? Thanks!



You're not reading too much into this at all. It is precisely my point in encouraging people here to read the Book of Hebrews. As I noted earlier, the letter is written to presumably _believing Christians_ and everything presented is enmeshed with Trinitarian language from the very beginning - Christ is God! All that follows is to help them to understand the excellency of Christ and what they are shrinking back from and warning them that if they continue to be slothful in learning these things about their "great salvation" then they might even be found to be like the generation that fell in the wilderness.

I don't know how to urge this more passionately than to write it but my heart's desire is that Christians would understand that the Trinity is not merely a creedal formulation. If they do not understand how the Father, Son, and Spirit are _presently_ and _actively_ engaged in their salvation then what are they putting their confidence in with respect to whether they stand in the faith?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 21, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know how to urge this more passionately than to write it but my heart's desire is that Christians would understand that the Trinity is not merely a creedal formulation. If they do not understand how the Father, Son, and Spirit are _presently_ and _actively_ engaged in their salvation then what are they putting their confidence in with respect to whether they stand in the faith?



I think there is a lot of good wisdom in this statement. We really aren't just discussing trivial matters, but rather, something that is of great importance. This topic should be one that is seriously considered. Though the word "Trinity" is not spoken of in the Scriptures, we do see how each member of the Godhead is working within us to bring us to glory. We surely don't want to undermine the glory of God and the realities of His working.


----------



## Stope (Mar 21, 2016)

I both hear and see and your desire to exhort believers to believe rightly about God. Thank you for taking the time to continually share insight.

I wonder, if it might be a good idea to look to the Word and ask these 2 questions;

1. What is the elevator pitch of the Gospel?

2. What is fundamental required for (and accompany) salvation?
(Bearing in mind, at what point did something enter here at number 2 that wasn't on number 1 and why?)?

I think these questions would help on many levels (I can post on a different thread if anybody thinks it's a good idea).



Again, this is helpful!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 22, 2016)

Stope said:


> 1. What is the elevator pitch of the Gospel?
> 
> 2. What is fundamental required for (and accompany) salvation?



The first two minutes of the following (by Dr. Godfrey) will be a good place to start:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/confe...-conference/panel-discussion-pre-conference/?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 22, 2016)

Stope said:


> I both hear and see and your desire to exhort believers to believe rightly about God. Thank you for taking the time to continually share insight.
> 
> I wonder, if it might be a good idea to look to the Word and ask these 2 questions;
> 
> ...



May I ask some serious questions:

1. Are you reading what I'm writing in detail and trying to understand what I writing?

-or-

2. Are you skimming over it?

The reason I ask is that question 2 has been answered several times in several different ways to try and re-try and re-try again to help you to understand what salvation _is_.

Find somewhething in _this thread_ that I've written (or others have) that you don't understand and ask for it to be explained to you.

What I'm teaching you is not a personal opinion or preferred way of looking at things. I'm not an original thinker here. Matthew, Bruce, Patrick, and others are not original thinkers. We're simply relating to you well-worked out Biblical principles that are in our Reformed Confessions.

You came to a Reformed board for answers to your question. You got a Reformed answer.

There are other approaches to interpretation that feel more "free" to speculate about how God might be like or they begin with human philosophies and then reason back to the Word about what it may or may not say. There are a lot of Chrsitians these days that feel very free to tell you that "...this is how they see things..." or might even take a poll of people to see if, somehow, they might have figured out some fresh insight into the Word that nobody has ever discovered before.

R.C. Sproul recounts that he sometimes gets questions from people (because he's a theologian) such as "...what's heaven really like..." or "...what job does God want me to take...."

The assumption is that theology and theologians are those who have access to some way of thinking about something more deeply than what can actually be found by the Scriptures. Of course there are theologians that do that all the time.

But not Reformed theologians.

Honestly, Jason, your questions are not terribly difficult to answer. The problem that I've found with us as Chrsitians is that we are like the audience of the Hebrews. Where we should be teachers by now we are dull in hearing because our senses have not been trained.

