Is that a denominational Difference ???

[Bare_Truth]

At the web page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modesty
In the discussion of Christian "clothing modesty" (my term to distinguish it from "conduct modesty" and non-self promotion):

1st Catholic standards are discussed
2nd Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) standards are discussed
3rd "Other Churches" "clothing modesty" is briefly discussed.
BUT!

Many other Trinitarian Christians also consider modesty extremely important,[28] though considerable differences of opinion exist about its requirements and purposes.

-- Does anyone here know why there would be an implied difference between Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarians on this issue that was great enough to cause such a distinction ???
-- Are the JW's or somebody else not particularly concerned about "clothing modesty"
-- Is there reason for singling out non-trinitarians on this issue?
-- Are there some "non-trinitarian Christians" out there somewhere with official doctrine that is not uptight about wearing clothes?

I suppose there is a way to take the matter up with Wikipedia but I am not aware of how that matter is handled.

[Petros]

I know of no such differentiation. While it is conceivable that I am simply ignorant, I am inclined to read it as:

The author is fairly sure that mainline Christians are close enough on the issue to lump - and is ignorant enough of the fringes to hypothesize that the Unitarians MIGHT differ though he does not feel like checking it out.

[Ramblinman]

One can no more be a non-trinitarian Christian than one can be an atheist Christian.

[Petros]

I fear that in practice that is a matter of who is doing the labelling.

In the first place, while I suspect nobody recognizes an "atheist Christian" category, I think we need to distinguish a Christian atheist from say a Muslim atheist - the atheist is so often an antitheist and is opposing what he knows.

But then, Arians, Mormons or other groups with a special status for Jesus but denying a triune deity may be Christian derived and may consider themselves or be seen by others as part of a more broadly defined Christianity. Like the definition of Yankee - to a Texan, I am a Yankee, my mother is not. To a Brit, we are both yankees. To a Bostonian, neither of us is. Or, most people in Linguistics if they know what I do and how I think will not recognize me as a linguist, and so on.

[Bare_Truth]

One can no more be a non-trinitarian Christian than one can be an atheist Christian.

You might considering broadening your view a bit.

From, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
We can find the following listing:

Modern nontrinitarian Christian groups or denominations include
Christadelphians,
Christian Scientists,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Dawn Bible Students,
Friends General Conference,
Iglesia ni Cristo,
Jehovah's Witnesses,
Living Church of God,
Oneness Pentecostals,
Members Church of God International,
Unitarian Universalist Christians,
The Way International,
The Church of God International and the
United Church of God.

The same source also says,

Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to monotheistic belief systems, primarily within Christianity, which reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, namely, the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are co-eternal, co-equal, and indivisibly united in one being or ousia.

My own studies into the matter have lead me to wonder how a single doctrine based on no definitive scriptural statement ever became the sine qua non mandatory doctrine of Christianity in the eyes of some denominations. How it is that a discription of the nature of God devised by men imputing meaning into scripture became regarded as being the definitive definition of being Christian.? How was it never questioned as being potentially inadequate to describe a being so great as God was ever accorded such status?

The Wikipedia article offers some good points to be considered.

I have met some people in my near 70 years who belonged to a few of the organizations in that list (which is not comprehensive by the way) Some groups in the list I would consider to be outrhght "cultic" in the pejorative sense, but others, I believe bear very little difference to clearly mainstream Christian denominations, Sharing many doctrines and practices, and differing on the trinity issue largely in viewing it as inaccurate or inadequate or simply unsupportable from a sola scriptura stand point.

It is plausible that one can make a better case that Melchisadek was God based on Heb 7, than one can make for the Holy Spirit. For which reason many suggest Melchisadec was a theophany of Jesus Christ so that they can persist in being trinitarians rather than quadratarians or saying the the Holy Spirit is not a person of the God head.

I think that there is enough shaky theology going on to not call someone heretic or non-Christian over the matter. We can wait and see what God says in the resurrection. I rather doubt that any sincere person is going to be thrown in the lake of Fire over the matter of not getting quite right something that is beyond human comprehension as much as God is.

