This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Discussions of 2 April through 15 May 2009. Note: discussions may be refactored.
I have reworked the God subsection. It has been considerably altered but my attempt was to make it clearer. It is sourced and referenced now using material written by David Bernard. Ltwin ( talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of merging the material from the Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine) article (converted from the outline form in that article to prose form in this one, but retaining all of the copious and valuable references) into this article. I've also been reworking the article as a whole to make it more stylistically readable and understandable for readers, both Oneness and non-Oneness. Anyone who wishes to comment, revise, reword, or revert, please say so! I'm interested in any "feedback" any other editors might care to give!- Ecjmartin ( talk) 03:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok it is getting better but I want to point out a few issues, in order of importance.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost While Trinitarians say that God comprises three persons who are one in essence, Oneness teaching asserts that God is a singular spirit who is one person, not three. "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" are merely titles reflecting the different manifestations of the One True God in the universe. When Oneness believers speak of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, they see these as three manifestions of one person, one God:
Oneness teaching asserts that God is a singular spirit who is one person
I don't know how many times I can say this. Oneness people do not believe in God as a Person. Oneness people believe God is a Spirit. For example, John 4. God is a Spirit and those that worship him mush worship him in Spirit and Truth.
This below is much closer to the proper reading.
While Trinitarians say that God comprises three persons who are one in essence, Oneness teaching asserts that God is a singular spirit, not three persons. "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" are merely titles reflecting the different manifestations of the One True God in the universe. When Oneness believers speak of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, they see these as three manifestions of one God
Part 2...
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and mainstream Christendom is its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This dogma states that the Godhead consists not of three distinct persons, as in classical Trinitarian theology, but rather one person alone who manifests himself in three separate ways. This places them at odds with the members of most other Christian churches, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as "cultists". [3]
Rewritten as a Oneness Person sees this.
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and mainstream Christendom is its teaching on the Godhead. Oneness Pentecostals believe that God is One Spirit who manifests himself as he chooses including as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oneness Pentecostals reject the doctrine of the Trinity as the word "Trinity" is never found in the bible and believe the concept of describing God as a person limits God. The Trinity as noted by the Trinitarians was invented by men at the Council of Nicea as an attempt to describe God.
However this places them at odds with the members of other Christian churches, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as "cultists".[3] This usually comes from a lack of understanding of what Oneness Pentecostals truely believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I know what DevonSprings was trying to say; while I don't necessarily think there was anything so bad about the use of "person" in the context I originally used it in, I do see his point and believe "being" is perhaps a better term--says the same thing, without getting into the "person" issue he raises. As far as the Oneness vs. Trinity issues, I think that article ( Onenesss vs Trinity) would be a better place to get into all of that. That article seems to have been specifically created for just this purpose; I was thinking of trying to merge it into this one, but given that article's length and the unique forum it offers, I've had second thoughts--I think it's better off the way it is. In regard to the question about whether Oneness Pentecostals believe that Trinitarians see God as a spirit, of course we do (even if we don't agree on the one vs. three part). I think that just as many Trinitarians misunderstand Oneness belief, there are equally many Oneness believers who misunderstand Trinitarian beliefs, as well. The Nicean question is a tricky one; I don't believe that the Trinity was simply made up "on the spot" right there at that conclave, but nor do I believe that it was taught in the Apostolic Church or in the Bible, either. A lot more needs to be written on this subject from both ends, that's for sure! And like you, Ltwin, I'm not here to argue--nor, I'm sure, is DevonSprings. That's part of the beauty of Wikipedia! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 19:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Might I suggest something like "Oneness Pentecostalism and Trinitarianism" or something like that? - Ecjmartin ( talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see much activity since yesterday.
What I was trying to get too is Oneness Pentecostals, don't refer to God as a Person. And so to state the following is to state it in Trinitarian terms, and not how a oneness person would describe themselves.
Unlike Canadians (I am one) who describe themselves as "Not American" most OP I know have thought long enough about the Godhead to be in a Oneness church they don't describe themselves as "Not Trinitarians".
So as a Trinitarian I would write:
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and mainstream Christendom is its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This dogma states that the Godhead consists not of three distinct persons, as in classical Trinitarian theology, but rather one being alone who manifests himself in three separate ways. This places them at odds with the members of most other Christian churches, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as "cultists". [3]
As a OP I would write.
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and Trinitarian Pentecostalism is its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This dogma states that the Godhead consists of One God who manifests himself as he chooses[n1]. This includes as The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[n2] This would also include many other manefestations for esample the burning bush or the shakina glory of God.
That God has revealed himself over time to men and that Jesus Christ is God and the fullfillment of that revelation. Oneness people believe that God is a Spirit[n3] and not three persons in a Godhead.
Oneness Pentecostals believe that since the Trinitarian theology was first officially adopted at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 310) that it is a doctrine of men. Since "The Trinity" is never referred to in the Bible Oneness Pentecostals reject the doctrine.
Oneness Pentecostals also believe in baptism by immersion in Jesus Name as found in Acts 2:38 instead of by the titles of "the name of the father, son and holy spirit" as found in Matt 28:19. They follow this practice as all of the water baptism's in the new testamant that specify a name are in the name of Jesus and not in the Trinitarian formula. [n4][n5][n6][n7][n8][n9]
[n1] 1 Tim 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.
[n2] Ephisians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
[n3] John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
[n4] Acts 8:14-16 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
[n5] Acts 10:47-48 Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
[n6] Acts 19:4-6 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
[n7] Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
[n8] Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[n9] Gal 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
DevonSprings ( talk) 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The following is a reply to User:Ecjmartin's comment above:
I think your setting the wrong standard. I believe the standard should be "As a Oneness Person would describe themselves" not "the information a casual observer would require" For me, as a oneness person the two things that I believe in my life is in the power and divinity of Jesus Name, and baptism in his name."
I too believe it is the greatest revelation for the whole bible making sense, and all the pieces fit together all at once. While I agree that the information was contained in the rest of the document I Strongly Disagree that the sentence is their while being accurate a OP would never say about themselves.
I am sure that you don't say when your trying to share oneness with people, well most of the churches in the world think it is a heresy and some of them think we are a cult, but instead at for me, I share that Baptism in Jesus name is the only formula found in the new testament, and that Matt 28:19 are the titles of one devine God, not a Godhead.
Then people ask me why it matters, and I say when you say "father god" who do you believe your speaking too? When I say "Father" I believe I am at the feet of my Father Jesus, and he is there for me. Sharing it in that context helps people move closer to oneness. [Unsigned comment by User:209.240.41.65]
I read something in the previous entry by Devonsprings that was above and indented beyond the rest of his entry (and has since been moved even with the rest of it by Ltwin), that I missed the first time around. It was unsigned, but I would like to address it here, if I may, assuming that DevonSprings composed it.
I think I've been misunderstanding where you've been coming from; seeing the indented information gives me a different perspective on it. Now I think I can understand your objection to the opener's second paragraph; I didn't see it before. Hence, I withdraw my comments concerning "a tempest in a teapot" and "much ado about nothing," with apologies.
I will see what I can do with what you suggest. Seeing it from this perspective, I think what you write has merit, and I'll see what I can do to rectify the situation. I apologize for misunderstanding you before. God bless! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the second paragraph to incorporate what I think you were getting at in your comments. Take a look, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 15:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well we are getting much much closer.
This dogma states that the Godhead consists not of three distinct persons, as in classical Trinitarian theology, but rather one being who manifests himself in many different ways.[3]
How about reversing it.
This dogma states that the Godhead consists of one being (God) who manifests himself in many different ways including as The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This differs from classical Trinitarian theology that says the Godhead consists of 3 distinct and seperate persons, the triune God.
