If strict Trinitarianism is true—meaning that salvation absolutely requires explicit, correct belief that Jesus is fully God (the eternal Son, coequal with the Father)—and if nobody in Acts actually held or expressed that explicit doctrine, then logically, according to that strict standard, nobody mentioned in Acts would have been saved.
Why?
The book of Acts records faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit—but no clear, explicit affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine as it was formally defined centuries later.
Early believers used “Lord” for Jesus and “God” usually for the Father, without the later developed language of three persons in one essence.
Strict Trinitarianism, by definition, demands that this precise theological belief be present for salvation.
Since that belief wasn’t explicitly professed in Acts, then by strict logic, those early believers did not meet the saving belief requirement.
What Does This Mean?
This is a theological paradox or tension within strict Trinitarianism.
Either:
Strict Trinitarianism must relax its requirement (allowing implicit or developing faith to count as saving),
Or it must contend that early believers weren’t truly saved (which contradicts orthodox church tradition and Scripture’s portrayal of the early church).
Most Trinitarian theologians opt for #1, recognizing salvation by faith in the real Jesus, even if doctrinal understanding matures later.
Bottom Line
Strict Trinitarianism, taken absolutely literally, does raise this challenging implication.
ChatGPT, with Stephen D Green