I've read through the Scriptures over a dozen times now. I've made study of the Scriptures my daily habit for almost 20 years now. I still learn new things every day. There are many difficult questions to answer.

But, as to your question, it's one of those questions that has a very perspicuous answer. The Scriptures don't leave any doubt about them and I've been trying as hard as I can to get you to see how plain the answer is.

If I'm using difficult words and you can't understand the sentences I'm writing then let me know.

But if it's because you're simply not taking time to read carefully what you've been told by ordained men on this board then I would suggest to you that you don't want answers that reflect Reformed (read Biblical) thinking. We're just not the "seems to me" type.


----------



## Stope (Mar 22, 2016)

@Semper Fidelis

"1. Are you reading what I'm writing in detail and trying to understand what I writing?"
---I was wondering the same thing about you. You see, Im thinking just because I am disagreeing with your conclusion and since Im not as learned as you that you decide to keep bullying me (removing my posts, talking down to me, etc). What you are failing to see is that what you are saying is a great opinion but it is just that, it is an opinion (no matter how pious you may be, no matter how informed, etc. it is still just that, an opinion). As you will see from this thread that it seems about 1/2t is NOT required and that 1/2 think it is. 

"You came to a Reformed board for answers to your question. You got a Reformed answer."
---Indeed I got Semper Fidelis' "Reformed" answer, but I also got dissenting (from yours) answers that were "Reformed". 

I really like Vern Poythress' answer on the question:
"Saving faith includes some information, but at its heart is trust. We trust that Jesus is the complete Savior, that God is gracious to us through him, and that God knows how to work everything necessary for salvation. Implicit in that trust is trust in God's plan (through the Father), accomplished in the Son, and applied to us (by the Holy Spirit). A person does not need to have worked out explicitly all the presuppositions and implications of salvation, in order to trust in the God who has worked it all out.

So my answer is not a simple yes or no. We know more and we presuppose more than what we are conscious of and what we have analyzed."

Semper Fidelis, I think what you need to see is that, as you are leaning towards an unequivocal "no", it is not as simple as that, and its ok and Im not so dull of hearing as you may suppose.


----------



## AVT (Mar 22, 2016)

Muslims believe that Jesus is the Messiah but He is not God,Jesus is just a man and is a prophet.

For one to be saved,one has to understand that God gave His only Son to die on the cross,no one can save fallen man but God ALONE.
The perfect sacrifice is God,a Lamb without blemish.

Scriptures says that Jesus is the Son of God and is God,begotten of the Father before he was born of Mary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 22, 2016)

Jason,

I have not "bullied you" in the least.

I have moderated your posts to re-focus you to the question at hand. The question was "Is belief in the Trinity necessary for salvation?"

You assume that because you have received some answers that seem to confirm what you're trying to hear that I'm simply expressing an opinion. I am not. I am expressing what the Westminster Standards summarize concerning the nature of salvation.

Your misunderstanding is compounded by the fact that you think that Poythress is in fundamental disagreement with what I have written. He is not. You did not ask what saving faith is. You asked about the nature of salvation. Salvation includes saving faith but it is not all that there is in the idea of salvation.

We have a moderating team and they have looked at your "complaint" as to how you have been treated.

You were moderated because I needed to focus the discussion in a Reformed context.

You asked about whether belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation.

I asked you to define salvation so we could focus the discussion and provide some better instruction on where you are confused.

You then complain that the discussion is being derailed because I'm asking you to define salvation but how can one determine whether the Trinity is necessary for salvation if one cannot define what "salvation" is?!

You see, Jason, all of our "opinions" on this are testable as to whether they are Reformed. They are not "Reformed" because people that post on a board have a Reformed answer to your question. They are "reformed" insofar as they can be found to be consistent with Reformed _confessions_.