BTW, I have not been offended in anyway by your comments or objections. My goal is to get the most accurate representation of Oneness possible in Wikipedia.
If we get Ltwin to see the oneness revelation along the way, then that would be great !!!
DevonSprings ( talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Nicely done folks...
Ok I just read the whole opening again, and it certainly getting to the essense of it. The only slight comment, is I would still like the word God after single being so no one thinks we OP might be davidian or scientologists or some other form alien bein lovin folks, who .... imagine some totally wacked visual..... dont believe in the one true god.
one singular being who manifests I would prefer to be... one singular being, God, who manifests
DevonSprings ( talk) 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is very very good. Each time I read it now it keeps getting substantially more correct. Once you were through the Syntax of it all, the meaning is being conveyed much better now.
It is very very NPOV and not a brutle document as it was six months ago.
Trying to describe one-ness in a few short sentences so the reader can capture the idea is difficult, and the opening paragraph certainly does that.
DevonSprings ( talk) 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ecjmartin, I am confused about the status of this article. I know you've incorporated alot of it into this article, but are you merging or are you leaving the doctrine article to stay? Just wondering what's going on with that. Ltwin ( talk) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
this article says the Nicean Creed codified the Trinity. However this is not what the articles on the Counicl of Nicea and the Nicean Creed say. Indeed the word trinity does not appear in those articles. This phrase should be deleted from the article. ¬¬¬¬¬ JAMES R BRADSHAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.121.218 ( talk) 04:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi All,
I reread the whole document. And on the whole, I think a lot of work has been captured, refined and it is functionaly correct. Some of it I find written a bit perjoratively as a OP person, but I need to think if it needs to be touched up or not over time.
I think the work Ltwin and Ecjmartin have been doing has brought the document to an excellent NPOV view. Great work.
For example in Jesus Name baptism, there is not just the Acts 2:38 versus Matt 28:19 the six times a name formula is recorded in the new testemant it is "in the name of Jesus" and the Apostle Paul had quite a disertation on the name issue at the beginning of 1st Corithians and in Romans 5-7.
Of course the new testament apostles were literally saying YHsWH Yah-She-Wah or the Heart of YHWH which would of really really aggrivated the Jews paul wrote to in Romans, why he goes on about it the value of being a baptized believer versus a Roman for some 5 chapters, and comes down to there is salvation only by calling on the name of YHsWH in chapter 10.
But there is a balance of getting "Oneness Pentecostalism" right, and there needs to be another place that will get torn up on a fairly regular basis because a bunch of people think Wiki is a Tweeter, not a Wiki.
I was thinking though it would be cool to have a chart of say the 17-18 precepts most churches believe accross the Y axis and major church denominaltionals across the Z axis.
Because oneness and trinitarian pentecostals are closer in beliefs that trinitarian pentecostals and anglicans.
I think all churches to qualify have to believe in the Death Burial and Ressurection of Jesus or would just be a social club.
DevonSprings ( talk) 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a part about the Jesus Only thing in the baptism part, and I think that belongs somewhere else.
DevonSprings ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Normally I follow the
Wikipedia "be bold" idea and just edit. But I realise this article has been controversial, and I'm very much aware of, and impressed by, the co-operative work that you've been doing to improve it. So I'm holding back before editing. Let me "declare an interest" as being someone from a Trinitarian background. Can I draw your attention to some points which I think could be better worded:
Could you give some consideration to this, please? Thanks. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "The Oneness baptismal formula" has a "Main article: Jesus' Name doctrine" at the top. So I went there. Ouch! That article could really benefit from some of the excellent collaborative work you've recently done here at this article. In fact, I suspect that simply removing much of that article would probably be a good start. What do you think? I'm happy to assist, but am not nearly knowledgeable enough about the topic to lead. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 11:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with Feline Hymnic and am spearheding a major revision of the Oneness vs Trinity article. I think the article should compare and contrast both views so I would love as many contributors as possible- OPs and Trins and neither. The article is a mess so I will need help. Ltwin ( talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am currently looking to find an oneness Pentecostal seminary and I’m having some difficulty. I live in New Jersey. I long for and desire the truth to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. I am a Baptist Minister but taught in a Pentecostal home and bible college. I know what you are thinking and my wife was Baptist go figure. Needless to say can someone help direct me, the next Journey... Terence G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopgrier ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Put new text under old text.
Click here to start a new topic.
Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one
I removed from the intro a whole paragraph of ways in which Oneness Pentecostals are like other Evangelical Protestants. We don't need to describe that. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I returned some of what you removed. "Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that one should literally follow the scriptural injunctions found in John 3:1–12 and Acts 2:38 by accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior, by repenting of all sins, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues" - this is not what all Evangelicals or even all Pentecostals believe as they interpret water baptism in Jesus' name only according to the formula in Acts and not in John and Spirit baptism as absolute requirement. If you don't have these you are not saved. I also added the sentence on Holiness living as in most of these churches adhering to "Holiness standards" is also expected if not required. Ltwin ( talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ltwin: The text that you restored as "not like other Evangelicals" is exactly what other Pentecostals believe, with the sole exception of baptizing in the name of Jesus (which is discussed at length elsewhere). DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to address a few things here--no "ill will" intended:
(Material in strikeover was based upon my misunderstanding of Ltwin's comment on "all Pentecostals"; I took it the exact opposite way from what Ltwin obviously intended to say, and I apologize profoundly for this misunderstanding. Ecjmartin)
With all due respect, the statement that "all Pentecostals do not require baptism of any type to be saved" is incorrect; Oneness Pentecostals DO require baptism to be saved. Furthermore, again with all due respect, I would take serious issue with the notion that Oneness Pentecostals practice a "works" salvation as opposed to a "grace" salvation. I am a Oneness Pentecostal, who was raised Trinitarian with a Baptist minister for a father, so I am extremely familiar with the whole "works vs. grace" debate. Oneness Pentecostalism does NOT teach that one is saved by works, but rather that there is more required of one wishing to be saved (which salvation is offered entirely due to and by and through the grace of God) than merely believing in Jesus. Oneness Pentecostals interpret certain passages of scripture to require, in addition to faith, the acts of repentance, baptism and receipt of the Holy Ghost for the one wishing to be saved. The salvation comes from God, not by one's works; the difference between us and you is in the specific things God asks or requires of one to be given this salvation. We could argue this all day and all night, but that is not my purpose here. Rather, I simply wish to correct this misnomer that Oneness Pentecostals "practice a works salvation as opposed to one based on grace." That is incorrect, and would even be considered insulting by many Oneness Pentecostals (though I know without a doubt that no insult of any kind was intended here!). See the "Soteriology" section of this article for a more-detailed explanation.
With regard to the "holiness" guidelines, Oneness Pentecostals believe these to have been essentially mandated in Scripture by the Apostles themselves, though there is disagreement within the UPCI and other Oneness organizations as to exactly what these standards consist of and how they should be applied. Some believe TV is wrong under any circumstances whatsoever, but others do not. Some believe women should never wear pants, even at home, while others--while still believing in skirts or dresses for women as being the proper attire--tend to leave this matter to an individual's discretion. Some insist on clean-shaven men, while others do not consider this to be quite so essential. Some Oneness preachers thunder "standards" from their pulpits much like a "hell fire and damnation" sermon my father might have given in the Baptist church, while others choose to be more circumspect about presenting this topic, especially with newer members (my own pastor has told me "horror stories" on that subject!). The one thing that IS taught is that these standards are NOT a means of salvation, nor do they necessarily indicate by themselves that one is sanctified. They follow salvation, rather than causing it, and they must proceed out of genuine, heartfelt love for God and an inward conviction that one should follow them out of love for the Lord--not out of a perceived need to keep rules or feel "better" than the next guy--or their keeping will be worthless. I don't mean to "get up on the soapbox" here, but I won't stand by and see my faith misrepresented (even by those with the best of intentions, as I am sure is the case here!) without saying something.
