I recommended that book because it's considered by most experts in the Protestant/reformed circles to be the best and most comprehensive book about the biblical base of the Trinity. Dr White is one of the leading authorities on textual transmission, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and biblical history. He is conducted literally hundreds of debates on the 7 of the Trinity alone.
If you want something simple there is literally animated cartoons that can explain the Trinity to children. Personally when I dive into a subject I like to know as much as I can not a cursory surface understanding.
Not even by it’s cover, but by its mere existence!
I half kid, but no, not a judgment - an argument around the basis for the need of it, from principle - more of a statement of scope, positioning, tactics, and perspective.
To reiterate, the fundamental question I’m getting at is, again not whether a concept is right or wrong, but - if it’s not necessary for salvation, and creates a stumbling block, why are we so insistent on pushing it as a central belief of the faith?
This is the same reason that physical circumcision was emphasized as not being necessary. As the reasoning behind that question, I’m stating alternate viewpoints, historic background, larger interfaith issues, and even some issues that would remain within this line of questioning.
Circumcision like many parts of the holiness code, pointed to Christ. We now practice circumcision of the heart.
As far as the Trinity goes, that's a central core belief and salvific issue.
In Protestant theology, the doctrine of the Trinity is considered a core belief. Rejecting the Trinity is often viewed as a significant theological error, and many Protestant denominations would see it as a salvific issue—that is, an issue that affects one's salvation.
Importance of the Trinity in Protestant Theology
Biblical Foundation: The Trinity is understood as being revealed in Scripture, with passages such as Matthew 28:19 ("baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") and 2 Corinthians 13:14 ("The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all") highlighting the triune nature of God.
Historical Creeds: Key historical creeds and confessions, such as the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, explicitly affirm the Trinity. These documents have been foundational for orthodox Christian belief and are upheld by most Protestant denominations.
Nature of God: Understanding God as triune is essential to understanding His nature and work. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles in creation, redemption, and sanctification, which are crucial to the Christian faith.
Salvific Implications
Orthodox Belief: Protestantism typically holds that a correct understanding of God is necessary for a true and saving faith. Rejecting the Trinity is seen as rejecting the true nature of God, which can lead to serious theological and spiritual errors.
Heresy and Division: Historically, rejecting the Trinity has been classified as heresy. Groups that deny the Trinity, such as Arianism and modern-day Unitarianism, are often viewed as outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
Christology and Soteriology: Belief in the Trinity is closely tied to Christology (the study of Christ) and soteriology (the study of salvation). Denying the divinity of Christ (a common result of rejecting the Trinity) undermines the doctrine of the atonement, as only a divine Christ could provide a sufficient sacrifice for sins.
Conclusion
From the classical Judeo-Christian perspective, grounded in Protestant theology, rejecting the Trinity is considered a serious and salvific issue. It undermines the foundational understanding of God's nature and the work of Christ, which are essential to the Christian faith and salvation.
As noted, I wasn’t trying to push one as correct or incorrect, but ask a separate question.
However, where it’s seen as necessary for salvation, which I’ve never heard before, and do disagree with, it would negate the line of thought I was trying to investigate.
Did you just judge a book by its cover?
I recommended that book because it's considered by most experts in the Protestant/reformed circles to be the best and most comprehensive book about the biblical base of the Trinity. Dr White is one of the leading authorities on textual transmission, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and biblical history. He is conducted literally hundreds of debates on the 7 of the Trinity alone.
If you want something simple there is literally animated cartoons that can explain the Trinity to children. Personally when I dive into a subject I like to know as much as I can not a cursory surface understanding.
Not even by it’s cover, but by its mere existence!
I half kid, but no, not a judgment - an argument around the basis for the need of it, from principle - more of a statement of scope, positioning, tactics, and perspective.
To reiterate, the fundamental question I’m getting at is, again not whether a concept is right or wrong, but - if it’s not necessary for salvation, and creates a stumbling block, why are we so insistent on pushing it as a central belief of the faith?
This is the same reason that physical circumcision was emphasized as not being necessary. As the reasoning behind that question, I’m stating alternate viewpoints, historic background, larger interfaith issues, and even some issues that would remain within this line of questioning.
Anyhow, just a thought.
Circumcision like many parts of the holiness code, pointed to Christ. We now practice circumcision of the heart.
As far as the Trinity goes, that's a central core belief and salvific issue.
In Protestant theology, the doctrine of the Trinity is considered a core belief. Rejecting the Trinity is often viewed as a significant theological error, and many Protestant denominations would see it as a salvific issue—that is, an issue that affects one's salvation.
Importance of the Trinity in Protestant Theology
Biblical Foundation: The Trinity is understood as being revealed in Scripture, with passages such as Matthew 28:19 ("baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") and 2 Corinthians 13:14 ("The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all") highlighting the triune nature of God.
Historical Creeds: Key historical creeds and confessions, such as the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, explicitly affirm the Trinity. These documents have been foundational for orthodox Christian belief and are upheld by most Protestant denominations.
Nature of God: Understanding God as triune is essential to understanding His nature and work. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles in creation, redemption, and sanctification, which are crucial to the Christian faith.
Salvific Implications
Orthodox Belief: Protestantism typically holds that a correct understanding of God is necessary for a true and saving faith. Rejecting the Trinity is seen as rejecting the true nature of God, which can lead to serious theological and spiritual errors.
Heresy and Division: Historically, rejecting the Trinity has been classified as heresy. Groups that deny the Trinity, such as Arianism and modern-day Unitarianism, are often viewed as outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
Christology and Soteriology: Belief in the Trinity is closely tied to Christology (the study of Christ) and soteriology (the study of salvation). Denying the divinity of Christ (a common result of rejecting the Trinity) undermines the doctrine of the atonement, as only a divine Christ could provide a sufficient sacrifice for sins.
Conclusion
From the classical Judeo-Christian perspective, grounded in Protestant theology, rejecting the Trinity is considered a serious and salvific issue. It undermines the foundational understanding of God's nature and the work of Christ, which are essential to the Christian faith and salvation.
As noted, I wasn’t trying to push one as correct or incorrect, but ask a separate question.
However, where it’s seen as necessary for salvation, which I’ve never heard before, and do disagree with, it would negate the line of thought I was trying to investigate.
Thanks for your patience on the discussion.