This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oneness Pentecostalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Oneness Pentecostalism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I provided a more direct link concerning Tim Blixseth. As for as I know he is still alive, with an article ( WP:BLP) on Wikipedia, so the criteria is more stringent. While it is evident that the entry concerning abandoning his faith is probably correct, the reference does not state this (I did not see it), so it shouldn't be worded as such. I reworded the entry, along with corrections, to be more accurate according to the reference. On another note I am looking to see how this information is relevant and/or needed in this article. His parents went to a specific church but I have not seen where he espoused those beliefs in the first place let alone abandoned them. I think that if this information is actually important it should be in the article on him. Otr500 ( talk) 23:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The use of the word tritheism to describe Trinitarianism is not NPOV, as it reflects only the opinion of some. Nontrinitarian is an accurate term, and is NPOV. While it is not unique to Oneness, and thus isn't fully explanatory, it doesn't need to be. The rest of the article explains the doctrine. BroWCarey ( talk) 21:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not know where the article speaks of tritheism, but I can tell you as a matter of fact that tritheism and the Trinity are not the same thing. In fact, it was condemned by the early Church. Tritheism is taught to be three gods working together whereas the Trinity is taught by Christians as being one God in three divine persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If you would like any legitimate information on this, please let me know. -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Where is the reasons for disputing the neutrality of the article? Keep in mind that the view of other Christian denominations or other religions can be used for contrast, but can not themselves be deemed to be more objective than the views of Oneness Pentecostalism believers and should not be used as a reason to dispute the neutrality of the article. Unless reasons for the dispute are given soon, I will remove the dispute marker, say in about a week. Nutster ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos[1] and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion[2] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.[3] It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[4]
What about our/my organization which is nation wide and formed in the early 1900's. AOH (Apostolic Overcoming Holy church of God) headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.183.189 ( talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
per WP:BLP I have removed the entry for Tim Blixseth as a notable member of the church. The source cited makes no such claim in fact the source quotes Blixseth as saying he has no religion and the source does not link his parent's cult to Oneness.
This article is very useful in its current form. I'm not saying it can't be better, but I was glad to be directed here from patripassionism. Witnessforpeace ( talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I find this article to lack a lot of clarity. Even as a former UPCI, I found it difficult to navigate and understand, so I wonder how those who are researching this topic will react. The article also seems biased. Just my thoughts.
Would someone be able to clarify the following for me: "PCI tradition" and "PAJC tradition"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastornar ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The last couple of comments added to the talk page look like the kind of thing that could be accommodated using the WP:AFT5 feedback tool. I am wondering what others think of adding this tool to the bottom of the article. Nutster ( talk) 12:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
When using a Multiple issues template in an article, it is incumbent on the editor to explain details about these points in the talk page. I do not see anything from January 2013 or more recently that points out specifics about the noted topics: Where are extra citations needed? Which page references are too broad? Where in the article are the citations unclear?
We have already had a major discussion on NPOV last year. If you feel that the above discussion did not clear things up, please be specific about how the article is not neutral and what can be done to make it more so.
Again, this has been sitting here for almost a year. If the discussion does not start soon, like a couple of weeks, I will clear the template from the article and be done with it. Nutster ( talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I restored the deletion made by user:Musdan77 to the section Notable Adherents. The stated reason for the removal was "unsourced or non-notable content." Sources were included, so it can't be called unsourced. And I don't see how the founder of a denomination that has since grown into a worldwide movement of denominations can be considered non-notable. Prior to future edits/revisions, can we get some feedback from others? BroWCarey ( talk) 05:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Would someone fix a statement in Holiness standards subsection? The statement "According to standards written in the late-1990s...", might be correct as "rewritten" standards but the sentence makes it appear that Oneness standards began or were first written in the late 1990s. Otr500 ( talk) 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
In the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" section, the article says, Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals, Oneness adherents assert that receipt of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation." The clause "Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals," needs to be removed, as it's not true. Most Christians think receiving the Holy Spirit is needed for salvation. They just don't agree that it must be manifested by speaking in tongues.
Changes made.
Many Christians baptise in Jesus name,tthis does not make them adherents to oneness pentacostalism.MMany Christians believebbaptism is critical for salvation, as is receiving the Holy Spirit.. This does not mean that they are onenessppentacostals. Many Christians wear pants, so doooneness pentacostals. . Notaallccorrelationsppoint to causation. While some of these things are features of oneness pentacostal cchurches they are not that which uniquely defines their beliefs. To start downtthis road would require a very largellistof doctorines held in common with many other churches
---It has been my experience as a Pentecostal minister that, other than Oneness Pentecostals, very few Christians practice baptism in Jesus' name. The overwhelming majority of Christians baptize using the formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Although I have known a very small minority of Trinitarian Pentecostals who baptized in Jesus' name, by and large, baptism in the one name is a hallmark of Oneness Pentecostalism. As far as wearing pants, the majority of Oneness Pentecostal women do not. There are some smaller Oneness groups and individual churches that allow more freedom of dress, but the largest Oneness organizations do not.