I wrote or reorganized a fair chunk of this article, and if it seems "promotional," I am sorry for that, as that was exactly the opposite of what I was striving for. I went to extreme lengths to make it objective and fair, while still endeavoring to represent Oneness Pentecostalism as it is--not as Trinitarians or others believe it to be. I do not agree that it was "promotional;" rather, it was simply a presentation of the facts, with sources provided. I could just as easily say the same thing ("promotional") with regard to articles about other churches--and I'd be just as wrong. I've been on both sides of this equation, and I would observe that my Oneness brethren have just as many misconceptions about Trinitarians as the Trinitarians have about them. Dispelling some of these misconceptions was my main purpose in getting involved in this article in the first place.
I am going to remove the last sentence of the second paragraph; I'd like to see sources (more than one) for that statement, as even the AofG (which fights Oneness Pentecostalism tooth and nail) has stated that they do not consider Oneness believers to not be Christians at all; rather, they consider them to be sincere Christians who are nevertheless deceived and incorrect in their theology. If that sentence is reinstated, there needs to be sources for it, sources from the "mainstream churches" mentioned in that sentence--not websites run by individual preachers and independent so-called "ministries"--that say that Oneness are not Christians at all (as opposed to being Christians who are incorrect in their theology or deceived, as the AofG maintains, for instance).
"Longer" does NOT necessarily mean "more difficult to read." I believe (as Ltwin affirmed) that since there is such a radical difference between Oneness believers and other Christians on such fundamental subjects as the Godhead and baptism, it behooves an article on this subject to state, even if only briefly, those points of similarity that exist between Oneness Pentecostals and other Pentecostals, Evangelicals and Christians. That having been said, I reiterate that I mean no "ill will" toward anyone here, and nor do I believe that anything other than the best of motives and intentions exist with all parties to this issue. I just wanted to correct a few misnomers, and bring up some matters that I think were misstated, that's all. Best wishes to everyone, and God bless! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Ltwin's observations about salvation and the opening or "lead" section of this article. This is certainly a distinct item of difference between oneness and the rest of Pentecostalism and Evangelical Christianity, at least as important as the differences on the Godhead and Salvation. Hence, I've added some material to the last paragraph of the opening section on this subject. Comments, anyone? God bless! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
DJ Clayworth asks "who accuses them [Oneness Pentecostals] of Arianism?" Oneness Pentecostals HAVE been accused of being Arians, mostly in statements or sermons made by individuals as opposed to official declarations of churches. Consider the following:
I could go on and on, but I believe that the above is sufficient to demonstrate my point. Hence, I am reverting the edit, no offense intended. - Ecjmartin ( talk) 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, on closer inspection of these references I find that they do not support your viewpoint. Let me tell you what I see, point by point.
Since you say you have plenty of references, please supply one of the others that you have which is not a blog or forum post, and from a reliable source. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reasons that Holy Ghost is used in this article rather than Holy Spirit? Holy Ghost is an archaic usage in general. If Oneness Pentecostals use Holy Ghost then fine, but otherwise we should go with the standard naming. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Oneness Pentecostalism is itself a category within Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. — Robert Greer ( talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed a whole load of people listed as "noteable Oneness Pentecostals" because I couldn't find a reference for any of them. Feel free to add back any for which we have reliable sources. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I just tidied up a few things from the article. We don't capitalize common nouns even when they describe God; we do capitalize proper names. So "The Holy Spirit is one manifestation of God", but "God is spirit".
Please note that the article should not present the beliefs of the group as if they were factual, so "Oneness Pentecostals believe that the concept of persons of God is not mentioned in the Bible". Others disagree. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add names of people who are Oneness Pentecostals without an independent, reliable reference to say so. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia articles should not be forums for convincing people that a belief is right, just stating that this is the belief people hold. I've removed some arguments. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals are Monotheistic and in turn proclaim that Trinitarian Christians beleive in three gods. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals beleive the name of God is Jesus and within Him is the fullness of the godhead. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe that sins are washed away in baptism by complete submersion in the water by applying the name of Jesus. Penecostal Trinitarians mostly say in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, yet apply the name Jesus in prayer for forgivness of sin. This is because Trinitarians beleive salvation from sin occurse through repentance. While Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals beleive one is saved when one has received the Holy Ghost. The evidence of which is by way of speaking in an unknown tongue (or in tongues.) Most Trinitarian Pentecostals beleive at repentance one accepts Jesus Christ inside of you.
There are disputes about what happens at the time of repentance, baptism and the time of one receiving salvation. Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that repentance is not only being sorry of sins committed but also a the time in which an individual takes on the name of Jesus. Meaning they are on the path to heaven. Although Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe repentance is an about-face, most believe that the next step of water baptism is necessary step toward salvation. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe that repentance is not enough, but like the KJV Bible says in Acts 2:38, baptism is the next step. According to this belief baptism washes sin away which prepares one for the receiving of the Holy Ghost, and it is taking on the name of Jesus. The name of Jesus being applied this way means you are adopted by god and a child of god. This is also a public demonstration of one's faith that Jesus is god and commitment to his work. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals celebrate the act of receiving the Holy Ghost the most of any other event. Receiving the Holy Ghost is the sign of salvation according to most Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals. Since this action is so important much of the energy and focus is on this experience happening.
Furthermore the seeking after this tongues experience in a Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal setting is much different than a tongues experience in a Trinitarian setting. This is because of the two distinct beliefs of what speaking in tongues really mean or is evidence of. For Trinitarians it is furthering one's relationship with god, but to Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals it is this and more, it is a sign of salvation itself.
