Is belief in the doctrine of trinity crucial to a Christian's life?

[Priyanka695]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear!
When I say "not all truth is necessary", I mean it in the sense that we don't need to know everything. Sometimes we go beyond what is needed, it may be true but not beneficial.

In relation to the doctrine of Trinity, I know people who discredt Chrisitianity because THEY think trinity is a logical fallicy.
I think that if no one came up with that Word, they wouldn't mind accepting whatever is written in the Word. Accepting Jesus as the Savior, God as the father and the Holy Spirit. Maybe they don't need to know the depth of what these three were?

 

[resurrection33]

The early would have branded you a "destructive heretic" for what you believe on the Godhead!

I don't think so. I believe in one God. I suspect that has always been the standard belief.

 

[resurrection33]

The early would have branded you a "destructive heretic" for what you believe on the Godhead!

I don't think so. I believe in one God. I suspect that has always been the standard belief.

And even if it wasn't the standard belief, I believe in just on God.

 

[Willie-T]

Why would someone want to say they were CHRISTian if they did not believe in what we have recorded as the things Christ said?

 

[resurrection33]

Why would someone want to say they were CHRISTian if they did not believe in what we have recorded as the things Christ said?

As far as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are concerned, I believe there is a debate whether or not they are three beings, or whether they are one being serving in three capacities. I am of the opinion they are one being serving in three capacities, as a man can be a father, husband, son, and cashier at Walmart, all at the same time.

 

[notmyown]

[video=youtube;p8yuDXJB9BI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8yuDXJB9BI[/video]


remember, it's satire.
but truth, too.

 

[trofimus]

I do not think it is needed or crucial to believe in or know about the deep and more complex relations inside Trinity, how it all works, how to properly imagine it etc.

But I think it is needed and crucial to believe in the basics of Trinity:

1) There is one God.

2) The Father is God.

3) The Son is God.

4) The Holy Spirit is God.

But still, there are not three Gods, only One God with the distinction of persons in Him.

 

[jaybird88]

Is belief in the doctrine of trinity crucial to a Christian's life?

if it is i have yet to see anyone explain why. the Apostles didnt seem to think so as its not in their creed.

 

[williamjordan]

I have heard so much discussion around the doctrine of Trinity, debates between Muslims and Christians, and a multitude of proofs and explanations. My only question is "Why does it matter"? I am not saying that it is okay to IGNORE or COMPROMISE on truth. But all truth is not necessary, especially when it can cause one to discredit Christianity - on the sole basis of a "logical fallacy" called Trinity.

I am a Christian and I personally understand the three-person entity and completely believe in the trinity. Although, I have always had the question of why do we need to know or understand this? I know people who do not take a next step when they come across a Christian trying to explain the Trinity. It is kind of like not letting a person ride an airplane because he/she doesn't know how the airplane was made.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. I want to know if I am wrong in thinking that. I just want to know if this doctrine could be a red herring to the argument for Christianity. Jesus is the Son of God and came to bail us out of our mess. He asks us to believe in in One God. He asked us to follow Him and to obey His Father. Isn't that enough to be a Christian?
He never said that we HAVE to know that He was part of a Trinity. God the father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their own roles fulfill what their purpose is without us having to know how it all works.

I have said this before, and I will continue to repeat it.

If all one needs to do is believe that Jesus is, in some round-a-bout sense, the “Son of God” with disregard of the remainder of things the NT has to say about Him then the authors of the NT wasted their time combating many myths/untruths about Jesus. What would have been the point for Paul, or any other to write entire letters which entail so much detail about the person and being of Jesus Christ, if all that one needs to believe is that He is the “Son of God”?

One must believe that Jesus is the Son of God to the very extent and in the same light that the Apostles also believed and whom they discuss in so much detail throughout the NT, or else your view of Jesus as the “Son of God” is distorted. You cannot say that you know Christ if you do not truly know Him in the way that Scripture depicts Him. How can you love someone you do not know?