By the way, I don't think this article intended to imply that any Christians who believe baptism is essential for salvation, or that receiving the Spirit is essential, are automatically Oneness Pentecostals. Rather, while it does contrast the Apostolic (Oneness) beliefs with those of most other Christians, it does so particularly in respect to Trinitarian Pentecostals, a great many of whom no longer believe water baptism is essential, some of whom don't believe receiving the Spirit is essential, and some of whom no longer believe that the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit is speaking in tongues. (I say "no longer," because when Pentecostal churches began to proliferate in the early 20th century, all of them believed water baptism was essential, all believed that speaking in tongues was the initial evidence, and with the exception of those denominations that had already existed as part of the holiness movement, all believed receiving the Spirit was essential. For the most part, only Oneness Pentecostals retain all of those beliefs today.)
Also, I would recommend that you check your spelling and grammar before posting. An occasional error is no big deal; we all make them. But you've got a minimum of 24 errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar in just that short passage. It makes it very difficult to read and understand. BroWCarey ( talk) 04:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Gospel singer Vestal Goodman and her family have roots in the Pentecostal Church of God, not Oneness Pentecostalism. The PCG is Trinitarian, not Oneness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.177.176 ( talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This seems to have been in the interim. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 19:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
In multiple locations in the article, some recent edits have included a third parameter (Version) of 9. e.g. { {bibleverse|Acts|8:12|9} } The use of 9 in the Version parameter is not in the documentation for the Bibleverse template. What is that supposed to do? I recommended changing that parameter to match one of the documented values. Nutster ( talk) 15:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Modalism has long been recognised as a heresy. They can call themselves what they want, but they are not Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.129.6 ( talk) 07:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors! I am a newbie here. So go easy on me.
If you will please review the most recent edits that I have done to the Intro section I would appreciate it. I know that one fellow contributor has already voiced concern and reverted to the prior version. However, I feel that the edits are not so extravagant, nor guilty of the allegations proposed, to merit full reversion.
Two points stick out to me:
1) The Intro section should briefly answer the question: "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe?" This can even be re-worded as "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" However, the aforementioned question is implied within the latter, in my opinion.
2) Concerning the specifics of the Oneness doctrine, it seems logical that summaries of such should come from a Oneness Theologian and not from the doctrine's opponents. In a reply to one of the critics of the edit, I used the analogy of asking a Democrat to describe the Republican Party's platform. I think we can all imagine how that might turn out and how a Republican might disagree with the word choices and presentative of the facts.
When I stumbled upon this article I was a bit flabbergasted by the lack of accuracy and inability to answer the fundamental question of "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" This is what led to my edit. It is the reason I made a Wikipedia account. However, I am not unaware that the doctrine has its critics and these critics are well-learned scholars. Still, there is scholarship on either side of the debate. Furthermore, when it comes to academics in the realm of theology and religion, the debate is always ongoing. The consensus on topics changes from generation to generation. One cannot be ridged with presuppositions and expect adequate representation of the facts. I have read the contention concerning whether or not Oneness Pentecostals are or are not Christian. This is the case and point. Scholarly presentation requires objectivity.
-- Timboact238 ( talk) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, my political analogy was meant to represent extreme views held by the one describing the other. However, after reviewing the style guide, I do see that analogies such as this are best left unsaid for the purposes you stated.
Back to the issue at hand, the Oneness view should not be presented in its summary as a form of modalism because it is a contentious point of academic debate. It is presented as fact. That's the thing with religion topics, opponents present interpretations of sacred text as fact and cite the opinions of other others from long-ago as fact when it is all still supposition and opinion. There are differences between modalism and Oneness Pentecostalism.
And how was I "alleging to revise in favor with no competing sources" when I clearly used verifiable sources? Also, it's not favor verses unfavorable because I used quotations. I'll concede that I need to remove the language "well published theologian" as fluff or Peacock working, despite the fact that it is true. The guy as authored a ton of books. I digress.
The summer of oneness doctrine is also lacking in accuracy. First, even Wikipedia's style guide says that religious topics with contentious elements should be tactful with giving the debate itself undue weight. The presenting the Oneness doctrine's first point of belief(of two... And the second doesn't take a lot of words either) and immediately contrasting it with an opposing and contentious viewpoint gives undue weight to the controversy. Literally, it cuts the summary in half and references Trinitarianism. Related to this, citing the relatively minor evidence of "the word Trinity" as a primary point is misleading. The core and foundational belief comes from the Shema and not some reasoning with the lack of Trinity in the Bible. I concede that many use this as a relatively minor arguement but to educate the reader in condensed form the Shema is the preferred key support. Timboact238 ( talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, as they quotation is riddled with autocorrect mistakes. It is supposed to say "academic opinions of other groups." and not "the group."