[Petros]

With much of which of course I can concur - though I am not convinced that a better case can be made for Melichsedec than for the Spirit. But unless we assume with certain others that the NT has been edited and inflated, I don't think we can pass those who do not accept Christ's divinity nor those who expand the list of deity.

The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. The case is very reminiscent of Charlie the Tuna - what counts is WHO we know and HOW we know him, not what we think we know about him.

[Ramblinman]

With much of which of course I can concur - though I am not convinced that a better case can be made for Melichsedec than for the Spirit. But unless we assume with certain others that the NT has been edited and inflated, I don't think we can pass those who do not accept Christ's divinity nor those who expand the list of deity.

I have always been taught that Melchizedek was nothing more than a type of Christ figure rather than a literal pre-incarnate Christ. Doesn't seem to have much bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity either way.

Trinity, though unspoken, is implied by our Christology and apostolic teachings about the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Godhead rather than simply a synonym for God the Father.

To deny the doctrine Holy Trinity requires treating Jesus as a mere man or worse blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

To be Christian is to be Trinitarian, nothing more nor less.

[Petros]

Acts 11:26: the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

In many many cases these names come from outside, and have nothing to do with doctrine. Quakers or Shakers - perceived style, NOT theology. Christians - they keep talking about Christ. Were the Antioch disciples doctrinally united? I doubt it. Can we be sure they all had - or any had - a clear trinitarian understanding? I tend to doubt it.

I totally agree that Triune Deity seems to be the way to go, and I personally see the Nicene Formula as the principal sorter. But - I have dealt with this sort of thing in linguistics and Christianity and several other areas - nobody owns a label. You can tell Jeremy he is not a real / orthodox Christian, but he may well yell back that he is you ain't, Todd may say neither of you is, and Blanche may thyink bothg of you are, and there is nothing you can do except stay out of Jeremy's church.

[nakedpreacher]

Being Pentecostal, I come into contact with those of the oneness doctrine more often than those who are more mainline (I assume) I have known several oneness Pentecostals and my observation, though I have not studied that aspect specifically, it that they tend to be much more legalistic, especially when it comes to women's dress and behavior. Many restrict wearing of makeup, cutting of hair, and require them to wear dresses (this is not the case with all but with many). As for whether or not they are Christian the oneness doctrine itself leads them to many aberrant doctrines such as the idea that if the Son and Holy Spirit are one person, if the you don not have the "baptism" (speaking in tongues) then you do not have the Son (you are not saved). This is not a Pentecostal doctrine, but rather a oneness doctrine. as for the articles comments on Quakers, having attended a Quaker college as a ministry student I can say for sure that Quakers are Trinitarian. they do have some different beliefs, but they are Trinitarian.
Naked Preacher

[Ramblinman]

Being Pentecostal, I come into contact with those of the oneness doctrine more often than those who are more mainline (I assume) I have known several oneness Pentecostals and my observation, though I have not studied that aspect specifically, it that they tend to be much more legalistic, especially when it comes to women's dress and behavior. Many restrict wearing of makeup, cutting of hair, and require them to wear dresses (this is not the case with all but with many). As for whether or not they are Christian the oneness doctrine itself leads them to many aberrant doctrines such as the idea that if the Son and Holy Spirit are one person, if the you don not have the "baptism" (speaking in tongues) then you do not have the Son (you are not saved). This is not a Pentecostal doctrine, but rather a oneness doctrine. as for the articles comments on Quakers, having attended a Quaker college as a ministry student I can say for sure that Quakers are Trinitarian. they do have some different beliefs, but they are Trinitarian.
Naked Preacher

Fascinating stuff about Oness Pentecostals.

As I alluded, while the Bible does not give us the word "trinity", it does teach a distinct Father, Son and Holy Spirit and yet clearly teaches that we do not worship three gods.

If someone denies the Trinity, it is because they either do not believe in the Jesus whom Paul preached, the Jesus of the gospels OR they deny the Holy Spirit and either of these are damnable offenses, no matter how much they appear to speak in tongues or prophesy.

None of us claim to understand the Holy Trinity entirely, but we can have faith in that which we do not yet fully comprehend.

[jochanaan]

What I have observed is that, in general, the more passionate a Christian or Christian group is about doctrine, the more they tend to focus on "modesty," and the more they tend to define it as covering our God-made bodies.

