Acts20.com

I say generally speaking because I'm sure most all of us would acknowledge that in any group there will be some who genuinely come to saving faith in Christ, and we all have all probably personally known non-Trinitarians that evidence the fruit of saving faith. Our buddy Resident Skeptic would be an example.But with that said, denial of the Trinity has historically been considered an error so severe that it puts adherents outside the Christian faith, and virtually all of its significant manifestations (Sabellianism, Arianism, partialism, tritheism, etc.) have been specifically condemned as heresies.

In my view, having had fairly extensive personal experience with Oneness folks, I consider them certainly confused theologically. However, I am unaware of any place in the New Testament where affirmation of the doctrine of the trinity is stated as a condition of salvation, notwithstanding later creedal statements, correct as they may be.

QW is right.Oneness folks believe in Jesus. What else is a requirement in your Bible

I believe people there are people saved in the UPC but

Great observation (and from QW and UncleJD too). I think this gets to what QW was saying about consistency. I'm inclined to think that if a non-Trinitarian critically considered the implications of consistently holding their beliefs and chose to hold them anyway, it would be impossible for them to be inside the faith. But at the same time, I believe if a true believer did that, they would invariably turn from the error. And so perhaps you've got folks holding these unorthodox beliefs, but inconsistently, and God graciously working in them despite those beliefs. And thank God we are not saved by our theology, since none of us have perfect theology or hold our beliefs with perfect consistency.Great feedback, gentlemen... thanks for the input.

I doubt you could find anyone within common orthodoxy who holds this view.

So no I do not. Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

The doctrine of the trinity may be absolutely correct...but it is not without LEGITIMATE debate on the matter. Over and over, in the scripture, Jesus uses the term MY God. Yes, you can argue that that was Him speaking in His humanity, but He also said these things AFTER the resurrection--in fact, on the Isle of Patmos!It's not that the trinity is not true. It's that the church INSISTS on it, despite it being so weak. I realize that the church is trying to avoid the errors that would arise if we do not endorse the deity of Christ, but when a doctrine is as weak as the trinity, you cannot fairly demand submission to that doctrine.Yes, we KNOW that Jesus is God (John 1:1). What we DO NOT know is precisely how the Son and Father fit together. But that did not stop us insisting on this doctrine, and calling those who saw it another was as heretics.If I recall my Church of God history, R.G. Spurling thought that the Council of Nicea was a departure from what God wanted for the church; namely: that the church deal with these things in love instead of by fiat.NO ONE--and I mean NO ONE--can prove the Trinitarian doctrine without overlooking or explaining away a number of scriptures. And that is why it MUST NOT be used to decide the question of whether one is in the faith.

[quote=Aaron Scott]The doctrine of the trinity may be absolutely correct...but it is not without LEGITIMATE debate on the matter.

Oneness folks refer to the Father, Son and Spirit as three