I do apologize, but I am a bit confused by your sentence structure in the past reply. Please shorten you sentences into succinct points to be better understood.
However, if I didn't understand. You seem to bounce back and forth between focusing on the entire article and the lead and what constitutes undue weight in your interpretation. Is undue weight a paragraph-by-paragraph issue, section-by-section, or the article in its entirety in your interpretation of Wikipedia's style guide?
Academic consensus? This is only because Oneness is a minority. Therefore, every opposing view will be the consensus. It's a numbers game. There are more opposing theologians writing source material. The guidelines seem pretty clear that minority groups require special care. This right here seems to be the reason for the endless rehashing. Proponents of the Trinity claim academic consensus and proponents of Oneness say it's a NPOV. Which I concede it is NPOV as a whole. I simply disagree with the accuracy of the condensed explaination of Oneness doctrine and they allegations of modalism be reserved for coverage in a separate sentence with langauge that explains the important point that it is not exactly like ancient modalism but similar to and compared to such by modern scholars. That's a more accurate statement. Also, if it is called modalism by a formal dictionary, then is that dictionary the citation? Timboact238 ( talk) 03:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I read the Oxford dictionary this morning. Although the first sentence of the definition is in accordance with the main attribute of Oneness doctrine, the second portion in italics is that exact thing about modalism that Oneness Pentecostalism is not: the belief in progressive changes over time. This was the purpose one a single sentence in the edit I proposed. As far as the number of sources as a whole, I've already said from the start the the article as a whole is fine and holds a NPOV. The problem with yours and my approaches is that you claim academic consensus against a minority group, seemingly ignoring Wikipedia's guidances on articles specifically about a minority group. I don't believe I "purged" any sources from any section. If I did, put that particularly source back.
For the record, the Oxford dictionary definition was not originally cited. Once again, if a user makes a point that's valid, it's professional to acknowledge such. I asked plainly if it were cited in the lead and it was not. It's good that it is now. Nonetheless, I can quote directly from Dr. Bernard saying that the progressive changing aspects of modalism are not part of the Oneness doctrine. You can argue academic consensus but this is a minority group page; therefore, the opinion of the minority group should be given special treatment. A better way to say it would be "is compared to modalism" or "is similar to modalism" but it is inaccurate to equate Oneness doctrine with modalism. Again, this may not be the majority opinion the larger stage of theologians, but that is simply a numbers game. Oneness Pentecostals literally have one accredited Seminary offering advanced degrees in theology and Christian ministry and it has been around in this capacity for less than a decade. I can also point to verifiable sources saying that the Shema is the foundation support for the doctrine from a Oneness Theologian. This is more accurate than citing the word game with the word "Trinity."
I'm not soapbox. I am not preaching Oneness through this medium. I have specific point of concern backed by reason and source material. It seems that I am being stonewalled.
My edit may not have been written in the proper style, initially. However, the core content changes, that is, the verifiable facts added, were worded using direct quotations to maintain NPOV and reflect scholarship on the subject. I didn't remove the comparison to modalism. I did clarify it and give special treatment to the minority group's own academic assessment. Once again, claiming consensus against a minority group is a loaded arguement. Even Wikipedia, by my understanding, calls for special treatment here. Timboact238 ( talk) 11:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That was the best reply I have read yet! Really, I appreciate the clarity and succinct points. I honestly feel I understood all of it, which is a first. I believe possibly some of the Wikipedia jargon is lost on me,for now, but this is reply was really quite explanatory and I appreciate it immensely! In short, thank you!
Back to the subject.
First, please don't assume I have only studied Oneness doctrine. As I've stated on my user talk thread, I wasn't raised in this denomination or doctrine. During my youth, I went through an entirely different religions education program that was Trinitarian. I'll leave it at that because it's not worth sharing the specifics.
I assure you, if you knew me personally, you would know how unfounded that notion is. You don't. I understand that this is your perception, which is valid as an opinion. I respect it. I really do.
I digress.
I understand now that you look at due weight, NPOV, and bias from the wholistic standpoint. I agree. I also understand that you apparently dispute Dr. Bernard's assessment against equating Oneness doctrine perfectly with modalism, per you arguement that the second portion of the definition clarified Oneness theology.
Quoting the section on question:"He uses metaphors and illustrations that confuse the persons of the Trinity and describes God's being as changing, over time, from one divine person to another (an idea known as modalism or patripassionism)."
Now I'll quote my proposed revision of the comparison for reference. "Many theologians consider it similar to Modalistic Monarchianism, considered to be a heresy refuted by the early church.[10] However, a key difference between Modalistic Monarchianism, otherwise known as modalism, and Oneness Pentecostalism is the belief that the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are subsequent and progressive manifestations of the One Indivisible God, which is not entirely accurate with regard to Oneness Pentecostalism.[12]"
In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with Oneness. The citation remains intact and the fact is conveyed. What I do show is clarification of a single, yet important, distinction. You may not agree, but Dr. Bernard is the theologian, not you or I.
