The Nicene Creed

[Valerie]

"Did the first Chritians worship Jesus?" is an exciting, easy, and worthwhile read. Highly recommend.

I've never read the book but here's the answer:

Matthew 28:17
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Don't be excessively simple. Those Baptists are getting to you

Perhaps the Holy Spirit is getting through to him. Perhaps your visit to the Jehoveh Witness Church influenced you? Be careful KB.

[PeterG]

There is absolutely no excuse for “Christians” going to war with one another about the details of pre-existence.

Who is making excuses for warfare?

You are making an ad hominem argument (and a strawman argument, come to think of it). And even on that basis, are you really so sure that nontrinitarians have a better moral track record than trinitarians?

[PeterG]

So do you think you can be saved while rejecting trinity doctrine? Yay or nay?

I do not believe it is my place to declare who is and is not saved. God is the judge of us all.

Having said that, I do not believe that trinitarianism, strictly speaking, is required for salvation. But I also believe that any doctrine that rejects the full deity of Jesus—that Jesus is God just as much as the Father is God—is heresy. The souls of heretics are in grave danger.

[Valerie]

You did not answer my questions.

The enemy of our soul started this " hath God really said" tactic leading to the fall. Why are you trying to corner people on this way? I find this concerning. Who wants to put themselves in the judgement seat of Christ? Look- the whole heresy was basically because then like now, there are those whose opinions would make what Christ said about Himself false- making Him out to be a liar. The Church was protecting that-

Who were those 2 guys that came on MD years ago trying to influence? One was "flannel shirt"

Perhaps it would behoove some to seek out David Bercot & ask him what led him out of a non-trinitarian cult (JW) into a Trinitarian Chirch- I've read many of his books but not His tsstimony

[KingdomBuilder]

"Teaching them whatever I've commanded you"...

Not teaching them that high headed reasonings and understanding are required for salvation.

My problem is not that you all find inspiration in the Trinity. I don't care to try and convince you all to give that up.
My problem is the blatant assault on Christian Liberty, binding what was not bound by the Saviour, and acting like trinitarianism is required for the salvation of the soul. It's so far from what Jesus tells us is required for salvation- it's frightening.
Orthodoxy can become an idol, too.

[KingdomBuilder]

And even on that basis, are you really so sure that nontrinitarians have a better moral track record than trinitarians?

Yes, quite sure. Nearly every non-Anabaptist church within the past few hundred years to rediscover the truth of nonresistance also began as nontrinitarian.
hmmm...

[HondurasKeiser]

And Arians believed in the divinity of Christ. The particular debate was over the details of pre-existence.

This is patently false. There is the Divine and there is the created - there is nothing else. You can either draw the line around Jesus to include him in the divine realm which then means either that he is coterminous with Father or he is a different being entirely, which means we are polytheists. Or you can draw the line around him to include him in the created realm which makes him special certainly, higher than the angels perhaps but still simply a created being. The second option contradicts what scripture, the apostles and the early church believed about him and it contradicts what Jesus says about himself. Furthermore, the implications of his simply being created mean that he is unable to redeem us from our sins. How can the created redeem the created? Why should we weight the words and life of one created being over that another? Why do we even trust that this particular created being is authoritative? Why not Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell?

[Josh]

And Arians believed in the divinity of Christ. The particular debate was over the details of pre-existence.

This is patently false. There is the Divine and there is the created - there is nothing else. You can either draw the line around Jesus to include him in the divine realm which then means either that he is coterminous with Father or he is a different being entirely, which means we are polytheists. Or you can draw the line around him to include him in the created realm which makes him special certainly, higher than the angels perhaps but still simply a created being.

The second option contradicts what scripture, the apostles and the early church

That depends on who defines "the early church". This was a point of contention and disagreement from the very earliest days, and the dispute continued right through all the councils. Alexandrian Christianity basically left this as an open position.

believed about him and it contradicts what Jesus says about himself. Furthermore, the implications of his simply being created mean that he is unable to redeem us from our sins. How can the created redeem the created? Why should we weight the words and life of one created being over that another? Why do we even trust that this particular created being is authoritative? Why not Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell?

Well, I believe in the Bible and what Jesus said. The Bible does say that "God is the head of Christ", and implies Jesus is subordinate to the Father. Technically, holding such a view is "non-orthodox", which probably explains why so many "orthodox" Protestant Christians refuse to practice the head covering.

It is of note that Christians with less dogmatic views on christology, including the Eastern Orthodox, are much more likely to practice the head covering.

[Valerie]

And Arians believed in the divinity of Christ. The particular debate was over the details of pre-existence.

This is patently false. There is the Divine and there is the created - there is nothing else. You can either draw the line around Jesus to include him in the divine realm which then means either that he is coterminous with Father or he is a different being entirely, which means we are polytheists. Or you can draw the line around him to include him in the created realm which makes him special certainly, higher than the angels perhaps but still simply a created being.

The second option contradicts what scripture, the apostles and the early church

That depends on who defines "the early church". This was a point of contention and disagreement from the very earliest days, and the dispute continued right through all the councils. Alexandrian Christianity basically left this as an open position.

believed about him and it contradicts what Jesus says about himself. Furthermore, the implications of his simply being created mean that he is unable to redeem us from our sins. How can the created redeem the created? Why should we weight the words and life of one created being over that another? Why do we even trust that this particular created being is authoritative? Why not Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell?

Well, I believe in the Bible and what Jesus said. The Bible does say that "God is the head of Christ", and implies Jesus is subordinate to the Father. Technically, holding such a view is "non-orthodox", which probably explains why so many "orthodox" Protestant Christians refuse to practice the head covering.

It is of note that Christians with less dogmatic views on christology, including the Eastern Orthodox, are much more likely to practice the head covering.

Where did you get the idea that EO is not dogmatic about this, yes they teach headcovering but they definitely consider many statements here as heretical. Probably why they still recite the Nicene Creed weekly which is a couple of minutes out of their 2+ hour service. This is non negotiable.

[KingdomBuilder]

This is a subject where 99% of people are all mouth and no ear.

It's probably mute.