Replies

[papertyger]
“If that were true, show me the verse that explains the Trinity, and need to believe in it even if one does not understand it.”

[Mr Rogers]
Jesus never says, “Repent, and believe the Trinity!” Nor does Peter.

Oh, come, now! Don’t you realize that you’ve dodged the main point altogether? Your original claim about “transubstantiation not being used as a word” to describe the Eucharist, per se, in early centuries, was being addressed, here: not anything else. This was one of the sillier non-sequiturs you’ve used, to date.

The Trinity is a part of Systematic Theology - an attempt to put our knowledge of God into neat categories.

The Blessed Trinity is an unalterable truth of our Faith, and our salvation depends on it, friend. The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity claims that God the Father is God, God the Son (i.e. Jesus Christ) is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God; but that they are not the same Person. If you deny the Trinity, you deny all of salvation history. If Jesus is not God, for example, then His sacrifice on the cross cannot save us. No... you can’t simply shove the “heavy listing” of theology onto others, while shoving it into the attic when it becomes inconvenient, simply to make a populist show of your case!

That doesn’t make it an error, but neither is a full understanding of it required for salvation, or to live a holy life.

That’s almost painfully vague... and it applies to almost everything you hold dear.

1) Do you, for example, need to understand the necessity of Baptism, in order to be saved? St. Peter says that it is Baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and Jesus Himself says that we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without it (John 3:5), so I think I’m safe in calling it important. For instance: would it make a difference if you (personally) are baptized, or not?

2) Do you, for example, need to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in order to have life within you? (cf. John 6:53) Or doesn’t the “exact definition” matter? (I would think that it would, frankly; if Protestants are wrong about Jesus meaning “acceptance of His Word”, and not a true consumption of the Holy Eucharist, it would seem to make a difference, yes?)

“Don’t you realize that you’ve dodged the main point altogether? “

Haven’t. No one needs to believe in “The Trinity” to be saved. If they deny the Trinity, they are wrong, but the revelation of God isn’t exactly exhaustive in this area. In time, a person who studies the scriptures will conclude the Trinity, but no one needs to know it for salvation, and a person can be a Christian for years - or until death - without formulating the Trinity.

“1) Do you, for example, need to understand the necessity of Baptism, in order to be saved? St. Peter says that it is Baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and Jesus Himself says that we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without it (John 3:5), so I think I’m safe in calling it important. For instance: would it make a difference if you (personally) are baptized, or not?”

Lets look at John 3 again:

“1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Jesus is talking about the second birth - a man is born, but he must be born again to enter the Kingdom. He must be “born of water and the Spirit”. Why? “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The water breaks, and the baby is born. But unless one is born again, of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It takes TWO births - water and spirit.

As John the Baptist put it:

“32And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.””

The baptism of Jesus is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

As Paul wrote:

“2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

That doesn’t mean baptism with water is nothing. I am, after all, a BAPTIST. I believe in following the example we find in Acts, where a believer is baptized with water as soon as water is ready.

“36And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” - Acts 8

“30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” - Acts 16

Now lets look at what Peter wrote:

“...when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”

Notice he says baptism corresponds to the experience of Noah. Water didn’t save Noah from death. It threatened him with death were it not for the Ark. However, water did save him from the evil of the world, taking him away from the sinful society and destroying it in his life.

In corresponding manner, as Peter puts it, baptism saves us from the evil of this world, separating us from it. It isn’t “a removal of dirt from the body”, but “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

If a man believes in Jesus, even without baptism or a full understanding of the Trinity, then like the thief on the cross, he IS saved. But if we take the example of scripture seriously, when someone converts, we should baptize them right away - not after taking classes, and not waiting for a church service or minister, but right away.

“See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”

You write: “2) Do you, for example, need to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in order to have life within you? (cf. John 6:53) Or doesn’t the “exact definition” matter? (I would think that it would, frankly; if Protestants are wrong about Jesus meaning “acceptance of His Word”, and not a true consumption of the Holy Eucharist, it would seem to make a difference, yes?)”

Yes we do. What did John write?

“35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

So we see that Jesus isn’t referring to the Eucharistic wafer, but coming and believing. “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

It is an error to take “51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” as referring to Eucharist. If it did, we could simply give beggars on the street the wafer & wine, and they would have eternal life. Indeed, since everyone who eats the wafer dies physically, it is wrong to take this as a physical fact, rather than understanding what Jesus meant when he said “I am the bread of life.”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

As CS Lewis once put it, the scriptures can be understood by a child, but they are not written primarily for children. It takes a hard heart to read John 6 and conclude that Jesus was talking about the Eucharist wafer and wine.