Most interesting is the issue of oneness. Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that Jesus forgives sin and through only him is there salvation. Trinitarians do not believe in three gods and many do speak in tongues but their focus in on Jesus Christ. Meanwhile Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe in "Jesus only" yet rely on the Holy Ghost to save them. So, while so similar each claim distinct differences, of which change one's entire perspective on the type of god that exists and how one can achieve salvation. Even though Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe in forgiveness of sin by the application of the name of Jesus upon forgiveness, the first time one seeks god repentance is not enough to achieve salvation. So, it seems that Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals make more distinctions about what the Father does, the Son does and the Holy Ghost does, than the Trinitarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.73.146 ( talk) 00:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears to me that you don't actually understand the doctrine of Oneness. "Jesus only" is a misnomer, as it implies that we don't believe in the Father or Holy Ghost. That is incorrect. Whereas Trinitarians believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate persons within the Godhead, Oneness teaches that these are simply titles of the one God. Here is the basis of our belief: God exists as one Spirit: John 4:24; Eph. 4:4. Since God is, by nature, holy, that one Spirit is, by definition, the Holy Spirit. That same one Spirit caused Mary to conceive (Matt. 1:18-20), thereby becoming the Father of Jesus. Thus, we believe that Father and Holy Ghost are simply different titles of the same one Spirit. That same Spirit then inhabited the body of His son: 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 3:16. This is why Isaiah could identify the Messiah as the Father (Is. 9:6), why Jesus could tell His disciples that by seeing Him they had already seen the Father (John 14:8-9), and why Paul could state that ALL the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus. (Col. 2:9) We see further evidence in the response of the Apostles to the command of Matthew 28:19. In this verse, Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Trinitarians tend to ignore Apostolic practice in this area, and simply focus on repeating the words of the command. But if we look at all the places where the apostles actually baptized, we can see clearly that they never once repeated those titles in baptism. In every case, they baptized using only the name of Jesus. (Acts chapters 2, 8, 10, 19 & 22) Did they ignore/disobey the command of Jesus? Of course not. If they were going to do that, why would they bother to record His command in the first place? To record it, and then ignore it, would only make them look bad. So clearly, they understood something about the command. Jesus did NOT say to baptize in three titles, but in one name. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not names, but simply titles. Titles have no authority or power. (Try signing a check with one of your titles instead of your name, and you'll see that this is true.) The apostles understood that Jesus is the one God in flesh, and that He is the Father, who is the one Spirit, in the son (the human body of Jesus). And so, by baptizing in the only name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), they actually obeyed the command of Matthew 28:19. In fact, Paul commanded us to do EVERYTHING in that name. (Col. 3:17) Why would baptism be excluded from that? So here we see that the Oneness Pentecostals are obeying the command, while Trinitarians are only repeating the words of the command. More about Jesus: From His mother, Jesus inherited a human body and a human nature. As a man, He said and did things that God does not. He ate, drank, prayed, feared, suffered and died. As a man, His knowledge was limited. But within that body was also another nature... the one Spirit of God. And as God in flesh, Jesus did things man cannot. He forgave sins, calmed the sea, claimed to predate Abraham and to be the I AM (John 8:58), and rose from the dead. Whereas Trinitarians believe the "Son" is an eternal person in a triune Godhead, Oneness teaches that the "Son" refers only to the humanity of Jesus, that part which was begotten, and did, indeed, have a beginning. (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5) Where there three "persons" present at the baptism of Jesus? Not unless the Holy Ghost is a bird. God is a Spirit. That Spirit is omnipresent: in heaven, on earth, and in Jesus simultaneously. The dove was simply a visible representation of that omnipresent Spirit. The voice was that same Spirit, identifying His son. And what did He say about His son? This is often overlooked, but both the English and original Greek make it clear: He did not say "this is my Son, with whom I am pleased." He said, "This is my beloved Son IN whom I am pleased." The Greek preposition implies a location. Compare with Col. 1:19, which, when properly translated from the Greek, states that "all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him." The fact that this Spirit was omnipresent, in heaven, on earth, and in Jesus, is the reason that Jesus could claim to be both on earth and in heaven at the same time: John 3:13. Thus, at the baptism of Jesus, we have only the one Spirit who is our God, and His son Jesus in whom the fullness of that one God dwells. BroWCarey ( talk) 13:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it desired for the Oneness believers to look ignorant? "They generally believe the doctrine is an invention of the fourth-century Council of Nicea, which made it orthodox." It is quite clear that the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially established until the Council of Constantinople in 381. As a matter of fact, the creed established at Nicaea in 325 condemned those who said that Jesus Christ was not of the hypostasis of the Father, hypostasis of which is generally the level at which Jesus is understood as being distinguished from the Father. This clause was then dropped from the creed at 381, and the idea of "three hypostases of one ousia" was introduced. Thus, it is evident that the doctrine of the Trinity was not defined until the Council of Constantinople, and that the Council of Nicaea, on the other hand, constructed a faith that could even be interpreted as anti-Trinitarian. As such, I think the section on the Trinity and the Council of Nicaea should be edited, because the original Nicene Creed is not necessarily inconsistent with oneness doctrine. Deusveritasest ( talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a lot of references which were just biblcal verses. I would remind contributors that Wikipedia is not a theology essay, where you use biblical quotes to back up your argument. The references should be used to establish that Oneness Pentecostals do indeed believe what is said here. The Bible is a primary source, and so not admissible as Wikipedia references. It is also believe by groups other than Oneness Pentecostals, who interpret it differently. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There are several references to David Bernard's book, "The Oneness of God", with links to http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm . Compuserve has discontinued OurWorld in its entirety. I have found the book at http://www.newlifeupc.org/wp-content/uploads/online-books/oneness/One-Top.html and http://www.newbeginningchurch.com/oneness.htm . I think one of these should be used for the reference links to fix the dead links that point to the Compuserve site. Nutster ( talk) 07:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Common passages of scripture among Oneness Pentecostals include...". Apart from being unreferenced, this statement doesn't really convey any useful information. Are we saying that Oneness adherents selective believe these passages more than other passages? (Don't even think about what a Oneness theologian would say if he thought we meant this.) Are we saying they quote them more often? (If so, where's the evidence). In any case, I've removed this. It can go back if it can be turned into a coherent and referenced statement. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 22:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Undid revision by Ltwin. The statement "The first LGBT-affirming Oneness Pentecostals began to organize..." implies that prior to that date, there were no LGBT-affirming Oneness Pentecostals. There is no way to know that or verify it. Thus, I returned to the original "LGBT-affirming Oneness Pentecostals first began to organize..." I also corrected the date in Ltwin's revision. It was 1980, not 1890. BroWCarey ( talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean about the blank space. It is weird. BroWCarey ( talk) 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"As do all Christians, Oneness Pentecostals maintain that no good works or obedience to law can save anyone, apart from God's grace."
Is a claim of universality practical or useful here? Does it not possibly read as though Sola Fide is maintained by "all Christians", which would be inaccurate? If it means that saving is an act of God's grace, and not a reward for works, why not cut the four words and make the statement cleanly? It is, after all, an article on Oneness Pentecostalism and not broader Christianity. Why not state "Oneness Pentecostals maintain..."? Why stage it with "As do all Christians"???
Just the way I'm reading it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.246.135 ( talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not "just" the way you are reading it. The sentence, "As do all Christians" definitively states that all professing Christianity have a certain belief, and I feel should provide references, context notwithstanding.
As for Sola Fide: The article states; "Oneness soteriology differs significantly from that of most other Pentecostal and Evangelical factions. Whereas most of them require only faith in Jesus for salvation, Oneness Pentecostalism defines salvation as repentance, baptism (in Jesus' name) and receipt of the Holy Spirit."
The definition, from the article:
There are many more than Oneness Pentecostals that believe in 3 stages of justification;
As for the charge of "a works based salvation": Without faith and belief would there be no avenue leading to salvation? If a person believes, has faith, asks for forgiveness, he certainly has passed the initial criteria to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit). Oneness Pentecostals do not believe that these alone provides Salvation through life and into eternity. The Bible states, with many references, that baptism is necessary for eternal salvation. Some believe in a "Once saved always saved" doctrine. If this would be true then there would seem to be no reason for the books between Acts and Revelation, no need to witness, or any of the things portrayed in the Bible, so Oneness Pentecostals believe that faith without works is dead as referenced in James 2:18, 2:20, and 2:26. If salvation, meaning allowing entry to heaven with no works, is the actual definition of "Sola Fide" then there are many that disagree. There are many that believe that faith and salvation bring about "good" works and it is mandated: I Peter 4:18; "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?". One does not have to work to be saved but there is no free ride to Heaven and salvation into eternity with Jesus Christ requires a lot of work. Matthew 7:13-15; 13-Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14-Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15-Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Otr500 ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well thank you Ltwin but I was neither giving a sermon nor, no disrespect intended, care if anyone is looking for one or not. You were not replying to my question though. I was initially replying to the unsigned question that you had also replied to. That question was concerning an "offending" ( your words not mine ) phrase. I am not Catholic so the other person must have been the one offended. The article is listed as a controversial topic so I simply intended to offer an opinion on 1)- the question, 2)- Sola Fide, and then your statement about 3)- Charges of a "works" based salvation. The question was simply, Does it not possibly read as though Sola Fide is maintained by "all Christians", which would be inaccurate? and the answer, which would be a consensus now, is yes. You did add things that I thought unnecessary, nor did you actually answer the question in your reply. You did add a defending sentence in your reply concerning the "charge", so I added a reply with reasoning.
the information given on oneness in not purely accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.99.59 ( talk) 11:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Discussions of 2 April through 15 May 2009. Note: discussions may be refactored.
