"Oh about a year after I was saved." You can imagine the immediate mayhem and laughter that broke out in the car thereafter.
LOL!
Indeed, man cannot be blamed for trying to understand God as much as possible.
The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity
by Longlivetherenegades 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Halcon
-
MeanMrMustard
@aqwsed12345:
You said:
Let’s begin with the principle: Veritas fidei est de necessariis ad salutem — “The truth of faith is necessary for salvation.” Now, not every truth must be explicitly believed by every individual in order to be saved (e.g., the identity of Melchizedek), but some truths are essential because they touch the very nature of the one in whom we believe — namely, God Himself.
That's a long, fancy, round-about way of saying that belief in the Trinity is essential. Why? Because it touches on "the very nature" of God. This just proves my point. You elevate this issue, without cause, to the most essential level for salvation. There is no direct command to do this, so you sneak it in there through faith. Your first statement / principle is that your faith better be built on truth (a sentiment that both sides of the debate share), but you use it to sneak in the idea that nobody can sincerely believe and have faith unless they interpret the ambigiousness of the scriptures the same way you do. That's not the purpose of that principle.
More proof? Ok. Next paragraph... queue the word salad.Faith, is not mere trust or sincerity. It is a supernatural habit infused by grace,....
Faith is a "habit"? Word salad. Habit as in works? A "habit" that is "infused" by "grace". Again, all buzzword terms that mean something different to everyone. Terrible, if you want to clarity. Wonderful if you discussions to be "unending" and "fruitless".
...by which we assent to divinely revealed truths because God, ...
So ... performing the "infused habit" causes an "assent" into "divinely revealed truths"... more word salad.
...who is Truth itself, has revealed them. Therefore, the object of saving faith is not merely the idea of “God in general,” nor even “Jesus as Savior” in an undefined sense — but the real God as He has revealed Himself to us. The more essential the truth is to God's identity, the more closely it pertains to the virtue of faith.
I always figured the object of "saving faith" (as opposed to faith that is unsaving) is to bring about ... the salvation of people.
But here you weave it back into the way "God has revealed Himself" and therefore back into proving my point. Yay.
This is why the Trinity matters. God has revealed Himself not merely as a solitary monad, nor merely as acting through Jesus, but as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
And the other side is saying the exact opposite, with all sincerity. All because the words you use, and the terms they have known, mean different things to different people. Also, people have good reasons, sincere, reasons to think their definitions of things like "life", "death", "nature", "essence", "person", etc. are the right ones.
-
aqwsed12345
@MeanMrMustard
You objected to my statement that certain truths about God's nature are necessary for salvation, characterizing it as a "sneaking in" of doctrine without clear scriptural command. However, the principle (Veritas fidei est de necessariis ad salutem) does not "sneak in" the Trinity but explicitly highlights that true saving faith requires belief in God as He has revealed Himself. Belief in Christ necessarily implies belief in the Trinity, as the very revelation of Christ includes the Father sending the Son, and the Spirit proceeding from both. The Trinity isn't an “arbitrary” addition but the foundational truth of God’s self-disclosure. Thus, recognizing the Trinity as essential for salvation flows logically and scripturally from the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit explicitly taught in Scripture (e.g., John 1:1, Matthew 28:19, Hebrews 1:3).
You described my explanation as "word salad," objecting particularly to terms like "habit" and "infused by grace." The term "habit" (Latin: habitus) does not imply mere repetitive behavior (works), but rather an enduring disposition of the soul. Faith is precisely this: a stable, supernatural disposition enabling the intellect and will to assent freely to revealed truths. "Infused by grace" refers specifically to the divine origin of faith—it is not a natural human capacity but a supernatural gift given by God. This understanding isn't vague; rather, it's a precise philosophical-theological clarification rooted deeply in the biblical idea that faith itself is a gift (Eph. 2:8).
You questioned the object of saving faith, implying that focusing on God’s revealed identity somehow diverts from salvation’s purpose. However, salvation precisely consists in union with God as He truly is—not a generalized deity. Saving faith must therefore assent to the truths God has explicitly revealed about Himself (Hebrews 11:6). If God has revealed Himself as triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—then authentic faith requires accepting this. Rejecting the clearly revealed nature of God means rejecting God’s own self-disclosure, not merely an interpretation.
