Look what the trinity folks are saying

[stmatthew]

I recently went to a forum that I know some trinity folks post on and asked a question just to see what the answer would be. I was interested in knowing if some trinnies believe Oneness folks are lost, or if we can be saved.


My question was....

Just wanted some opinions here.

There is a group of believers that do not believe in the trinity, but believe in the Oneness of God. They also believe that we are not to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but are to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. They teach that baptism is for remission of sins.

Are these people saved??

Some of my answers are posted on the following pages. Many are from one person, but a few others chimed in. I have left out names so as to protect the guilty.

[stmatthew]

POST 1. No, they cannot. The Trinity is an essential aspect of Christianity - without it, we cannot have any other aspect of the faith.

At some point, all true Christians must come to believe in the Trinity.




POST 2. As **** said, the triune nature of God is essential to faith. As Jesus said:

John 8:24-25
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
25So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?

We must believe that Jesus is who He says He is. What Jesus says about the nature of God reveals that He is triune. Those who believe in "oneness" have made up an idol that is not the God of scripture. This is not to say that it is impossible to be in a oneness church and come to true faith, but if someone does find faith in the real God, they will leave a oneness cult to find a church that proclaims the true God.



POST 3. He must know they are two separate persons, or at least have an understanding of it. His knowledge may not be perfect on the issue, it may have holes in it, he may be wrong - but so long as he doesn't buy into the Oneness heresy, he is saved. The reason for this is the Trinity is one of the central doctrines of Christianity - without it, we lose almost every other doctrine, including the divinity of Christ.

This is not to say he has to write a dissertation on the issue when he comes to Christ. He must have a very basic understanding of it though. How can he accept Christ if he believes the wrong thing about Christ? Does that make sense?

I can also say he isn't saved - it's very easy; he's not saved. I can say a Hindu isn't saved. I can say a Mormon isn't saved. I can say someone who denies the Trinity isn't saved. I know this because the Bible has clearly laid out that God is triune and that we must accept who Christ is in order to be saved. You can't marry a girl without having an idea of who she is and you can't accept Christ without having an idea of who He is.



POST 4. I think there are two different concepts going on here (without categorizing anyone presently on this thread):

1) Whether a person who ACTIVELY DENIES the trinity is saved...

2) Whether a person who DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the trinity is saved.

There is a difference.

The first describes a person who will REFUSE a God who is triune... this type of person is manufacturing his own god to his specifications. As such, he has not thrown himself at the mercy of God, but at his own idol.

The second describes a person who is merely ignorant that God is triune. This type of person is seeking The One True God, but may simply not know, or may be in a season of being under the influence of bad teaching. But this person is OPEN to God being However God Is.... in other words, this type of person has thrown himself at the mercy of God according to his best understanding, and as he grows, he will accept the truth whatever that may be.

I do not agree that "understanding the trinity" or even "being aware of the trinity" is a necessary component of saving faith.

However, I DO affirm that all doctrinal errors find their root in a misunderstanding of the nature of God. So... while believing in oneness ITSELF is not fatal, there is a dangerous spillover effect that ultimately will impact your walk with God. It is not to be taken lightly.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between ignorance/misunderstanding... and active heresy.

Edit: In short... the question we ALL must ask ourselves is, will you still accept God if he turns out to be something other than what you think of him right now?

[Steve Epley]

BIGOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:gc lock oloroid NO LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[Hoovie]

Dumb thread.

I have dozens of real life examples that testify otherwise.

Anyone can find these quips from the Hank Hanegraffe devotees.

In reality they are nothing more than a reactionary response to their Steve Epley counterparts.

[Hoovie]

BTW... I loved this line.

"In short... the question we ALL must ask ourselves is, will you still accept God if he turns out to be something other than what you think of him right now?"

[stmatthew]

POST 5. "Oneness" in this context refers to a doctrine that describes God as one person only... namely Jesus... saying that Jesus plays three different roles or appears in three "manifestations" (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) depending on the situation at hand. It denies that one Being could be any more than one Person.

It is in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity, that says that God by nature is three Persons in one Being (or Essense). These three eternal Persons are in perfect relationship with each other and are distinct but not separate. It is the hardest of the two doctrines to understand, but is the way scripture describes God, and indeed (as Nesher says), the only way that all bible statements regarding salvation can be true.



POST 6. I want to be careful how I answer this one because I believe the example above is a valid one. If the person believes Jesus died for his sins, and completely puts his trust in what Christ did for him on the cross as the atonement for his salvation, who am I to judge that he isn`t saved even though he doesn`t understand the trinity. I was saved at a young age and I would not have known at that age anything about the doctrine of the trinity, yet I know I was saved.

With that said let`s presume the person in "oneness-youth`s" example is saved. After being born-again we must grow. In order to grow spiritually, like in our physical life, we must eat good food. So we begin to study our Bibles seriously and we soon learn that the Bible refers to God as one God who chooses to reveal Himself in three co-existent Persons- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit- who are eternally and simultaneously God. If your like me your first reaction to the above statement in bold is I don`t understand it at all. We don`t understand it, but it`s clear to us this is what the Bible teaches us how God is personified. Now we have to make a choice. We either accept the Bible`s teaching about who God is by faith, our we continue to believe our churches or our own opinion about who God is.

Now if we choose our own opinion, are we still saved? Thank-God salvation is dependent on what Christ did for us on the cross, and not on our knowledge of theology. However once God has revealed to us His truth about Himself and we for whatever reason still refuse to accept the truth by faith it will stagnate our Christian growth. (Example) We can`t fully understand God`s redemptive work of being saved by grace through faith apart from the trinity. The Father gave His Son (John 3;16); the Son gave Himself for us (Gal.2:20) and the Father then gave us the Holy Spirit who regenerates us. (John 3:8) All three must co-exist as One God in three Persons simultaneously for this to be understood; not separate like three separate Gods, and not manifestation, like all aspects of the Godhead manifested in the Son, Christ, at once. All three Persons of the Godhead play a key, unigue, yet different roll in our salvation.