Consider Westminister Larger Catechism Question 32 as one example:



> Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
> A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,115 and life and salvation by him;116 and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,117 promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit118 to all his elect, to work in them that faith,119 with all other saving graces;120 and to enable them unto all holy obedience,121 as the evidence of the truth of their faith122 and thankfulness to God,123 and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.124



Notice that faith is one of _other saving graces_. There is not one thing (faith) that encompasses the saving grace of God but it is part of the saving _realm_ that God has appointed for them in Christ.

Now let's look at how the Confession (that you listed as _your_ confession when you signed up to participate) articulates saving faith, justification, adoption, and sanctification:



> Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
> A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,297 wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit298 and Word of God,299 whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,300 not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,301 but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,302 and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.303
> Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
> A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,304 nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;305 but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.306
> ...


Again, notice the term saving _graces_ - plural.

What I have been trying to impart to you is what you list as your Confession in your profile. 

As I've stated from the very beginning, salvation _includes_ saving faith. Salvation _includes_ justification.

BUT salvation includes many other saving graces that we receive as we are united to Christ by the Spirit of God: repentance unto life, adoption, sanctification, good works, etc.

This is not my opinion.

Until you go back and reset then you'll think that just getting an opinion is the same thing as listening to someone explain to you what the Reformed believe that the Scriptures teach.

And so, I ask you plainly: are you interested in learning what the Reformed confessions teach about salvation? If you are not this is very sad. You may believe that it is "bullying" to require that teaching be bound to something certain. You may be accustomed to a "seems to me" theology but you will never arrive at the Truth by this method.

I would urge you to reconsider that it is not me bullying you but you are obstinately refusing to be instructed by ordained elders and ministers and you are justifying your obstinacy by the belief that the opinions you like prove to you that you're not being obstinate.


----------



## Stope (Mar 22, 2016)

Thank you Brother Rich


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Mar 22, 2016)

A lot of this post will be me thinking out loud, more or less. But to be clear, I generally agree with Rich and Matthew, while sympathizing with your question as it's one I've wrestled with. More wrestling follows. Also, disclaimer: I am not ordained nor do I have any formal theological training.

You've referenced your ex-Mormon wife and others who were formerly in non-trinitarian sects and then became orthodox Christians. It seems that the question behind the question is, "At what point did these people pass from death to life?" And the answer is, we don't know. We can't know. All we know is that they were hearing a false Gospel and worshipping a false God as long as they were beholden to the LDS "Church" (or whichever sect they were a part of). But God called them out of there. At what moment did they become regenerate, you wonder. I don't know. But I do know that putting aside the idols of their former faith and embracing the triune God was essential to their salvation. Leaving behind their false worship and cleaving to the church, the Bride of Christ, where they were able to hear sound doctrine, was essential to the process.

Another question behind the question is, "Where do we draw the line between essentials and nonessentials of salvation?" I've wrestled with this one myself, and various thinkers I respect have come up with different (yet similar) answers. John Stott was once asked, "How much do you need to know to be saved?" and he replied, "Not much, I hope." But he says in _Basic Christianity_ that, "If Jesus was not God in human flesh ... we are left with just another religion." My denomination (EPC) has a list of "Essentials of Our Faith" which is meant to "define core beliefs ... common to all true believers and churches throughout the world." The trinity is the first "essential" listed. The Sum of Saving Knowledge, another attempt at an answer which has often been printed alongside the Westminster Standards, gives the Covenant of Grace between the members of the trinity as the second of eighteen propositions. I suppose you could also consider the Nicene Creed, which uses the trinity as its organizing principle, as an attempt to answer the question.

What are the main alternatives to trinitarianism? One could deny that there is only one God, deny that there are distinctions/persons within the Godhead, or deny the deity of one or more of the persons. In the case of polytheism, surely it's an open-and-shut case that such a "believer" is not saved under normal circumstances. All throughout both testaments, the cardinal doctrine is that there is one God, he does not share glory, and his people must turn from their idols. I don't see any way around such a diagnosis for the LDS "Church," which affirms that there are three "personages" within the Godhead, each with a separate body, mind, and origin, and which says that before God was God he was a man who worshiped a different God on a different world. It's blasphemy through and through, an outright mockery of the truth.