Quoting from Dr. Bernard's work (reference 12). "Finally, since we do not know with certainty everything the various modalists believed, it is not productive to identify modern Oneness directly with ancient modalism, Patripassianism, or Sabellianism." Further: "Third, modern Oneness does not accept the expansion-contraction, successive-manifestation theory attributed to Sabellius."
So, here we have direct disagreement with your personal assessment that the definition clarifies it's equation to Oneness theology by a Oneness theologian. The "expansion and contraction" referenced by Bernard is speaking of the idea of progressive changes over time. This is a key point within the quoted text of the definition. Second, Bernard clearly points out modalism and patripassionism (albeit spelled differently, for whatever reason) as not accurately equated with Oneness doctrine.
So, are you disagreeing with Dr. Bernard's assessment as an expert of Oneness theology?
I thought we were not allowed to make our own assessments of information; to conduct our own research.
Nonetheless, if your issue remains that this is covered later in the text of the article, where is the harm in moving the information in summary to the introduction? Once again, if the arguement is that it is addressed later in the body, then it invalidates the arguement that it's categorically untrue and should be removed because it is there already.
This logical applies to the other proposed edits. If the Shema is mentioned later, why not switch the position of the "word game" with the Trinity example with the Shema? This would maintain the presence of both sources, convey the same message from a wholistic standpoint (ie article as a whole) and sufficiently communicate the true foundational principle of the doctrine.
To say a few things in closing this reply, I have learned a great deal of things in the past few days that have encouraged me concerning the deep thought and care Wikipedia editors put into these articles. As a scholar of a different field, I have always avoided Wikipedia because in academic writing it is unreliable presumably because anyone to write anything and publish it. While that is technically true, I can see that there are checks and balances of a sort. It isn't perfect but it's a great concept and tool for sharing knowledge for free.
I can see beyond a doubt that my originally proposed edits would not meet Wikipedia's standards for style for a number of reasons. However, I'm not convinced that there style issues cut to the content itself or my core intent to bring central facts to the lead section that are cited elsewhere. As I've said before, if these points are covered, then it is about order of presentation and not the content itself.
I am learning. I will continue to learn. All I ask is for clear, succinct responses with Wikipedia-jargon clarified within the context of the response. Timboact238 ( talk) 15:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Typographical error: I said, "In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with Oneness."
And I meant: "In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with modalism." Timboact238 ( talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
no, LDS thought is not a version of Arianism. In Arianism Jesus was a subordinate creature. In LDSism, Jesus was begotten, not made - just as every other human being is a literal natural child of God, and God and his wives and his brothers and sisters and his cousins and his aunts are all natural children of other gods before them, ad infinitum. Far from Arianism or JWism. -- 142.163.195.18 ( talk) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Whiteguru ( talk · contribs) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --
Whiteguru (
talk) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
HTML document size: 305 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 52 kB References (including all HTML code): 148 kB Wiki text: 80 kB Prose size (text only): 32 kB (5233 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 21 kB
Hello, fellow editors! I have a concern about a potential dispute on the Baptismal formula section of the article, specifically in regards to the statement, "and several scholarly sources used by Oneness Pentecostals deriding it have been outdated pertaining to modern consensus on the Didache's text and dating." Here's the context: "In contrast, the Didache (a Jewish Christian text generally dated to the first century AD) cites the Trinitarian formula, and several scholarly sources used by Oneness Pentecostals deriding it have been outdated pertaining to modern consensus on the Didache's text and dating.[126][127][128][129] Additionally, mainstream Christians exegete "in the name of Jesus Christ" as by the "authority of Jesus" which denotes baptism in the name of the three persons of the Trinity." I have a few concerns with this statement, which is why I removed it in an edit, but I noticed that it was restored, so I wanted to open up a discussion to hopefully resolve the issue.
My concerns are mainly this:
Instead of re-deleting the text in question, I have decided that opening a discussion would be a better way to resolve this issue. Here are my recommendations for moving forward with this particular statement:
Please let me know your thoughts on this! Thank you for your input! JParksT2023 ( talk) 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello JParksT2023, thank you for initiating this discussion. I intended to begin it, but my internet was temporarily unavailable; forgive me. Looking through these sources, specifically, the one Oneness Pentecostal source within the cohort, the Oneness scholar stated it was a second century AD text; others generally accepted it as a first-century AD text. Therefore, the statement against impartiality cannot be substantiated in this sense. I do resonate with you, being an adamant Oneness Pentecostal according to your personal account, feeling this makes your religion's viewpoint as "oudated and naive." With that stated, none of us (regardless of our viewpoints) should have those emotions and attempt to usurp against a supposed personal grievance with the information for the purpose of it attacking our religion (according to personal emotional appeal). If that were so, I would have written a statement about creation science a long time ago, respectfully dear Wikipedian and collaborator of a like-minded faith. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 23:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
With all this in mind, I don't think that it's an accurate statement to say that "most scholars" or even "most mainstream Christian scholars" reject the Oneness assertion. In fact, there are many who support it. So, I would suggest that the wording be changed to "and this view has received support from some scholars." or something similar to accurately present the information in a fair way.