There is a very interesting blog series called "Modesty Culture" that one can find here: http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/p/modesty-culture.html

[nakedpreacher]

To Ramblinman, As to whether they are saved I don't know. There are two ways one can go on the Trinity, we can accept that we do not understand it and still believe that it is true, or we can choose to believe something that we can understand (Modalism for instance). The first is correct the second is not. If we believe something that is incorrect about God, is that enough to nullify grace, I do not know. I am firmly convinced that neither Calvin nor Arminius have the full picture of Grace. If anyone says that they understand it fully I know that they are incorrect. I simply goes beyond Human comprehension. In order to say definitively whether the Oneness Pentecostal can be saved I would have to fully comprehend grace, which I do not. That is for God to judge. When the Oneness person, by logical extension of the doctrine, ventures into doctrines which contradict scripture, I think that we can say that they have left the gospel which was preached by Paul and therefore are outside of Grace. As I said, this one doctrine leads to many aberrant doctrines but I don't think that a misunderstanding of this doctrine, in and of itself, necessarily places one outside of Grace. For the Oneness person who is saved, I think that they are probably saved in spite of their church rather than through their church.
Naked Preacher

[Ramblinman]

To Ramblinman, As to whether they are saved I don't know. There are two ways one can go on the Trinity, we can accept that we do not understand it and still believe that it is true, or we can choose to believe something that we can understand (Modalism for instance). The first is correct the second is not. If we believe something that is incorrect about God, is that enough to nullify grace, I do not know. I am firmly convinced that neither Calvin nor Arminius have the full picture of Grace. If anyone says that they understand it fully I know that they are incorrect. I simply goes beyond Human comprehension. In order to say definitively whether the Oneness Pentecostal can be saved I would have to fully comprehend grace, which I do not. That is for God to judge. When the Oneness person, by logical extension of the doctrine, ventures into doctrines which contradict scripture, I think that we can say that they have left the gospel which was preached by Paul and therefore are outside of Grace. As I said, this one doctrine leads to many aberrant doctrines but I don't think that a misunderstanding of this doctrine, in and of itself, necessarily places one outside of Grace. For the Oneness person who is saved, I think that they are probably saved in spite of their church rather than through their church.
Naked Preacher

Naked Preacher, let's put aside debates about the Trinity and focus on Jesus.
What a Oneness Pentecostal or others believe about Jesus is at issue.
Let's say you believe in Jesus, but the Jesus to whom you refer is a mechanic named Jesus Delgado. Real good at his job, so I am glad you believe in him, but he is no one's Lord and Savior.

We within the pale of orthodoxy have a similar communication gap with Oneness Pentecostals and many others:
they say "Jesus" We say "Jesus", but they are two different people.

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
II Cor. 11:4

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:8

[Petros]

So hokay:

Just for suppposing: Matthew 25:31 on.

Tweedledum has served the Lord in spirit and in truth, and being who he is has never thought twice about exactly who and what and why and how - he is limited the the Petrine theology summed up in Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. and in Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Trinity, Unity, Consubstantiation, Original Sin, Inspiration - he don't know nothing. Is he in? God knows; I guess yes. What did Peter know about theological issues? He is an hot headed fisherman who knows Jesus.

Tweedledee has served the Lord in spirit and in truth, and being whom he is has thought long and hard about theological minutiae most churches have never bothered with. He is a true Didymist, like Thomas he needs to be convinced. His theology - like Thomas' - My Lord and my God. He has thought about the Trinity, and the Filioque, the nature of and reasos for the Incarnation, the Real Presence, Sabbatarianism - and on some of them he has come to an understanding that may not jibe with any creed but he is prepared to check ouit new evidence, new arguments. Is he in? God knows; I guess yes.

The Jesus preached to me - in gospels, epistles, prophecies, commentaries, sermons, communiques from the Spirit - does not require any particular stance on the Godhead. He is content with Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God and My Lord and my God, and is in no way bothered by Saul's Who art thou, Lord?

Otherwise - why did he not give us a closely reasoned account of the Trinity?

[nakedpreacher]

Amen Petros.