What about those who deny the deity of Christ? Does the person who holds that belief think that Jesus was perfect? If so, how was he free of the stain of sin? Is that method available to us as well? If so, why do we need a savior? What did his death save us from? I don't see any way around requiring a profession of Jesus' divinity, or else the Gospel is in danger. A "semi-divine" Christ in the manner of Arians and JWs is nonsensical. A "merely human" Christ is powerless to save. If one is united to the true Christ, how could he possibly fail to profess the true divinity and true humanity of Christ?

You mentioned denying the deity of the Holy Spirit. What alternative do you have in mind? Is the Holy Spirit an angel? A binding force in the universe? I don't know if I've encountered anyone who holds such views, so it's difficult to interact with such ideas. I'm aware that there were some in antiquity who denied the Spirit's divinity, but I don't know the ins and outs of that theology.

More commonly I see people denying the personhood of the Spirit, though I think I've only seen it done in ignorance, not defiance, of sound doctrine. Are such people saved? I don't know their hearts. I can't know. But if I encounter such error in conversation with a brother, don't I have a responsibility to correct it? And doesn't their response to said correction indicate something about their state?

We baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If someone denies that name, they shouldn't be baptised. If we judge someone unworthy of baptism, isn't that functionally equivalent to saying that we don't have confidence in their present salvation?

Regarding "elevator pitches": the apostles gave quite a few speeches and pitches for the Gospel in the Book of Acts. They were all different, all pitched at the level the audience understood. So it doesn't seem that there is one possible elevator pitch for the Gospel. We must be sensitive to the person we're talking to and be mindful of what they do and don't already know. The shortest one is Acts 16:31, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," but the text indicates that they then talked with the jailer for many more hours.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 22, 2016)

Ignorance was what I was originally pushing for as well. Actively denying the existence of the Holy Spirit or it's deity is distinct from simply not having a fully formed understanding of the nature of the God head.

Many may be ignorant of the true nature of the Holy Spirit. This is neither good not acceptable, but it happens.


----------



## rickclayfan (Mar 26, 2016)

Recently read this. I believe it is relevant to the discussion. Owen makes some really good points. Read pages 442-445 starting with "This, I say, is the sum of this doctrine..." 

https://archive.org/stream/worksofjohnowe04owen#page/442/mode/2up


----------



## ijunn (Apr 25, 2016)

The doctrine of the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine, just as the doctrine of justification, election etc. is. The Christian Church was and is being pointed to the truth of the Trinity, because the Bible teaches:

1. That there is but one true God
2. That there are three divine Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
3. That the Persons are coequal and coeternal

So rejecting the Trinity is rejecting who God is. Take away the Trinity and you have no Christianity left. Also the Athanasian Creed defines the Christian faith as a Trinitarian faith. 

"And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence."

Best regards,


----------



## lynnie (Apr 25, 2016)

There is a difference between false teachers and those deceived by them. 

There are plenty of elect saints ( I have known them)who came to faith in what Jesus Christ did on the cross, believe the bible, and have been taught modalism (oneness). They are Christians, and I have seen them eventually come out and become trinitarians. But they were saved while denying trinitarian orthodoxy.

I know former Roman Catholics who were the exact same way. They were saved, came to faith, and eventually came out of the RCC. But for a time as true Christians they held to errant doctrines. 

The question should be if the teachers of this sort of thing are saved. I wonder about those perpetuating the heresies in high places. But even many RCC priests have gotten saved. 

How many men teaching orthodoxy ended up going off the rails? At one time they believed, years later they are heretics. Don't be so quick to try and figure out who is saved/elect. Only much time reveals the heart.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 25, 2016)

lynnie said:


> But they were saved while denying trinitarian orthodoxy.


How do you know this?


----------