In the salutation of 2 Peter, the author says,

“Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1.1)​

Notice those that he is addressing are “those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours,” and further goes on to address Jesus as “God and Savior.” It seems clear that he is addressing a body of believers that are like-minded in faith, and share together the belief of the divinity of Jesus.

 

[graceNpeace]

As far as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are concerned, I believe there is a debate whether or not they are three beings, or whether they are one being serving in three capacities. I am of the opinion they are one being serving in three capacities, as a man can be a father, husband, son, and cashier at Walmart, all at the same time.

However they are one and the same in the sense that they can only DO one thing at a time.
Your view cannot explain this:

[FONT=&quot]16 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[c] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]17 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Matt 3:16-17

Your limited view of God makes this passage impossible![/FONT]

 

[williamjordan]

As far as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are concerned, I believe there is a debate whether or not they are three beings, or whether they are one being serving in three capacities. I am of the opinion they are one being serving in three capacities, as a man can be a father, husband, son, and cashier at Walmart, all at the same time.

There really isn't as big of a "debate" as you are led to believe. Of course, there will always be folks who will resurrect old heresies (in this case, the Sabellian heresy). This has been so since the beginning of the Christian era and presents itself to this very day. Oneness Pentecostals do this with the Sabellian heresy, Jehovah's Witnesses do it with the Arian heresy, and "Biblical Unitarians" do this with Socinianism. And nothing we say today is going to prevent them from being brought up in the future. As long as there are disagreements, there will always be room for "debate." But let me just clarify one thing. Just because something is up for debate doesn't mean that there is a big question mark on the issue.

 

[jaybird88]

There really isn't as big of a "debate" as you are led to believe. Of course, there will always be folks who will resurrect old heresies (in this case, the Sabellian heresy). This has been so since the beginning of the Christian era and presents itself to this very day. Oneness Pentecostals do this with the Sabellian heresy, Jehovah's Witnesses do it with the Arian heresy, and "Biblical Unitarians" do this with Socinianism. And nothing we say today is going to prevent them from being brought up in the future. As long as there are disagreements, there will always be room for "debate." But let me just clarify one thing. Just because something is up for debate doesn't mean that there is a big question mark on the issue.

i dont think the debate has been around since the beginning, it didnt start until about 300 years after Jesus ascended. in the days of Jesus and the 12 this debate is completely absent. which in itself is very strange being as we are taught the trinity concept was always there.

 

[Dino246]

People love to put other people in categories.

I notice that Bogadile did not put you in any category. He addressed your idea or position. It is important to distinguish these, lest you get your knickers in a twist every time someone disagrees with you. Look at it this way: if a child answers an arithmetic question incorrectly, is the answer wrong or is the child wrong? Of course, it is the answer; a child cannot be "wrong", but his or her thoughts and conclusions can be.

 

[williamjordan]

i dont think the debate has been around since the beginning, it didnt start until about 300 years after Jesus ascended. in the days of Jesus and the 12 this debate is completely absent. which in itself is very strange being as we are taught the trinity concept was always there.

Foremost, you misread what I said. I did not say that the NT Church debated over the divinity of Jesus, because they did not. In fact, I hold that it was universally accepted view in the earliest stages of the history of the Church. What I did say was this: There will always be people who resurrect heresies, and that this has been so since the beginning of the Christian era and presents itself to this very day.

And by the way, the issue of Arianism was as you said, "about 300 years after Jesus ascended." However, there were much older heresies prior to Arianism, where the divinity of Jesus was at focus. In fact, one much older than Arianism is one that I have already pointed out: Sabellianism. It predated Arianism, as well as did Monarchianism (i.e., Paul of Samasota). Monarchianism predated Arianism by roughly 70 years, and Sabellianism predated Arianism by roughly 100 years.