I have reworked the God subsection. It has been considerably altered but my attempt was to make it clearer. It is sourced and referenced now using material written by David Bernard. Ltwin ( talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of merging the material from the Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine) article (converted from the outline form in that article to prose form in this one, but retaining all of the copious and valuable references) into this article. I've also been reworking the article as a whole to make it more stylistically readable and understandable for readers, both Oneness and non-Oneness. Anyone who wishes to comment, revise, reword, or revert, please say so! I'm interested in any "feedback" any other editors might care to give!- Ecjmartin ( talk) 03:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok it is getting better but I want to point out a few issues, in order of importance.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost While Trinitarians say that God comprises three persons who are one in essence, Oneness teaching asserts that God is a singular spirit who is one person, not three. "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" are merely titles reflecting the different manifestations of the One True God in the universe. When Oneness believers speak of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, they see these as three manifestions of one person, one God:
Oneness teaching asserts that God is a singular spirit who is one person
I don't know how many times I can say this. Oneness people do not believe in God as a Person. Oneness people believe God is a Spirit. For example, John 4. God is a Spirit and those that worship him mush worship him in Spirit and Truth.
This below is much closer to the proper reading.
While Trinitarians say that God comprises three persons who are one in essence, Oneness teaching asserts that God is a singular spirit, not three persons. "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" are merely titles reflecting the different manifestations of the One True God in the universe. When Oneness believers speak of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, they see these as three manifestions of one God
Part 2...
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and mainstream Christendom is its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This dogma states that the Godhead consists not of three distinct persons, as in classical Trinitarian theology, but rather one person alone who manifests himself in three separate ways. This places them at odds with the members of most other Christian churches, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as "cultists". [3]
Rewritten as a Oneness Person sees this.
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and mainstream Christendom is its teaching on the Godhead. Oneness Pentecostals believe that God is One Spirit who manifests himself as he chooses including as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oneness Pentecostals reject the doctrine of the Trinity as the word "Trinity" is never found in the bible and believe the concept of describing God as a person limits God. The Trinity as noted by the Trinitarians was invented by men at the Council of Nicea as an attempt to describe God.
However this places them at odds with the members of other Christian churches, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as "cultists".[3] This usually comes from a lack of understanding of what Oneness Pentecostals truely believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I know what DevonSprings was trying to say; while I don't necessarily think there was anything so bad about the use of "person" in the context I originally used it in, I do see his point and believe "being" is perhaps a better term--says the same thing, without getting into the "person" issue he raises. As far as the Oneness vs. Trinity issues, I think that article ( Onenesss vs Trinity) would be a better place to get into all of that. That article seems to have been specifically created for just this purpose; I was thinking of trying to merge it into this one, but given that article's length and the unique forum it offers, I've had second thoughts--I think it's better off the way it is. In regard to the question about whether Oneness Pentecostals believe that Trinitarians see God as a spirit, of course we do (even if we don't agree on the one vs. three part). I think that just as many Trinitarians misunderstand Oneness belief, there are equally many Oneness believers who misunderstand Trinitarian beliefs, as well. The Nicean question is a tricky one; I don't believe that the Trinity was simply made up "on the spot" right there at that conclave, but nor do I believe that it was taught in the Apostolic Church or in the Bible, either. A lot more needs to be written on this subject from both ends, that's for sure! And like you, Ltwin, I'm not here to argue--nor, I'm sure, is DevonSprings. That's part of the beauty of Wikipedia! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 19:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Might I suggest something like "Oneness Pentecostalism and Trinitarianism" or something like that? - Ecjmartin ( talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see much activity since yesterday.
What I was trying to get too is Oneness Pentecostals, don't refer to God as a Person. And so to state the following is to state it in Trinitarian terms, and not how a oneness person would describe themselves.
Unlike Canadians (I am one) who describe themselves as "Not American" most OP I know have thought long enough about the Godhead to be in a Oneness church they don't describe themselves as "Not Trinitarians".
So as a Trinitarian I would write:
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and mainstream Christendom is its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This dogma states that the Godhead consists not of three distinct persons, as in classical Trinitarian theology, but rather one being alone who manifests himself in three separate ways. This places them at odds with the members of most other Christian churches, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as "cultists". [3]
As a OP I would write.
The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and Trinitarian Pentecostalism is its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This dogma states that the Godhead consists of One God who manifests himself as he chooses[n1]. This includes as The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[n2] This would also include many other manefestations for esample the burning bush or the shakina glory of God.
That God has revealed himself over time to men and that Jesus Christ is God and the fullfillment of that revelation. Oneness people believe that God is a Spirit[n3] and not three persons in a Godhead.
Oneness Pentecostals believe that since the Trinitarian theology was first officially adopted at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 310) that it is a doctrine of men. Since "The Trinity" is never referred to in the Bible Oneness Pentecostals reject the doctrine.
Oneness Pentecostals also believe in baptism by immersion in Jesus Name as found in Acts 2:38 instead of by the titles of "the name of the father, son and holy spirit" as found in Matt 28:19. They follow this practice as all of the water baptism's in the new testamant that specify a name are in the name of Jesus and not in the Trinitarian formula. [n4][n5][n6][n7][n8][n9]
[n1] 1 Tim 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.
[n2] Ephisians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
[n3] John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
[n4] Acts 8:14-16 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
[n5] Acts 10:47-48 Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
[n6] Acts 19:4-6 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
[n7] Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
[n8] Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[n9] Gal 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
DevonSprings ( talk) 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The following is a reply to User:Ecjmartin's comment above:
I think your setting the wrong standard. I believe the standard should be "As a Oneness Person would describe themselves" not "the information a casual observer would require" For me, as a oneness person the two things that I believe in my life is in the power and divinity of Jesus Name, and baptism in his name."
I too believe it is the greatest revelation for the whole bible making sense, and all the pieces fit together all at once. While I agree that the information was contained in the rest of the document I Strongly Disagree that the sentence is their while being accurate a OP would never say about themselves.
I am sure that you don't say when your trying to share oneness with people, well most of the churches in the world think it is a heresy and some of them think we are a cult, but instead at for me, I share that Baptism in Jesus name is the only formula found in the new testament, and that Matt 28:19 are the titles of one devine God, not a Godhead.
Then people ask me why it matters, and I say when you say "father god" who do you believe your speaking too? When I say "Father" I believe I am at the feet of my Father Jesus, and he is there for me. Sharing it in that context helps people move closer to oneness. [Unsigned comment by User:209.240.41.65]
I read something in the previous entry by Devonsprings that was above and indented beyond the rest of his entry (and has since been moved even with the rest of it by Ltwin), that I missed the first time around. It was unsigned, but I would like to address it here, if I may, assuming that DevonSprings composed it.
I think I've been misunderstanding where you've been coming from; seeing the indented information gives me a different perspective on it. Now I think I can understand your objection to the opener's second paragraph; I didn't see it before. Hence, I withdraw my comments concerning "a tempest in a teapot" and "much ado about nothing," with apologies.
I will see what I can do with what you suggest. Seeing it from this perspective, I think what you write has merit, and I'll see what I can do to rectify the situation. I apologize for misunderstanding you before. God bless! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the second paragraph to incorporate what I think you were getting at in your comments. Take a look, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 15:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well we are getting much much closer.
This dogma states that the Godhead consists not of three distinct persons, as in classical Trinitarian theology, but rather one being who manifests himself in many different ways.[3]
How about reversing it.
This dogma states that the Godhead consists of one being (God) who manifests himself in many different ways including as The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This differs from classical Trinitarian theology that says the Godhead consists of 3 distinct and seperate persons, the triune God.
BTW, I have not been offended in anyway by your comments or objections. My goal is to get the most accurate representation of Oneness possible in Wikipedia.
If we get Ltwin to see the oneness revelation along the way, then that would be great !!!
DevonSprings ( talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Nicely done folks...
Ok I just read the whole opening again, and it certainly getting to the essense of it. The only slight comment, is I would still like the word God after single being so no one thinks we OP might be davidian or scientologists or some other form alien bein lovin folks, who .... imagine some totally wacked visual..... dont believe in the one true god.
one singular being who manifests I would prefer to be... one singular being, God, who manifests
DevonSprings ( talk) 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is very very good. Each time I read it now it keeps getting substantially more correct. Once you were through the Syntax of it all, the meaning is being conveyed much better now.
It is very very NPOV and not a brutle document as it was six months ago.
Trying to describe one-ness in a few short sentences so the reader can capture the idea is difficult, and the opening paragraph certainly does that.
DevonSprings ( talk) 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ecjmartin, I am confused about the status of this article. I know you've incorporated alot of it into this article, but are you merging or are you leaving the doctrine article to stay? Just wondering what's going on with that. Ltwin ( talk) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
this article says the Nicean Creed codified the Trinity. However this is not what the articles on the Counicl of Nicea and the Nicean Creed say. Indeed the word trinity does not appear in those articles. This phrase should be deleted from the article. ¬¬¬¬¬ JAMES R BRADSHAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.121.218 ( talk) 04:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi All,
I reread the whole document. And on the whole, I think a lot of work has been captured, refined and it is functionaly correct. Some of it I find written a bit perjoratively as a OP person, but I need to think if it needs to be touched up or not over time.
I think the work Ltwin and Ecjmartin have been doing has brought the document to an excellent NPOV view. Great work.
For example in Jesus Name baptism, there is not just the Acts 2:38 versus Matt 28:19 the six times a name formula is recorded in the new testemant it is "in the name of Jesus" and the Apostle Paul had quite a disertation on the name issue at the beginning of 1st Corithians and in Romans 5-7.
Of course the new testament apostles were literally saying YHsWH Yah-She-Wah or the Heart of YHWH which would of really really aggrivated the Jews paul wrote to in Romans, why he goes on about it the value of being a baptized believer versus a Roman for some 5 chapters, and comes down to there is salvation only by calling on the name of YHsWH in chapter 10.
But there is a balance of getting "Oneness Pentecostalism" right, and there needs to be another place that will get torn up on a fairly regular basis because a bunch of people think Wiki is a Tweeter, not a Wiki.
I was thinking though it would be cool to have a chart of say the 17-18 precepts most churches believe accross the Y axis and major church denominaltionals across the Z axis.
Because oneness and trinitarian pentecostals are closer in beliefs that trinitarian pentecostals and anglicans.
I think all churches to qualify have to believe in the Death Burial and Ressurection of Jesus or would just be a social club.
DevonSprings ( talk) 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a part about the Jesus Only thing in the baptism part, and I think that belongs somewhere else.
DevonSprings ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Normally I follow the
Wikipedia "be bold" idea and just edit. But I realise this article has been controversial, and I'm very much aware of, and impressed by, the co-operative work that you've been doing to improve it. So I'm holding back before editing. Let me "declare an interest" as being someone from a Trinitarian background. Can I draw your attention to some points which I think could be better worded:
Could you give some consideration to this, please? Thanks. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "The Oneness baptismal formula" has a "Main article: Jesus' Name doctrine" at the top. So I went there. Ouch! That article could really benefit from some of the excellent collaborative work you've recently done here at this article. In fact, I suspect that simply removing much of that article would probably be a good start. What do you think? I'm happy to assist, but am not nearly knowledgeable enough about the topic to lead. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 11:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with Feline Hymnic and am spearheding a major revision of the Oneness vs Trinity article. I think the article should compare and contrast both views so I would love as many contributors as possible- OPs and Trins and neither. The article is a mess so I will need help. Ltwin ( talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am currently looking to find an oneness Pentecostal seminary and I’m having some difficulty. I live in New Jersey. I long for and desire the truth to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. I am a Baptist Minister but taught in a Pentecostal home and bible college. I know what you are thinking and my wife was Baptist go figure. Needless to say can someone help direct me, the next Journey... Terence G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopgrier ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Put new text under old text.
Click here to start a new topic.
Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one
I removed from the intro a whole paragraph of ways in which Oneness Pentecostals are like other Evangelical Protestants. We don't need to describe that. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I returned some of what you removed. "Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that one should literally follow the scriptural injunctions found in John 3:1–12 and Acts 2:38 by accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior, by repenting of all sins, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues" - this is not what all Evangelicals or even all Pentecostals believe as they interpret water baptism in Jesus' name only according to the formula in Acts and not in John and Spirit baptism as absolute requirement. If you don't have these you are not saved. I also added the sentence on Holiness living as in most of these churches adhering to "Holiness standards" is also expected if not required. Ltwin ( talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ltwin: The text that you restored as "not like other Evangelicals" is exactly what other Pentecostals believe, with the sole exception of baptizing in the name of Jesus (which is discussed at length elsewhere). DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to address a few things here--no "ill will" intended:
(Material in strikeover was based upon my misunderstanding of Ltwin's comment on "all Pentecostals"; I took it the exact opposite way from what Ltwin obviously intended to say, and I apologize profoundly for this misunderstanding. Ecjmartin)
With all due respect, the statement that "all Pentecostals do not require baptism of any type to be saved" is incorrect; Oneness Pentecostals DO require baptism to be saved. Furthermore, again with all due respect, I would take serious issue with the notion that Oneness Pentecostals practice a "works" salvation as opposed to a "grace" salvation. I am a Oneness Pentecostal, who was raised Trinitarian with a Baptist minister for a father, so I am extremely familiar with the whole "works vs. grace" debate. Oneness Pentecostalism does NOT teach that one is saved by works, but rather that there is more required of one wishing to be saved (which salvation is offered entirely due to and by and through the grace of God) than merely believing in Jesus. Oneness Pentecostals interpret certain passages of scripture to require, in addition to faith, the acts of repentance, baptism and receipt of the Holy Ghost for the one wishing to be saved. The salvation comes from God, not by one's works; the difference between us and you is in the specific things God asks or requires of one to be given this salvation. We could argue this all day and all night, but that is not my purpose here. Rather, I simply wish to correct this misnomer that Oneness Pentecostals "practice a works salvation as opposed to one based on grace." That is incorrect, and would even be considered insulting by many Oneness Pentecostals (though I know without a doubt that no insult of any kind was intended here!). See the "Soteriology" section of this article for a more-detailed explanation.
With regard to the "holiness" guidelines, Oneness Pentecostals believe these to have been essentially mandated in Scripture by the Apostles themselves, though there is disagreement within the UPCI and other Oneness organizations as to exactly what these standards consist of and how they should be applied. Some believe TV is wrong under any circumstances whatsoever, but others do not. Some believe women should never wear pants, even at home, while others--while still believing in skirts or dresses for women as being the proper attire--tend to leave this matter to an individual's discretion. Some insist on clean-shaven men, while others do not consider this to be quite so essential. Some Oneness preachers thunder "standards" from their pulpits much like a "hell fire and damnation" sermon my father might have given in the Baptist church, while others choose to be more circumspect about presenting this topic, especially with newer members (my own pastor has told me "horror stories" on that subject!). The one thing that IS taught is that these standards are NOT a means of salvation, nor do they necessarily indicate by themselves that one is sanctified. They follow salvation, rather than causing it, and they must proceed out of genuine, heartfelt love for God and an inward conviction that one should follow them out of love for the Lord--not out of a perceived need to keep rules or feel "better" than the next guy--or their keeping will be worthless. I don't mean to "get up on the soapbox" here, but I won't stand by and see my faith misrepresented (even by those with the best of intentions, as I am sure is the case here!) without saying something.
