David brought up a good point that we should discuss. How much truth does a person need to have, or what categories of truth does a person need to affirm, to assure that they are “orthodox?” If a person believed in the atonement of Christ, yet do not believe in the Trinity would he or she be considered orthodox? Why or why not? While this may be difficult to codify, it is important to address since it does relate to the subject of “remaining” according to the parameters placed in this passage by Christ.
About Dan Miller
Pastor Dan was part of the core group that started Grace Fellowship in 2003. Pastor Dan is our primary teaching pastor, leads the staff, and oversees the vision and strategy for our disciplemaking philosophy of ministry. Dan married Vicki in 1993. Together, they enjoy their seven children – Benjamin (married to Courtney), David, Alexa, Zachary (married to Ginna), Nathan, Ana, and Autumn, along with one grandchild - Lucy.
While I personally believe in the trinity, I don’t think it is an essential. It seems more like something we all will only fully realize once we get there. If was THAT important of a concept, don’t you think Christ would have mentioned it? If it is an “essential” then I bet there are a lot of surprised 1st Century gentiles when they get the boot down stairs.
David, of course one need not be able to express the truth of the Trinity in an articulate way to be a follower of Christ. But what aspect of the truth of the Trinity is it OK to reject and still be orthodox? That the Father is God? That Jesus is God? That the Spirit is God? That there is only one God? That the Father is distinct from the Son?
See the problem? The Trinity is the only solution to harmonizing the nature of the personhood of God as the Bible expresses it.
While it is true that “faith” for Abraham is “different” from faith for us since we look back to Christ and he simple trusted God – a quantitative difference, not qualitative difference. However, the argument that first century Christian requirements are the same as ours may be a tough case to hold due to the amount of revelation we have?
Would it be better to express that although a person may not understand the Trinity (does anyone really…), but that a person would, at least, not renounce or repudiate the reality of a Trinity-like function of God.
BTW. Although the doctrine of the Trinity was not formalized until the 4th century it does not mean that the early church didn’t have a concept of the Trinity. The formal doctrine was just formalized later in order to offset attacks on the propositional truth of a Trinity through formal degree. I would argue that the concept of the Trinity was embraced by the Apostles (and hence the early church) as early as Acts 5. The Apostles knew of a coming change in John 14, but it took root early on in their experience and understanding.
I agree. I was discussing this with a friend today and he reiterated that it’s more about the amount of revelation that has been revealed.
An interesting question came up. What was the Jewish view of the relationship between God and the expected savior? Did they expect the very son of God to be the one? The name Emmanuel sure seems like a clue.
It’s true the idea of a coming Messiah was a literal expectation, but the “quality” of the Messiah does not seem to be as clear. I don’t think the people of Israel (Isaiah 7) thought of a Messiah when “Emmanuel” is mentioned. The person who was to represent this sign literally existed when this passage was written. Ken will be teaching on this passage this week. In an effort to not “steal his thunder” let me just say that there is no way to connect Jesus in this passage when the circumstances of the passage were happening….
So… does one today have to believe in a Trinity to be a legitimate follower of Christ? Is there a difference between not being sure of the Trinity and rejecting the Trinity?