 

[jaybird88]

Foremost, you misread what I said. I did not say that the NT Church debated over the divinity of Jesus, because they did not. In fact, I hold that it was universally accepted view in the earliest stages of the history of the Church. What I did say was this: There will always be people who resurrect heresies, and that this has been so since the beginning of the Christian era and presents itself to this very day.

And by the way, the issue of Arianism was as you said, "about 300 years after Jesus ascended." However, there were much older heresies prior to Arianism, where the divinity of Jesus was at focus. In fact, one much older than Arianism is one that I have already pointed out: Sabellianism. It predated Arianism, as well as did Monarchianism (i.e., Paul of Samasota). Monarchianism predated Arianism by roughly 70 years, and Sabellianism predated Arianism by roughly 100 years.

did you not say these debates / heresies have been around from the beginning? i was merely pointing out these debates dont exist in the scriptures and the pharisees were always, always, always testing Jesus. strange they would never test Jesus on the trinity. i guess im the only one that thnks that is very strange, being as this doctrine is so important today.

 

[williamjordan]

did you not say these debates / heresies have been around from the beginning? i was merely pointing out these debates dont exist in the scriptures and the pharisees were always, always, always testing Jesus. strange they would never test Jesus on the trinity. i guess im the only one that thnks that is very strange, being as this doctrine is so important today.

You keep saying "debates," and I keep saying "heresies." Do you not understand the difference?

 

[jaybird88]

You keep saying "debates," and I keep saying "heresies." Do you not understand the difference?

i call it questioning a doctrine. you can call it what you like. none the less, its absent from scripture. you can ignore it but it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. by the time the faith moved to rome, most Jews will have nothing to do with it, in the days of Jesus and the 12 Jews are coming out from every direction to follow Jesus. very strange. something happened in those years between Jesus and rome that drove Jews away, i wonder what it was? what ever it was it didnt exist in the days of Jesus and the 12.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Is belief in the doctrine of trinity crucial to a Christian's life?

Absolutely. How can anyone say they truly know God and then when they describe Him, they mess it up?

If you mar the image of the Godhead, then you can't truly witness to ppl and tell them how They have worked to accomplish redemption for sinners.

 

[williamjordan]

The argument posed that the Pharisee never tested Jesus on the Trinity is quite an odd objection. Have you ever asked why they never tested Jesus on the virgin birth? Or on other various doctrines? I'm sure there are doctrines that you hold dear to that would be considered unorthodox. Why did the Jews not test Jesus in regards to these?

The Jews were awaiting the coming of the Messiah so it is of no wonder that they would test Jesus in regards to this claim (as they would anyone making the claim). In the process of Jesus affirming this, He also affirms His divinity on multiple accounts. One of those accounts is found in John 5.18, where “the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” There is close connection between John 5.18, and John 19.7 -- “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

 

[williamjordan]

i call it questioning a doctrine. you can call it what you like. none the less, its absent from scripture. you can ignore it but it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. by the time the faith moved to rome, most Jews will have nothing to do with it, in the days of Jesus and the 12 Jews are coming out from every direction to follow Jesus. very strange. something happened in those years between Jesus and rome that drove Jews away, i wonder what it was? what ever it was it didnt exist in the days of Jesus and the 12.

The argument posed that the Pharisee never tested Jesus on the Trinity is quite an odd objection. Have you ever asked why they never tested Jesus on the virgin birth? Or on other various doctrines? I'm sure there are doctrines that you hold dear to that would be considered unorthodox. Why did the Jews not test Jesus in regards to these? Is that not as equally as odd? Put the shoe on the other foot.

The Jews were awaiting the coming of the Messiah so it is of no wonder that they would test Jesus in regards to this claim of Messiahship (as they would anyone making the claim). In the process of Jesus affirming that He is indeed the Christ, He also affirms His divinity (something you claim they do not test Jesus on) on multiple accounts. This is obviously the reason they are seeking to kill Him. Recall John 5.18, where “the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” There is close connection between John 5.18, and John 19.7 -- “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”