Thank you for your continued work on this page! JParksT2023 ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it is our purpose to be understanding. As for me believing the Nicene Creed, I care less for Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian personal viewpoints, meaning I give equal weight to all Christian traditions just as I would Democratic and Republican-based articles here on Wikipedia; if you cannot remain impartial, this is not the place to be. Therefore, this assumption can be characterized as unequivocally false, though thought in good faith. Anyways casting all of that introductory clarification aside to the betterment of collaborative editing, that reference is removed from that portion, following personal disagreement which is applicable contextually; as for the statement, mainstream references all the majority of Christendom as has existed before 1913-1914 (which means the referencing of Trinitarian Christendom). Without mentioning the Trinitarian rebuttal, couldn't that be considered undue weight? As for agreeing with Oneness development on the doctrine of the Trinity, that first secular source is as flawed as the citation removed, especially considering nowhere does the Nicaean Council refer to establishing the Trinity inasmuch so as some Seventh-Day Adventists and others of Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian variety claim (using sources) that Constantine compiled the Bible. The Britannica sources are mentioned frequently enough in this article too, which could be citatitive overkill, respectfully writing (particularly considering the whole article consists of mainly pro- or pro-leaning Oneness sources). Regarding the dictionary source published in 1992, that information evokes the same outdated information as it solidified the Holy Spirit's role in a Christian's life and the world, not proclaiming, "we finalize the creation of a new doctrine called the Trinity, huzzah." These are suggestions focusing on a mere word and its lack, yet neither is the suit and tie worn by many mentioned in the Bible among other things. The so called, source of The Dictionary of the Bible appears to be deliberate misquotation and apparent advocacy due to rebuttals from those of the institution they came from and heralded, the Catholic Church (example: Jehovah’s Witnesses: Masters of Misquotation). When presenting sources, this is about verifiable, contextual accuracy, not something that merely supports one point of view over another (thereby being balanced). Therefore, I would suggest in return that quotations out of context are no longer used, out of context. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was Oneness Pentecostal for seven years. My stepmother had been Oneness most of her life. We often went to church more than once a week.
Not once, NOT ONCE! did I ever hear ANYTHING denouncing the Trinity. Not from my stepmother, not from any preacher, not from any teacher. Such a preposterous allegation makes no sense since the Trinity is supported by much scripture and Oneness Pentecostals emphasize meticulous examination of scripture.
Most all of the emphasis that differs from ordinary Pentecostals is about baptism. Admittedly, Oneness Pentecostals also deny the idea of salvation by faith alone. Yet this isn't uncommon among many Protestants.
In this article about Oneness Pentecostalism found on the UPCI website, any opportunity to denounce the Trinity is seriously overlooked. https://www.upci.org/about/about-oneness-pentecostalism .
Charlemange's 42- ggson ( talk) 18:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
It is true that doctrinal statements on Apostolic church websites usually don't delve deeply into theology or mention/contradict the Trinity. Is that right? Why not? -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) But even such a statement as "There is one God who has manifested Himself to the world as the Father in creation, the son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in regeneration" is incompatible with trinitarian teaching, since trinitarian teaching declares that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate divine Beings, who still constitute one God, not manifestations of one Being. But the reason websites often don't go into detail and come right out and say they don't believe in the Trinity is to avoid starting arguments, or scaring people off. Or not being honest in what they really believe? -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The only way I could respond to the above statement was to do so in bold text. -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oneness Pentecostalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Oneness Pentecostalism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I provided a more direct link concerning Tim Blixseth. As for as I know he is still alive, with an article ( WP:BLP) on Wikipedia, so the criteria is more stringent. While it is evident that the entry concerning abandoning his faith is probably correct, the reference does not state this (I did not see it), so it shouldn't be worded as such. I reworded the entry, along with corrections, to be more accurate according to the reference. On another note I am looking to see how this information is relevant and/or needed in this article. His parents went to a specific church but I have not seen where he espoused those beliefs in the first place let alone abandoned them. I think that if this information is actually important it should be in the article on him. Otr500 ( talk) 23:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The use of the word tritheism to describe Trinitarianism is not NPOV, as it reflects only the opinion of some. Nontrinitarian is an accurate term, and is NPOV. While it is not unique to Oneness, and thus isn't fully explanatory, it doesn't need to be. The rest of the article explains the doctrine. BroWCarey ( talk) 21:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not know where the article speaks of tritheism, but I can tell you as a matter of fact that tritheism and the Trinity are not the same thing. In fact, it was condemned by the early Church. Tritheism is taught to be three gods working together whereas the Trinity is taught by Christians as being one God in three divine persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If you would like any legitimate information on this, please let me know. -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Where is the reasons for disputing the neutrality of the article? Keep in mind that the view of other Christian denominations or other religions can be used for contrast, but can not themselves be deemed to be more objective than the views of Oneness Pentecostalism believers and should not be used as a reason to dispute the neutrality of the article. Unless reasons for the dispute are given soon, I will remove the dispute marker, say in about a week. Nutster ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos[1] and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion[2] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.[3] It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[4]
What about our/my organization which is nation wide and formed in the early 1900's. AOH (Apostolic Overcoming Holy church of God) headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.183.189 ( talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
per WP:BLP I have removed the entry for Tim Blixseth as a notable member of the church. The source cited makes no such claim in fact the source quotes Blixseth as saying he has no religion and the source does not link his parent's cult to Oneness.