You rightly point out that sincere believers can define terms differently. However, sincerity alone does not guarantee correctness. Objective truth does matter. Terms like "nature," "essence," "person," and "substance" have precise philosophical meanings. Classical theology uses these terms to clarify—not complicate—what Scripture explicitly affirms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully divine yet distinct. The terms are intended precisely to prevent misunderstandings (such as modalism or tritheism) and are not arbitrary but deeply grounded in both scriptural revelation and logical coherence.
Raymond Franz’s concern about dogmatism and judgmentalism is valid in spirit. Many people who misunderstand or reject the Trinity may do so out of ignorance rather than willful obstinacy, which mitigates personal culpability. However, the Church maintains that the truth itself—once clearly understood and explicitly rejected—becomes a serious matter, as it pertains directly to the nature of God and thus salvation. It is not dogmatic arrogance to clarify essential truths clearly; rather, it is a charitable duty. Classical theology itself emphasizes humility and charity in discussing truths of faith, never condoning harsh judgmentalism. Distinguishing clearly between objective truth and subjective culpability is critical. Thus, the insistence on precise theological truth (such as the Trinity) is not arrogance but fidelity to God’s revelation.
In conclusion, your critique is valuable because it highlights the need for clear definitions and charitable dialogue. The Trinity is not "word salad" nor an arbitrary dogmatic hurdle, but the deepest reality of God’s revealed identity. Far from undermining salvation or adding extraneous requirements, it is the foundational truth necessary for true faith in the real, self-disclosing God. While recognizing human limitations and the mystery involved, classical theology maintains that rational clarity about God's revealed nature is both possible and necessary, precisely because God has revealed Himself as Trinity.
-
MeanMrMustard
@aqwsed12345:
My wife and I, in general, don't really like organized religion. So, we raised our kids outside of an environment with Biblical stories. They didn't get any of the standard cultural mythologies either - Santa, tooth fiery, easter, etc.They never got pulled into "church on Sunday" experience, and especially not the JW meetings. They have grown up, aware of religion, but never steeped in the details of theologies, never practicing how to belive things that, on their surface seem incredible.
So, one day my daughter (10 years old) gets invited to a church "ballet dance fun fair". All free, of course, and so my wife and I, not being gullible, understood this was a recruiting tactic, and somewhat of a bait-and-switch. This is one of those Trinitarian Baptist churches that have a full gym adjoining the meeting hall. They do potlucks and other get-togethers there. Nevertheless, my daughter wanted to go because she loves dance, and wanted to be with friends. I went along to keep the wolves at bay. Sure enough, after all the "activities" (which all had side references to something religious), there was a kids "session" in the "sactuary" - fancy words for a sermon. The kids gathered, and it was very interactive with questions about Jesus and salvation and sacrifice. Most of the kids were into it, answering and accepting. My daughter, however, had the strangest look on her face. She was attempting to process, not only the details of the story, but the rationale behind the story. The need for forgiveness, and the necessity of human / God sacrifice in order to attain it. The look is basically a "wtf" face. What's this about a "ransom"? Jesus paid it, to whom? God? If God wished to forgive, why does that necessitate a sacrifice? Why not just forgive, like my parents do when I do something wrong? It was utter nonsense to her. Yet, the other children were not only OK with it, but acting quite matter-of-fact about it. Those kids seemed to be understanding something... or at least they thought they did. For them, the words they were using had a different meaning, even though these words my daughter had heard and defined before. There was a different meaning to them. It occured to me then that the amount of groundwork needed to even begin to accept and believe is emense.
The idea, then, that someone would have to come from a ground zero to a full blown trinitarian just to be saved is ridiculous. Look at the other threads you are participating in - throwing around terms like "essence" and "being" vs "nature". Not to mention "hypostatic union".
If a normal, average person, reads the Bible, that person may, in all sincerity believe in a unitarian God. Or perhaps a modal view. As they read, and believe, and have hope, they understand that this is the way God has revealed Himself through scripture - just as you do. And yet to be saved, really saved, as an objective standard, one must come to believe concepts that may require them to study for years. Perhaps even learn a little bit of dead languages. How many common meek men have been excluded from salvation because it requires, not only faith, but a theological degree as well? Is a man with an IQ of 75 savable?
I don't fault you too much. The unitarian belivers say the same thing of you, just with different details.
Now I somewhat sensed that you heading toward the idea that true salvation would mean connection and communion with God - and that would inform the true believer. Although I don't think you stated that explicitly. This is what you were implying when you referred to being "infused by grace". Knowing the truth... the real truth is a gift from God, when He acts to save. If that's the case, that just proves my point even further.