I wrote or reorganized a fair chunk of this article, and if it seems "promotional," I am sorry for that, as that was exactly the opposite of what I was striving for. I went to extreme lengths to make it objective and fair, while still endeavoring to represent Oneness Pentecostalism as it is--not as Trinitarians or others believe it to be. I do not agree that it was "promotional;" rather, it was simply a presentation of the facts, with sources provided. I could just as easily say the same thing ("promotional") with regard to articles about other churches--and I'd be just as wrong. I've been on both sides of this equation, and I would observe that my Oneness brethren have just as many misconceptions about Trinitarians as the Trinitarians have about them. Dispelling some of these misconceptions was my main purpose in getting involved in this article in the first place.
I am going to remove the last sentence of the second paragraph; I'd like to see sources (more than one) for that statement, as even the AofG (which fights Oneness Pentecostalism tooth and nail) has stated that they do not consider Oneness believers to not be Christians at all; rather, they consider them to be sincere Christians who are nevertheless deceived and incorrect in their theology. If that sentence is reinstated, there needs to be sources for it, sources from the "mainstream churches" mentioned in that sentence--not websites run by individual preachers and independent so-called "ministries"--that say that Oneness are not Christians at all (as opposed to being Christians who are incorrect in their theology or deceived, as the AofG maintains, for instance).
"Longer" does NOT necessarily mean "more difficult to read." I believe (as Ltwin affirmed) that since there is such a radical difference between Oneness believers and other Christians on such fundamental subjects as the Godhead and baptism, it behooves an article on this subject to state, even if only briefly, those points of similarity that exist between Oneness Pentecostals and other Pentecostals, Evangelicals and Christians. That having been said, I reiterate that I mean no "ill will" toward anyone here, and nor do I believe that anything other than the best of motives and intentions exist with all parties to this issue. I just wanted to correct a few misnomers, and bring up some matters that I think were misstated, that's all. Best wishes to everyone, and God bless! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Ltwin's observations about salvation and the opening or "lead" section of this article. This is certainly a distinct item of difference between oneness and the rest of Pentecostalism and Evangelical Christianity, at least as important as the differences on the Godhead and Salvation. Hence, I've added some material to the last paragraph of the opening section on this subject. Comments, anyone? God bless! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
DJ Clayworth asks "who accuses them [Oneness Pentecostals] of Arianism?" Oneness Pentecostals HAVE been accused of being Arians, mostly in statements or sermons made by individuals as opposed to official declarations of churches. Consider the following:
I could go on and on, but I believe that the above is sufficient to demonstrate my point. Hence, I am reverting the edit, no offense intended. - Ecjmartin ( talk) 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, on closer inspection of these references I find that they do not support your viewpoint. Let me tell you what I see, point by point.
Since you say you have plenty of references, please supply one of the others that you have which is not a blog or forum post, and from a reliable source. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reasons that Holy Ghost is used in this article rather than Holy Spirit? Holy Ghost is an archaic usage in general. If Oneness Pentecostals use Holy Ghost then fine, but otherwise we should go with the standard naming. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Oneness Pentecostalism is itself a category within Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. — Robert Greer ( talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed a whole load of people listed as "noteable Oneness Pentecostals" because I couldn't find a reference for any of them. Feel free to add back any for which we have reliable sources. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I just tidied up a few things from the article. We don't capitalize common nouns even when they describe God; we do capitalize proper names. So "The Holy Spirit is one manifestation of God", but "God is spirit".
Please note that the article should not present the beliefs of the group as if they were factual, so "Oneness Pentecostals believe that the concept of persons of God is not mentioned in the Bible". Others disagree. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add names of people who are Oneness Pentecostals without an independent, reliable reference to say so. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia articles should not be forums for convincing people that a belief is right, just stating that this is the belief people hold. I've removed some arguments. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals are Monotheistic and in turn proclaim that Trinitarian Christians beleive in three gods. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals beleive the name of God is Jesus and within Him is the fullness of the godhead. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe that sins are washed away in baptism by complete submersion in the water by applying the name of Jesus. Penecostal Trinitarians mostly say in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, yet apply the name Jesus in prayer for forgivness of sin. This is because Trinitarians beleive salvation from sin occurse through repentance. While Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals beleive one is saved when one has received the Holy Ghost. The evidence of which is by way of speaking in an unknown tongue (or in tongues.) Most Trinitarian Pentecostals beleive at repentance one accepts Jesus Christ inside of you.
There are disputes about what happens at the time of repentance, baptism and the time of one receiving salvation. Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that repentance is not only being sorry of sins committed but also a the time in which an individual takes on the name of Jesus. Meaning they are on the path to heaven. Although Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe repentance is an about-face, most believe that the next step of water baptism is necessary step toward salvation. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe that repentance is not enough, but like the KJV Bible says in Acts 2:38, baptism is the next step. According to this belief baptism washes sin away which prepares one for the receiving of the Holy Ghost, and it is taking on the name of Jesus. The name of Jesus being applied this way means you are adopted by god and a child of god. This is also a public demonstration of one's faith that Jesus is god and commitment to his work. Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals celebrate the act of receiving the Holy Ghost the most of any other event. Receiving the Holy Ghost is the sign of salvation according to most Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals. Since this action is so important much of the energy and focus is on this experience happening.
Furthermore the seeking after this tongues experience in a Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal setting is much different than a tongues experience in a Trinitarian setting. This is because of the two distinct beliefs of what speaking in tongues really mean or is evidence of. For Trinitarians it is furthering one's relationship with god, but to Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals it is this and more, it is a sign of salvation itself.