This article is very useful in its current form. I'm not saying it can't be better, but I was glad to be directed here from patripassionism. Witnessforpeace ( talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I find this article to lack a lot of clarity. Even as a former UPCI, I found it difficult to navigate and understand, so I wonder how those who are researching this topic will react. The article also seems biased. Just my thoughts.
Would someone be able to clarify the following for me: "PCI tradition" and "PAJC tradition"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastornar ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The last couple of comments added to the talk page look like the kind of thing that could be accommodated using the WP:AFT5 feedback tool. I am wondering what others think of adding this tool to the bottom of the article. Nutster ( talk) 12:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
When using a Multiple issues template in an article, it is incumbent on the editor to explain details about these points in the talk page. I do not see anything from January 2013 or more recently that points out specifics about the noted topics: Where are extra citations needed? Which page references are too broad? Where in the article are the citations unclear?
We have already had a major discussion on NPOV last year. If you feel that the above discussion did not clear things up, please be specific about how the article is not neutral and what can be done to make it more so.
Again, this has been sitting here for almost a year. If the discussion does not start soon, like a couple of weeks, I will clear the template from the article and be done with it. Nutster ( talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I restored the deletion made by user:Musdan77 to the section Notable Adherents. The stated reason for the removal was "unsourced or non-notable content." Sources were included, so it can't be called unsourced. And I don't see how the founder of a denomination that has since grown into a worldwide movement of denominations can be considered non-notable. Prior to future edits/revisions, can we get some feedback from others? BroWCarey ( talk) 05:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Would someone fix a statement in Holiness standards subsection? The statement "According to standards written in the late-1990s...", might be correct as "rewritten" standards but the sentence makes it appear that Oneness standards began or were first written in the late 1990s. Otr500 ( talk) 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
In the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" section, the article says, Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals, Oneness adherents assert that receipt of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation." The clause "Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals," needs to be removed, as it's not true. Most Christians think receiving the Holy Spirit is needed for salvation. They just don't agree that it must be manifested by speaking in tongues.
Changes made.
Many Christians baptise in Jesus name,tthis does not make them adherents to oneness pentacostalism.MMany Christians believebbaptism is critical for salvation, as is receiving the Holy Spirit.. This does not mean that they are onenessppentacostals. Many Christians wear pants, so doooneness pentacostals. . Notaallccorrelationsppoint to causation. While some of these things are features of oneness pentacostal cchurches they are not that which uniquely defines their beliefs. To start downtthis road would require a very largellistof doctorines held in common with many other churches
---It has been my experience as a Pentecostal minister that, other than Oneness Pentecostals, very few Christians practice baptism in Jesus' name. The overwhelming majority of Christians baptize using the formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Although I have known a very small minority of Trinitarian Pentecostals who baptized in Jesus' name, by and large, baptism in the one name is a hallmark of Oneness Pentecostalism. As far as wearing pants, the majority of Oneness Pentecostal women do not. There are some smaller Oneness groups and individual churches that allow more freedom of dress, but the largest Oneness organizations do not.
By the way, I don't think this article intended to imply that any Christians who believe baptism is essential for salvation, or that receiving the Spirit is essential, are automatically Oneness Pentecostals. Rather, while it does contrast the Apostolic (Oneness) beliefs with those of most other Christians, it does so particularly in respect to Trinitarian Pentecostals, a great many of whom no longer believe water baptism is essential, some of whom don't believe receiving the Spirit is essential, and some of whom no longer believe that the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit is speaking in tongues. (I say "no longer," because when Pentecostal churches began to proliferate in the early 20th century, all of them believed water baptism was essential, all believed that speaking in tongues was the initial evidence, and with the exception of those denominations that had already existed as part of the holiness movement, all believed receiving the Spirit was essential. For the most part, only Oneness Pentecostals retain all of those beliefs today.)