-
aqwsed12345
@MeanMrMustard
What a thoughtful and honest message — thank you for sharing it. I deeply appreciate your willingness to enter into this kind of dialogue, especially when the subject touches on personal experience, parenting, and the sincere search for what is true. And I truly respect the care you and your wife have taken in how you've raised your daughter — to think, to question, and not to accept things blindly. That’s not something I would ever criticize. In fact, I think many Christians, including myself, would say that real faith must never be blind.
Your story about your daughter at the church event was vivid and actually quite moving. That “wtf face” — I can see it. Children are remarkably perceptive, and they know when something feels off or deeply unfamiliar. And when it comes to the Christian story — the idea of a God who becomes man, who dies on a cross, who speaks of forgiveness through blood — I’ll be the first to admit: if we’re not already steeped in the framework, it’s going to sound really strange. It’s not intuitive. It's certainly not obvious. And, to be honest, if someone doesn’t already believe in the depth of human brokenness or the need for grace, the whole concept of “ransom” can feel like some weird cosmic drama. Why not just forgive, right?
So, to your daughter’s honest reaction — yes, that makes complete sense to me.
And to your larger point: Does someone really need a theological degree — or Thomistic metaphysics — to be saved? Of course not. Salvation is not a vocabulary exam. Jesus didn’t say, “Blessed are the philosophers,” but “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”
You’re right to sense that I believe grace is key. The heart of the Christian claim — at least as I understand and try to live it — is not that God gives us a puzzle and says, “Figure me out or else,” but that God meets us before we understand. He moves first. Any true knowledge of Him is already a gift.
But here’s where I’d offer a gentle clarification to your concern. When I talk about the need to believe “in the Trinity,” I don’t mean someone has to start with that or understand it fully. What I’m saying is this: if God is Trinity — if He has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit — then saving faith, even if undeveloped, must at least be open to the real God as He is. Not closed off to Him because His nature doesn’t fit our expectations or logic.
That means someone might trust God sincerely, even without yet knowing or grasping His triune nature, and still be within the reach of His grace. I’m not God — I don’t know how He judges hearts. But what I do know is that if someone knowingly rejects the God revealed in Christ — after really encountering that revelation — then it’s not a matter of ignorance or simplicity anymore. It’s a rejection of relationship.
You said something very insightful:
“There was a different meaning to them [the words]. It occurred to me then that the amount of groundwork needed to even begin to accept and believe is immense.”
I think that’s both true and not the full story. Yes, the Christian vision is layered — it has developed over centuries, it uses dense language, and the Church has had to be very precise in order to protect its truths from being twisted. But at its core, Christianity is not a philosophy — it’s a person. Christ. You don’t need to be able to articulate the “hypostatic union” to encounter Him. You don’t need to understand consubstantiality to say “yes” to love, to mercy, to truth.
The early Church didn’t "invent" the Trinity to confuse people. It developed that language to protect the encounter that people were already having — with the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. So yes, terms like “essence,” “person,” and “nature” can feel cold or academic, but they came from lived experience of a divine mystery that Christians were trying not to misunderstand or misrepresent.
Let me return to your daughter for a moment. She had questions, and that’s beautiful. That’s where all real theology begins — not with answers, but with wonder and puzzlement. I’d never want her to feel like she has to “catch up” or fake belief to belong. God doesn’t ask us to suspend reason or pretend. What He asks — if Christianity is true — is trust, a willingness to walk toward the light even when we don’t see the whole path.
So no, I don’t believe the average person needs dead languages or a metaphysics course to be saved. But I do think that when someone says, “Tell me more about who God really is,” the Church has a responsibility to speak as clearly, faithfully, and intelligibly as it can. That’s why I use those technical terms — not because I think they save, but because they help preserve the truth of the God who does.
And to your final point — yes, grace is the beginning of all true faith. And if your daughter one day becomes curious not just about the words, but the Word — the person of Jesus — I hope there are Christians in her life who won’t just hand her a pamphlet or a dogma, but who will walk with her, listen, and show her that Christianity is not a system, but a love story. And if she keeps asking “Why?”, I hope they’ll say, “That’s a holy question. Let’s ask it together.”
Thanks again for such a thoughtful and respectful conversation. I’d love to continue it anytime.