by Witness 007 148 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
thatis why I don't have any issues with the Trinity at all.
Glad to see that. It is very logical when one gets a hold of it, though based in part on faith. Did you forward what I provided to the department and ask them to respond to that? It would sharpen the issues.
JD,
The priest I spoke to was the "senior Head of theological research", whatever that means !
I believe that Jesus was fully man and fully god, in him "all the fullness of God" was manifested, he was the "exact Form of God" and I believe this because it is plainly stated in scripture.
One thing I should mention though, not sure if it matters, but the first person in the theological department asked if I was a RCC and I said I wasn't and then I was transferred to the "senior priest" with whom I spoke.
If you go over to the vatican website www.vatican.va and do a search on "salvation" you will find many articles on salvation, all of them basically say the samething to one extent or another - salvation comes thorough belief in Jesus Christ. one article called "All salvation comes through jesus Christ" is a nice one.
But that is not the issue, i.e., whether salvation comes thorough belief in Jesus Christ. We all know that. Your contact said the Trinity played no role in salvation, but according to their catechism it does, it is essential. And our question is whether belief in the Trinity is needed for salvation, which it obviously is. It is in the baptismal creed and elsewhere. The flipside to that is, can one be a catholic (and be saved) and believe that Jesus was just a man and no more and that the Trinity doctrine is a work of Satan? Ask them that one as well.
I believe that Jesus was fully man and fully god, in him "all the fullness of God" was manifested, he was the "exact Form of God" and I believe this because it is plainly stated in scripture.
ditto.
JD,
I think the issue, as I replay the conversation, was that I was NOT an RCC and as such, I was not "subject" to the RCC Catechism.
Perhaps that was it...
Again, where does the bible state IMPLICITY that belief in the Trinity is needed for salvation?
Not something that MAY be interpreted that way, but stated plainly ?
As Peter stated in Acts and Paul states many times and so forth, about belief in Jesus being the only thing needed for salvation.
That the Trinity, though part of RCC doctrine and belief in it is "mandatory" for being a RCC, it is NOT a basis for Salvation, no where in the bible is it stated that our salavation is based on believing that God is a Triune God.
No one is claiming that the Bible states that specifically, of course not. But follow the logic. If it is mandatory to believe in it to be a catholic, obviously, and the RCC is the sole avenue for salvation, then it has to be a basis for salvation. Not complete understanding of it, but belief in it. Conversly, can you gain salvation if you are an arian (heresy) and believe Jesus was nothing more than a man, and that the Trinity doctrine is a work of Satan.
Again, where does the bible state IMPLICITY that belief in the Trinity is needed for salvation?
Not something that MAY be interpreted that way, but stated plainly ?
As Peter stated in Acts and Paul states many times and so forth, about belief in Jesus being the only thing needed for salvation.
You're making me work too much and have changed the original conversation. If you are looking for something stated plainly you want something explicit, not implict. And everything is subject to interpretation. Nothing specifically says "belief in the Trinity is needed for salvation." And if you ever were a JW you are still thinking like one of them. Too narrowly. That is one of their common ploys, but a habit hard to break.
I can think of a couple off the top of my head. You don't want to read any verse in isloation. It is a process. Jesus said "If you do not believe that I AM you will die in your sins." (Jesus is God). Who is the I AM? The triune God, ie., Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Christians are baptized into his singular name. (Matthew 28:19). Christians must confess that Jesus is Lord. (I forget the verse). Lord is used here to mean God. Which God? The triune God.The word Lord is very significant:
Highly significant is Thomas’ use of “Lord” and the manner in which “Lord” is tied directly to God. Here, Lord refers to God in the supreme sense because there can only be “one Lord” according to Paul at 1 Corinthians 8:6, 7 and Ephesians 4:5. Although Lord (Greek kurios) has a wide application and can apply to men as a title of honor, such a lower meaning of Lord was eventually superceded by the higher meaning after Christ’s resurrection, and this is the meaning employed by Doubting Thomas.
(11) His purpose did not become clear to the disciples until after His resurrection, and the revelation of His Deity consequent thereon. Thomas, when he realized the significance of the presence of a mortal wound in the body of a living man, immediately joined with it the absolute title of Deity, saying, “my Lord and my God,” Jn 20:28. Thereafter, except in Acts 10:4 and Rev. 7:14, there is no record that kurios was ever again used by believers in addressing any save God and the Lord Jesus; cf Acts 2:47 with 4:29, 30.
(12) How soon and how completely the lower meaning had been superseded is seen in Peter’s declaration in his first sermon after the resurrection, “God hath made Him - Lord,” Acts 2:36, and in the house of Cornelius, “He is Lord of all,” Acts 10:36, cf. Deut 10:14; Mt 11:25; Acts 17:24. (Strong and Vine’s, 147)
“The full significance of this association of Jesus with God under the one appellation, “Lord,” is seen when it is remembered that these men belonged to the only monotheistic race in the world. To associate with the Creator one known to be a creature, however exalted, though possible to Pagan philosophers, was quite impossible to a Jew” (ibid., 147, 148 (16).
Next, the Lord is the Spirit, God is the spirit, the Spirit is God. (Romans chapter 8, first part).
It is pieced together like so much of the Bible. There's more but I need to run errands.
Much more information is found here at my site. I hope you have had time to really work your way through this.
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
JD II
As Peter stated in Acts and Paul states many times and so forth, about belief in Jesus being the only thing needed for salvation.
That is a whole other topic, and smacks of once save always saved. Peter and Paul said a lot of things about salvation which seems to have conditioned it, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
JD,
To me I divide doctrine into 2 parts:
What is scripturla/biblical ie: what is plainly stated in the Bible, as an example Acts where Peter states that Salvation is through Jesus and that there is no other name under heaven in which we are saved.
What is based on interpretation of scripture ex: The Trinity.
To me salvation must be based on scriptural/biblical "evidence", where as the interpretive stuff helps us to understand the "intangiables" but one must still be careful NOT to go beyond what is plainlu stated in the bible.
And no, I do not view the doctrine of the Trinity as being from Satan, how can anything that brings people closer to God be from Satan?
The Trinity tries to explain the relationship between God, Jesus and the HS, nothing wrong with that.
And no, I do not view the doctrine of the Trinity as being from Satan, how can anything that brings people closer to God be from Satan?
I'm not accusing you of that and I'm sorry if I left that impression. It was a question to pose to your contacts, framed in the context of JWs. Nothing more.
What is based on interpretation of scripture ex: The Trinity.
To me salvation must be based on scriptural/biblical "evidence", where as the interpretive stuff helps us to understand the "intangiables" but one must still be careful NOT to go beyond what is plainlu stated in the bible.
You mean like whether Jesus was, and is, God? I don't see that as intangilble, but central to salvation, and given the many verses that address the issue, interpretation does seem to play a part. Just look at all of these proof texts:
