Do you have to believe that Jesus is the 2nd Person to be saved?

This is really a tricky question.
No, the Bible never lays out any such structured concept as "first person, second person, third person". Neither did much of the pre-Nicene Church. That was an attempt in the fourth century to have a definite solid organized concept to root out all the errors that were confronting the Church: namely, Arianism, modalism and psilanthropism (I.e. unitarianism). But all it ended up doing is raising more Arians, modalists and psilanthropists for centuries to come; when they found the official creddal language lacking in scripture.

Problem is, if you are going to reject the "person-count" system, if you will, then what are you going to replace it with? The answer is almost always one of those three alternative views. Hence, why the three-person expression remains seen as the only acceptable view. I actually prefer the less-structured pre-Nicene view, but most see that Nicene formula as the safest, surest expression of it.
The pre-Nicene view was too easily misinterpreted as those three errors; hence why it was more structured into the Athanasian form.

Http://www.erictb.info/triune.html

 

[Double post]

 

And this is precisely what DHK should have done for you, "rephrase".

You seen a detail in DHK's response that you could ding him on and although you understood what he was saying, just as I understood what you were saying, you seen an opportunity to humble him a bit and took it. Whether that be a good thing or bad, let conscience decide.

DHK was not so much as saying you must believe Jesus is "2nd" but rather you must believe He is a person in the Triune God. Among teachers and preachers Jesus is presented as the "2nd person of the Trinity". This does not assign a degree of God, but rather only a reitteration of the way scripture list the Three.

DHK could have rephrased and said, 'Jesus is listed in some places of scripture as 2nd and this is why many students of scripture will say He is the 2nd person of the Triune God. No, one need not believe Jesus is "2nd" to be saved, but one must believe Jesus is who He said He was'.

Ok, so you got DHK on a technicality and he decided to take a stand rather than just rephrase. Has this been productive? It's just a personal biff between you two.

DHK knows that one need not believe Jesus is "2nd" to be saved. He could humble himself and post that for your satisfaction.

Stanedglass knows that Jesus is listed 2nd in scripture when describing the Triune God. He could humble himself and post that for DHK's satisfaction.

Hurray! Brothers considering one another's pov.

So in the humbleness that we are callled to have, DHK can concede your point which is NO "to be saved" and you can concede DHK's point which is "when Triune God is listed, Jesus is listed 2nd".

We may all like to be perfect in our details, but that is impossible. So let's resist being too picky just to get a dig in and let us humble ourselves and correct ourselves when we word something less than perfect.

:jesus:

 

If only the problem were that simple.
1. Stanedglass has never agreed with the statement: "If Christ is not the Christ of the Bible, he is not Christ at all."
That leaves the door open to all kinds of heretical teachings.

2. In post #3 of this thread I posted this, which went unanswered:

This is the position that he has held to. Not holding to orthodoxy is by default holding to heretical views. Not holding to trinitarian views is holding to non-trinitarian views. In the previous thread his views came across as non-trinitarian. He did little to clear this up. Who is Christ? I have, on occasion defined Christ. Except for the quotation of one or two verses which relate Christ to the I AM, I find no real description of who Christ is. Some of the cults will readily accept the statement that Christ is I AM. That doesn't mean they have a scriptural view of Christ.

Again: If Christ is not the Christ of the Bible, then he is not Christ at all.

 

JohnV posted...

I agree.

A lost man is not saved by passing a doctrinal quiz. He is saved by placing his faith in Christ for his salvation.

After being saved, correct foundational doctrine will fall into place.

 

That's been my point all along; one that has not been conceded to.
If a J.W. is not taught that Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and not a created being he cannot be saved no matter who he calls on, for he has a wrong concept of God and of Christ.

 

There are many non-trinitarians that agree with the things that you have said. Therein lies the confusion.
Here also is what is troubling:
Orthodox Christianity from the time of the Apostles onward have believed in the trinity: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit--co-equal, co-eternal, three separate persons, yet being one God. As others have said, and I agree, we may not fully understand the concept of the trinity but we must in faith agree that it is true. There is no reason to deny the teaching in Mat.28:19 and 1John 5:7 and in other places in Scripture where Christ is the second person of the trinity.
This doctrine, in the way I have described it has been believed from the Apostles onward even by those who hold very aberrant doctrine such as the RCC and the Orthodox. It has been held by almost every different diviison of the Protestant Churches. And suddenly you come along with a new revelation that this can be questioned when all the theologians, divines, etc. of all past centuries (two millenia worth) have never questioned it (unless they be a cult). Why is there any good reason to start questioning the trinity, or any of its orthodox aspects now.
There are elements in the RCC that would like to add Mary to the "trinity." Perhaps they don't realize that 4 doesn't make a trinity.

Benny Hinn is a new age false teacher. He believes in a nine-person trinity: three persons in the Father, three persons in the Son, and three persons in the Spirit. Would you follow him and his theology? I hope not. There is no reason to question centuries of well thought out theology now, which can be Biblically supported.
Your reasoning sounds exactly like the J.W.'s I talk to: "If I can't understand it, I won't believe it." Tell me it is not so.

When you have a faulty view of the trinity, the debate is about the trinity. You can't get around that.

You will find a very good description of Christ in Revelation chapter one.
Here is another more concise one:

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Philippians 2:5-11 Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Colossians 1:13-20 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

What other description than John 8:24? Surely you jest!

I have had many J.W.'s assert to me that Jesus is the "Mighty God."

 

>Again: If Christ is not the Christ of the Bible, then he is not Christ at all.

"Christ" is a title, not a name.

But if Jesus is not the Christ of the OT then we, Christians, are wrong and the OT is still God's Word. Will God forgive us for not converting to Judaism?

>Orthodox Christianity from the time of the Apostles onward have believed in the trinity: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit--co-equal, co-eternal, three separate persons, yet being one God.

Then why didn't they clearly state this?

 

If the Jesus someone puts their faith in is not the One who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, and was raised on the third day, he has believed in vain and is still lost and condemned.

When I was saved I knew exactly who Jesus is and was probably better versed in doctrine than most here. It didn't matter that I knew Jesus was the second Person of the Trinity. All that mattered was that I followed the Holy Spirit's direction and placed my faith in the One who could redeem me.

Faith comes first. Theology comes later.

As for the Mormons and the JW, they do not place their faith in Jesus... at least not the Jesus of the scriptures. Their "Jesus" is their own and much akin to the idols of the Old Testament that had no power to save.

 

A person is saved by faith, not knowlege. You had said that we believe that Jesus is part of the Godhead, whether we understand it or not. Knowing God is not an event, it's a process. It's been my experience that those who come to know God do so after committing their lives to Him, not before. Believing does not necessarily require knowlege, it only requires faith.