Also, I would recommend that you check your spelling and grammar before posting. An occasional error is no big deal; we all make them. But you've got a minimum of 24 errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar in just that short passage. It makes it very difficult to read and understand. BroWCarey ( talk) 04:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Gospel singer Vestal Goodman and her family have roots in the Pentecostal Church of God, not Oneness Pentecostalism. The PCG is Trinitarian, not Oneness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.177.176 ( talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This seems to have been in the interim. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 19:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
In multiple locations in the article, some recent edits have included a third parameter (Version) of 9. e.g. { {bibleverse|Acts|8:12|9} } The use of 9 in the Version parameter is not in the documentation for the Bibleverse template. What is that supposed to do? I recommended changing that parameter to match one of the documented values. Nutster ( talk) 15:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Modalism has long been recognised as a heresy. They can call themselves what they want, but they are not Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.129.6 ( talk) 07:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors! I am a newbie here. So go easy on me.
If you will please review the most recent edits that I have done to the Intro section I would appreciate it. I know that one fellow contributor has already voiced concern and reverted to the prior version. However, I feel that the edits are not so extravagant, nor guilty of the allegations proposed, to merit full reversion.
Two points stick out to me:
1) The Intro section should briefly answer the question: "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe?" This can even be re-worded as "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" However, the aforementioned question is implied within the latter, in my opinion.
2) Concerning the specifics of the Oneness doctrine, it seems logical that summaries of such should come from a Oneness Theologian and not from the doctrine's opponents. In a reply to one of the critics of the edit, I used the analogy of asking a Democrat to describe the Republican Party's platform. I think we can all imagine how that might turn out and how a Republican might disagree with the word choices and presentative of the facts.
When I stumbled upon this article I was a bit flabbergasted by the lack of accuracy and inability to answer the fundamental question of "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" This is what led to my edit. It is the reason I made a Wikipedia account. However, I am not unaware that the doctrine has its critics and these critics are well-learned scholars. Still, there is scholarship on either side of the debate. Furthermore, when it comes to academics in the realm of theology and religion, the debate is always ongoing. The consensus on topics changes from generation to generation. One cannot be ridged with presuppositions and expect adequate representation of the facts. I have read the contention concerning whether or not Oneness Pentecostals are or are not Christian. This is the case and point. Scholarly presentation requires objectivity.
-- Timboact238 ( talk) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, my political analogy was meant to represent extreme views held by the one describing the other. However, after reviewing the style guide, I do see that analogies such as this are best left unsaid for the purposes you stated.
Back to the issue at hand, the Oneness view should not be presented in its summary as a form of modalism because it is a contentious point of academic debate. It is presented as fact. That's the thing with religion topics, opponents present interpretations of sacred text as fact and cite the opinions of other others from long-ago as fact when it is all still supposition and opinion. There are differences between modalism and Oneness Pentecostalism.
And how was I "alleging to revise in favor with no competing sources" when I clearly used verifiable sources? Also, it's not favor verses unfavorable because I used quotations. I'll concede that I need to remove the language "well published theologian" as fluff or Peacock working, despite the fact that it is true. The guy as authored a ton of books. I digress.
The summer of oneness doctrine is also lacking in accuracy. First, even Wikipedia's style guide says that religious topics with contentious elements should be tactful with giving the debate itself undue weight. The presenting the Oneness doctrine's first point of belief(of two... And the second doesn't take a lot of words either) and immediately contrasting it with an opposing and contentious viewpoint gives undue weight to the controversy. Literally, it cuts the summary in half and references Trinitarianism. Related to this, citing the relatively minor evidence of "the word Trinity" as a primary point is misleading. The core and foundational belief comes from the Shema and not some reasoning with the lack of Trinity in the Bible. I concede that many use this as a relatively minor arguement but to educate the reader in condensed form the Shema is the preferred key support. Timboact238 ( talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, as they quotation is riddled with autocorrect mistakes. It is supposed to say "academic opinions of other groups." and not "the group."
I do apologize, but I am a bit confused by your sentence structure in the past reply. Please shorten you sentences into succinct points to be better understood.
However, if I didn't understand. You seem to bounce back and forth between focusing on the entire article and the lead and what constitutes undue weight in your interpretation. Is undue weight a paragraph-by-paragraph issue, section-by-section, or the article in its entirety in your interpretation of Wikipedia's style guide?