Misfortunately, because our oneness friends refuse to accept the Trinity doctrine by faith, they also fail to understand the full meaning of being saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. As a result they will in many instances teach their members that baptism, speaking in tongues etc. are also necessary for salvation. As a result the message of grace becomes a work oriented religion.



POST 7. One part of the original question was about baptism in the name of Jesus not the trinity. Baptism in the name of Jesus is scriptural. All accounts of it in the book of Acts were done in the name of Jesus. The trinity was not mentioned. Every reference to baptism in the NT is in the name. Acts 8 v 16; 19 v 5; Rom 6 v 3; Gal. 3 v27; and by inference 1 Cor 1 v13; 10 v 2.

The power to heal in the NT was in the name of Jesus, not the trinity.

In fact, when you read the book of Acts, everything is done in the name of Jesus and nothing is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Note that the leaders tried to stop the disciples preaching the...father, son and holy spirit? No, they tried to stop them preaching the name of Jesus.

All power was given to Jesus as head of the church, not to the father son and holy spirit.

Father, son and holy spirit are titles not names.

When the disciples performed miracles they did so in the name of Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth or the name of Jesus Christ. Not once did they perform miracles in the name of the father son and holy spirit.

At bible college I was taught that you never base a doctrine on one verse of scripture. To baptise in the name of the father, son and holy spirit is to do just that as Matthew 28 v 19 is the only verse to speak about baptising in the trinity. Therefore we have to assume that as the NT church baptised in the name of Jesus they disobeyed Jesus last command or it was never there in the first place.

The fact that all subsequent references to baptism are in the name of Jesus we have to assume Jesus never said to baptise in the trinity.

When I studied the scriptures for my university degree and particularly the gospels, it was evident that some parts were added later to promote a particular view. This one verse is such. It should read "Go into all the world and make disciples, baptising them in my name". That is what the NT church did.

[stmatthew]

POST 8. You should ask for your money back from that university, they gypped you.

You'd need to bring up two or three reputable manuscripts proving your claim (that is, showing us a manuscript dated around the 3rd or 4th century that shows your claim). If you can't do that, you would have to show us how it doesn't fit into the grammatical structure of the sentence, or what other "indicators" show it was added.

Secondly, to be "baptized into" a name simply meant you were a follower of that person. Under the Trinitarian view, if one is baptized into the name of Jesus, all this means is you admit to following Him and His beliefs - which would include a Trinitarian view. Matthew is speaking about power, being baptized into the actual power, the rest simply use the name of Jesus in order to create the typical Baptism setting.





POST 9. The Church that I am now a member of baptises according to Matt.28:19. "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." We all agree that this is Biblical.

However we also have some good Evangelical Churches in our city who fully believe in the trinity yet baptize in the name of Jesus only. The verse they use to prove it is also Biblical is Acts 2:38. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." So the fact is not all Churches who baptize in the name of Jesus only are of the Oneness faith. I personally prefer the Matt.28:19 way because it confirms clearly to the bystander what we believe. Whereas baptism in the name of Jesus only could sent a wrong trinitarian message. However it seems like both methods are Biblical.


POST 10. 325 at the First Counsel of Nicaea, early church fathers confronted the Arian heresy. Now, 1682 years later we still are having to fight this heresy. How sad.



POST 11. I guess that some of the things that concern me, regarding both oneness and trinitarian teaching, is that their proponents seem to think that they possess the truth. I don't think either one does.

Oneness people can be pretty smug about what they think is right, finding trinitarian-believers to be both humorous and ignorant. Yet my very long experience with them (since high school) is that they, for a huge portion of them, are very, very ignorant of the Scriptures, focusing on Acts 2, preaching incessantly on Acts 2, with little (or no) interest in the rest of the Bible. For the majority, they have all their arguments down regarding this one issue and their form of salvation (which almost invariably must include speaking in tongues). While Paul says that the gift of tongues is the least of the gifts, they disagree: their focus on tongues proves that.

Then there are the trinitarians: they are pretty smug sometimes in their thought that they have defined G-d, using the analogy of ice-to-water-to steam, the egg, etc., and calling the godhead "persons," separating them out into individuals one moment and thrusting them together in another. They base their idea upon an early invention of the R Catholic church one moment, then deny that concept in the next breath. Trinitarians, then, will go so far as to say that if one does not believe the trinitarian doctrine they cannot be saved, but they do not have it all together either! Accept the Nicean Creed or go to hell, they say. At least they are not so focused upon this one doctrine that they forget about the rest of the Bible.

For myself, I don't believe either doctrine is right. As soon as we think we can define G-d, we have lost it.

[stmatthew]

POST 12 MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

I am going to say this one more time, and if it is not heeded, I will close the thread.

This is a Trinitarian website. Period. We do not have to justify our beliefs.

You do not have to agree with our beliefs in order to be a part of this community, but we will not tolerate arguments against our beliefs. Please find another place to argue about that.

If you are unsure what we believe, refresh your memories HERE.

Once more: do not use these forums to argue against the Trinity.

[Rhymis]

It's all just a matter of semantics -- anyone can see that. You can count on it. 1-2-3 ------------- ain't 1 - 1 - 1.

[stmatthew]

I enjoyed posting the question about a week ago and coming back to 4 pages and 2 warnings of posts. hehehehe!!!!