Most interesting is the issue of oneness. Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that Jesus forgives sin and through only him is there salvation. Trinitarians do not believe in three gods and many do speak in tongues but their focus in on Jesus Christ. Meanwhile Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe in "Jesus only" yet rely on the Holy Ghost to save them. So, while so similar each claim distinct differences, of which change one's entire perspective on the type of god that exists and how one can achieve salvation. Even though Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe in forgiveness of sin by the application of the name of Jesus upon forgiveness, the first time one seeks god repentance is not enough to achieve salvation. So, it seems that Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals make more distinctions about what the Father does, the Son does and the Holy Ghost does, than the Trinitarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.73.146 ( talk) 00:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears to me that you don't actually understand the doctrine of Oneness. "Jesus only" is a misnomer, as it implies that we don't believe in the Father or Holy Ghost. That is incorrect. Whereas Trinitarians believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate persons within the Godhead, Oneness teaches that these are simply titles of the one God. Here is the basis of our belief: God exists as one Spirit: John 4:24; Eph. 4:4. Since God is, by nature, holy, that one Spirit is, by definition, the Holy Spirit. That same one Spirit caused Mary to conceive (Matt. 1:18-20), thereby becoming the Father of Jesus. Thus, we believe that Father and Holy Ghost are simply different titles of the same one Spirit. That same Spirit then inhabited the body of His son: 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 3:16. This is why Isaiah could identify the Messiah as the Father (Is. 9:6), why Jesus could tell His disciples that by seeing Him they had already seen the Father (John 14:8-9), and why Paul could state that ALL the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus. (Col. 2:9) We see further evidence in the response of the Apostles to the command of Matthew 28:19. In this verse, Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Trinitarians tend to ignore Apostolic practice in this area, and simply focus on repeating the words of the command. But if we look at all the places where the apostles actually baptized, we can see clearly that they never once repeated those titles in baptism. In every case, they baptized using only the name of Jesus. (Acts chapters 2, 8, 10, 19 & 22) Did they ignore/disobey the command of Jesus? Of course not. If they were going to do that, why would they bother to record His command in the first place? To record it, and then ignore it, would only make them look bad. So clearly, they understood something about the command. Jesus did NOT say to baptize in three titles, but in one name. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not names, but simply titles. Titles have no authority or power. (Try signing a check with one of your titles instead of your name, and you'll see that this is true.) The apostles understood that Jesus is the one God in flesh, and that He is the Father, who is the one Spirit, in the son (the human body of Jesus). And so, by baptizing in the only name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), they actually obeyed the command of Matthew 28:19. In fact, Paul commanded us to do EVERYTHING in that name. (Col. 3:17) Why would baptism be excluded from that? So here we see that the Oneness Pentecostals are obeying the command, while Trinitarians are only repeating the words of the command. More about Jesus: From His mother, Jesus inherited a human body and a human nature. As a man, He said and did things that God does not. He ate, drank, prayed, feared, suffered and died. As a man, His knowledge was limited. But within that body was also another nature... the one Spirit of God. And as God in flesh, Jesus did things man cannot. He forgave sins, calmed the sea, claimed to predate Abraham and to be the I AM (John 8:58), and rose from the dead. Whereas Trinitarians believe the "Son" is an eternal person in a triune Godhead, Oneness teaches that the "Son" refers only to the humanity of Jesus, that part which was begotten, and did, indeed, have a beginning. (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5) Where there three "persons" present at the baptism of Jesus? Not unless the Holy Ghost is a bird. God is a Spirit. That Spirit is omnipresent: in heaven, on earth, and in Jesus simultaneously. The dove was simply a visible representation of that omnipresent Spirit. The voice was that same Spirit, identifying His son. And what did He say about His son? This is often overlooked, but both the English and original Greek make it clear: He did not say "this is my Son, with whom I am pleased." He said, "This is my beloved Son IN whom I am pleased." The Greek preposition implies a location. Compare with Col. 1:19, which, when properly translated from the Greek, states that "all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him." The fact that this Spirit was omnipresent, in heaven, on earth, and in Jesus, is the reason that Jesus could claim to be both on earth and in heaven at the same time: John 3:13. Thus, at the baptism of Jesus, we have only the one Spirit who is our God, and His son Jesus in whom the fullness of that one God dwells. BroWCarey ( talk) 13:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it desired for the Oneness believers to look ignorant? "They generally believe the doctrine is an invention of the fourth-century Council of Nicea, which made it orthodox." It is quite clear that the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially established until the Council of Constantinople in 381. As a matter of fact, the creed established at Nicaea in 325 condemned those who said that Jesus Christ was not of the hypostasis of the Father, hypostasis of which is generally the level at which Jesus is understood as being distinguished from the Father. This clause was then dropped from the creed at 381, and the idea of "three hypostases of one ousia" was introduced. Thus, it is evident that the doctrine of the Trinity was not defined until the Council of Constantinople, and that the Council of Nicaea, on the other hand, constructed a faith that could even be interpreted as anti-Trinitarian. As such, I think the section on the Trinity and the Council of Nicaea should be edited, because the original Nicene Creed is not necessarily inconsistent with oneness doctrine. Deusveritasest ( talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a lot of references which were just biblcal verses. I would remind contributors that Wikipedia is not a theology essay, where you use biblical quotes to back up your argument. The references should be used to establish that Oneness Pentecostals do indeed believe what is said here. The Bible is a primary source, and so not admissible as Wikipedia references. It is also believe by groups other than Oneness Pentecostals, who interpret it differently. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There are several references to David Bernard's book, "The Oneness of God", with links to http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm . Compuserve has discontinued OurWorld in its entirety. I have found the book at http://www.newlifeupc.org/wp-content/uploads/online-books/oneness/One-Top.html and http://www.newbeginningchurch.com/oneness.htm . I think one of these should be used for the reference links to fix the dead links that point to the Compuserve site. Nutster ( talk) 07:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Common passages of scripture among Oneness Pentecostals include...". Apart from being unreferenced, this statement doesn't really convey any useful information. Are we saying that Oneness adherents selective believe these passages more than other passages? (Don't even think about what a Oneness theologian would say if he thought we meant this.) Are we saying they quote them more often? (If so, where's the evidence). In any case, I've removed this. It can go back if it can be turned into a coherent and referenced statement. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 22:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Undid revision by Ltwin. The statement "The first LGBT-affirming Oneness Pentecostals began to organize..." implies that prior to that date, there were no LGBT-affirming Oneness Pentecostals. There is no way to know that or verify it. Thus, I returned to the original "LGBT-affirming Oneness Pentecostals first began to organize..." I also corrected the date in Ltwin's revision. It was 1980, not 1890. BroWCarey ( talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean about the blank space. It is weird. BroWCarey ( talk) 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"As do all Christians, Oneness Pentecostals maintain that no good works or obedience to law can save anyone, apart from God's grace."
Is a claim of universality practical or useful here? Does it not possibly read as though Sola Fide is maintained by "all Christians", which would be inaccurate? If it means that saving is an act of God's grace, and not a reward for works, why not cut the four words and make the statement cleanly? It is, after all, an article on Oneness Pentecostalism and not broader Christianity. Why not state "Oneness Pentecostals maintain..."? Why stage it with "As do all Christians"???
Just the way I'm reading it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.246.135 ( talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not "just" the way you are reading it. The sentence, "As do all Christians" definitively states that all professing Christianity have a certain belief, and I feel should provide references, context notwithstanding.
As for Sola Fide: The article states; "Oneness soteriology differs significantly from that of most other Pentecostal and Evangelical factions. Whereas most of them require only faith in Jesus for salvation, Oneness Pentecostalism defines salvation as repentance, baptism (in Jesus' name) and receipt of the Holy Spirit."
The definition, from the article:
There are many more than Oneness Pentecostals that believe in 3 stages of justification;
As for the charge of "a works based salvation": Without faith and belief would there be no avenue leading to salvation? If a person believes, has faith, asks for forgiveness, he certainly has passed the initial criteria to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit). Oneness Pentecostals do not believe that these alone provides Salvation through life and into eternity. The Bible states, with many references, that baptism is necessary for eternal salvation. Some believe in a "Once saved always saved" doctrine. If this would be true then there would seem to be no reason for the books between Acts and Revelation, no need to witness, or any of the things portrayed in the Bible, so Oneness Pentecostals believe that faith without works is dead as referenced in James 2:18, 2:20, and 2:26. If salvation, meaning allowing entry to heaven with no works, is the actual definition of "Sola Fide" then there are many that disagree. There are many that believe that faith and salvation bring about "good" works and it is mandated: I Peter 4:18; "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?". One does not have to work to be saved but there is no free ride to Heaven and salvation into eternity with Jesus Christ requires a lot of work. Matthew 7:13-15; 13-Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14-Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15-Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Otr500 ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well thank you Ltwin but I was neither giving a sermon nor, no disrespect intended, care if anyone is looking for one or not. You were not replying to my question though. I was initially replying to the unsigned question that you had also replied to. That question was concerning an "offending" ( your words not mine ) phrase. I am not Catholic so the other person must have been the one offended. The article is listed as a controversial topic so I simply intended to offer an opinion on 1)- the question, 2)- Sola Fide, and then your statement about 3)- Charges of a "works" based salvation. The question was simply, Does it not possibly read as though Sola Fide is maintained by "all Christians", which would be inaccurate? and the answer, which would be a consensus now, is yes. You did add things that I thought unnecessary, nor did you actually answer the question in your reply. You did add a defending sentence in your reply concerning the "charge", so I added a reply with reasoning.
the information given on oneness in not purely accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.99.59 ( talk) 11:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)