Are Trinitarians Saved?

[robogreg_2000]

God is the judge!!!!! I know many trinitarian people who are saved and I know countless "ONENESS" people who are as hell bound as the devil himself!!!

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by robogreg_2000

God is the judge!!!!! I know many trinitarian people who are saved and I know countless "ONENESS" people who are as hell bound as the devil himself!!!

Now that is funny!
You say that God is the judge, then you proceed to judge!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Strict Baptist

If I understand partialism aright, the Oneness view of the divinity is that Jesus is the one deity who manifests as Father, Word or Son and the Sacred Spirit. The analogy of a father who is simultaneously a son and a husband incorrectly by some imprecise Trinitarians is a description of modalism. However, none of these dimensions can simultaneously manifest; it is a modification of the fourth and fifth century excommunicated Nœtians, Sabellians, Praxeans and the beliefs of Theodoret (190 AD). Thus, it is obviously not the classic doctrine of the sacred triad, who like the musical term (though a poor reflection of it) are three subsistences in one indivisible person, equal in power and glory, identical in essence. Oneness denies this subsistency.

Herein lies the question -- do Oneness believers think Trinitarians are Christians or do they adhere to the thought of the UPCI manual that we are lost? Interestingly, that question was asked by Dr Martin in the 1985 Oneness debate on the Ankenberg show. If memory serves, Dr Urshan answered God knew who is lost, but Martin (who I don't endorse) indicated he, who was then the UPCI General Superintendent, had copped out on UPCI literature. What do you think?

I do not think you have a correct understanding of Oneness theology. God, our Father, who is Spirit, who is the Word, was manifested in flesh, whom we know as Jesus Christ. His virgin birth is what particularly entitles Him to be called "the Son of God". His resurrection declares Him to be so. The terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are terms referring to God in His various capacities and relations to man. The relational aspects between the terms, as relating to each other, arise due to the Incarnation. Thus, the "distinctions" exist due to Christ's humanity, and NOT due to eternal relations between several divine minds or "persons".

The early Oneness believers, so called, were excommunicated by the catholic apostates via their Ecumenical Councils and Papal Decrees. Those same people, by the same means, invented the doctrine of trinitarianism, along with clericalism, veneration of relics, prayer to the dead, Purgatory, the Magisterium, and a host of other Antichrist doctrines.

The doctrine of the trinity cannot be found anywhere stated in Scripture. The core, required affirmations of trinitarianism likewise cannot be found in Scripture (except for those shared with the Biblical Oneness view). Therefore, trinitarianism is of necessity a post-apostolic non-biblical doctrine. That alone renders it human opinion and not necessary to be believed. But it also flatly contradicts the Strict Monotheism of the Bible. Which renders it heresy, which if persisted in will ........ the soul.

Eternal life is to know the true God and Jesus Christ. Therefore, highly erroneous beliefs about God and Christology are incompatible with eternal life.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Strict Baptist

If I understand partialism aright, the Oneness view of the divinity is that Jesus is the one deity who manifests as Father, Word or Son and the Sacred Spirit. The analogy of a father who is simultaneously a son and a husband incorrectly by some imprecise Trinitarians is a description of modalism. However, none of these dimensions can simultaneously manifest; it is a modification of the fourth and fifth century excommunicated Nœtians, Sabellians, Praxeans and the beliefs of Theodoret (190 AD). Thus, it is obviously not the classic doctrine of the sacred triad, who like the musical term (though a poor reflection of it) are three subsistences in one indivisible person, equal in power and glory, identical in essence. Oneness denies this subsistency.

Herein lies the question -- do Oneness believers think Trinitarians are Christians or do they adhere to the thought of the UPCI manual that we are lost? Interestingly, that question was asked by Dr Martin in the 1985 Oneness debate on the Ankenberg show. If memory serves, Dr Urshan answered God knew who is lost, but Martin (who I don't endorse) indicated he, who was then the UPCI General Superintendent, had copped out on UPCI literature. What do you think?

Here is a diagram provided previously by the post Aquila....

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Strict Baptist

If I understand partialism aright, the Oneness view of the divinity is that Jesus is the one deity who manifests as Father, Word or Son and the Sacred Spirit. The analogy of a father who is simultaneously a son and a husband incorrectly by some imprecise Trinitarians is a description of modalism. However, none of these dimensions can simultaneously manifest; it is a modification of the fourth and fifth century excommunicated Nœtians, Sabellians, Praxeans and the beliefs of Theodoret (190 AD). Thus, it is obviously not the classic doctrine of the sacred triad, who like the musical term (though a poor reflection of it) are three subsistences in one indivisible person, equal in power and glory, identical in essence. Oneness denies this subsistency.

Herein lies the question -- do Oneness believers think Trinitarians are Christians or do they adhere to the thought of the UPCI manual that we are lost? Interestingly, that question was asked by Dr Martin in the 1985 Oneness debate on the Ankenberg show. If memory serves, Dr Urshan answered God knew who is lost, but Martin (who I don't endorse) indicated he, who was then the UPCI General Superintendent, had copped out on UPCI literature. What do you think?

Here is a research paper I recently wrote on the subject...

Eric Holly-Research Paper RA - Copy (2).pdf

[Aquila]

Here's a thought...

If we are identified with Christ alone through baptism in His name... are Trinitarians not identified with Trinitarianism, and not Christ alone, through the threefold formula?

[n david]

"Are Trinitarians Saved?"

[Aquila]

Strict Baptist,

I have a question that is primarily focused on the baptismal formula.

Regardless as to what one believes about water baptism's role in salvation, Scripture appears to be clear that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:

(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Also, various historians and historical sources have noted that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351:"The evidence suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53:"At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241:"[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58:"The trinitarian baptismal formula was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435:"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus... which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53:"Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473:"It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365:"The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning. Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

With the witness of both Scripture and History, testifying to the historical reality of baptism originally being done in the name of Jesus... I have to ask you...

Do you believe in water baptism in the name of Jesus?

Yes or no?

*Please note: The sources above are from mainstream sources.

[Strict Baptist]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Please cite in the 2017 manual where all Trinitarians are declared "lost". Thanks.

I missed part of your post stating you believe the manifestations are simultaneous; how do you deal with the Transfiguration or baptism, for example? As to the aforementioned manual, I will see about quoting it another time when I have access since I don't have it on this device.

[Strict Baptist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Strict Baptist,

I have a question that is primarily focused on the baptismal formula.

Regardless as to what one believes about water baptism's role in salvation, Scripture appears to be clear that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:

(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Also, various historians and historical sources have noted that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351:"The evidence suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53:"At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241:"[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58:"The trinitarian baptismal formula was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435:"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus... which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53:"Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473:"It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365:"The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning. Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

With the witness of both Scripture and History, testifying to the historical reality of baptism originally being done in the name of Jesus... I have to ask you...

Do you believe in water baptism in the name of Jesus?

Yes or no?

*Please note: The sources above are from mainstream sources.

As stated, I put a baptismal debate request out in the Salvational Issues section of the Debate subform. Nobody answered; only Esaias showed interest with questions to clarify. If you'd like to discuss this on SPBR, you can email me or message me. I'd be happy to discuss that there especially since baptism wasn't the topic of this thread.