Academic consensus? This is only because Oneness is a minority. Therefore, every opposing view will be the consensus. It's a numbers game. There are more opposing theologians writing source material. The guidelines seem pretty clear that minority groups require special care. This right here seems to be the reason for the endless rehashing. Proponents of the Trinity claim academic consensus and proponents of Oneness say it's a NPOV. Which I concede it is NPOV as a whole. I simply disagree with the accuracy of the condensed explaination of Oneness doctrine and they allegations of modalism be reserved for coverage in a separate sentence with langauge that explains the important point that it is not exactly like ancient modalism but similar to and compared to such by modern scholars. That's a more accurate statement. Also, if it is called modalism by a formal dictionary, then is that dictionary the citation? Timboact238 ( talk) 03:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I read the Oxford dictionary this morning. Although the first sentence of the definition is in accordance with the main attribute of Oneness doctrine, the second portion in italics is that exact thing about modalism that Oneness Pentecostalism is not: the belief in progressive changes over time. This was the purpose one a single sentence in the edit I proposed. As far as the number of sources as a whole, I've already said from the start the the article as a whole is fine and holds a NPOV. The problem with yours and my approaches is that you claim academic consensus against a minority group, seemingly ignoring Wikipedia's guidances on articles specifically about a minority group. I don't believe I "purged" any sources from any section. If I did, put that particularly source back.
For the record, the Oxford dictionary definition was not originally cited. Once again, if a user makes a point that's valid, it's professional to acknowledge such. I asked plainly if it were cited in the lead and it was not. It's good that it is now. Nonetheless, I can quote directly from Dr. Bernard saying that the progressive changing aspects of modalism are not part of the Oneness doctrine. You can argue academic consensus but this is a minority group page; therefore, the opinion of the minority group should be given special treatment. A better way to say it would be "is compared to modalism" or "is similar to modalism" but it is inaccurate to equate Oneness doctrine with modalism. Again, this may not be the majority opinion the larger stage of theologians, but that is simply a numbers game. Oneness Pentecostals literally have one accredited Seminary offering advanced degrees in theology and Christian ministry and it has been around in this capacity for less than a decade. I can also point to verifiable sources saying that the Shema is the foundation support for the doctrine from a Oneness Theologian. This is more accurate than citing the word game with the word "Trinity."
I'm not soapbox. I am not preaching Oneness through this medium. I have specific point of concern backed by reason and source material. It seems that I am being stonewalled.
My edit may not have been written in the proper style, initially. However, the core content changes, that is, the verifiable facts added, were worded using direct quotations to maintain NPOV and reflect scholarship on the subject. I didn't remove the comparison to modalism. I did clarify it and give special treatment to the minority group's own academic assessment. Once again, claiming consensus against a minority group is a loaded arguement. Even Wikipedia, by my understanding, calls for special treatment here. Timboact238 ( talk) 11:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That was the best reply I have read yet! Really, I appreciate the clarity and succinct points. I honestly feel I understood all of it, which is a first. I believe possibly some of the Wikipedia jargon is lost on me,for now, but this is reply was really quite explanatory and I appreciate it immensely! In short, thank you!
Back to the subject.
First, please don't assume I have only studied Oneness doctrine. As I've stated on my user talk thread, I wasn't raised in this denomination or doctrine. During my youth, I went through an entirely different religions education program that was Trinitarian. I'll leave it at that because it's not worth sharing the specifics.
I assure you, if you knew me personally, you would know how unfounded that notion is. You don't. I understand that this is your perception, which is valid as an opinion. I respect it. I really do.
I digress.
I understand now that you look at due weight, NPOV, and bias from the wholistic standpoint. I agree. I also understand that you apparently dispute Dr. Bernard's assessment against equating Oneness doctrine perfectly with modalism, per you arguement that the second portion of the definition clarified Oneness theology.
Quoting the section on question:"He uses metaphors and illustrations that confuse the persons of the Trinity and describes God's being as changing, over time, from one divine person to another (an idea known as modalism or patripassionism)."
Now I'll quote my proposed revision of the comparison for reference. "Many theologians consider it similar to Modalistic Monarchianism, considered to be a heresy refuted by the early church.[10] However, a key difference between Modalistic Monarchianism, otherwise known as modalism, and Oneness Pentecostalism is the belief that the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are subsequent and progressive manifestations of the One Indivisible God, which is not entirely accurate with regard to Oneness Pentecostalism.[12]"
In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with Oneness. The citation remains intact and the fact is conveyed. What I do show is clarification of a single, yet important, distinction. You may not agree, but Dr. Bernard is the theologian, not you or I.
Quoting from Dr. Bernard's work (reference 12). "Finally, since we do not know with certainty everything the various modalists believed, it is not productive to identify modern Oneness directly with ancient modalism, Patripassianism, or Sabellianism." Further: "Third, modern Oneness does not accept the expansion-contraction, successive-manifestation theory attributed to Sabellius."
So, here we have direct disagreement with your personal assessment that the definition clarifies it's equation to Oneness theology by a Oneness theologian. The "expansion and contraction" referenced by Bernard is speaking of the idea of progressive changes over time. This is a key point within the quoted text of the definition. Second, Bernard clearly points out modalism and patripassionism (albeit spelled differently, for whatever reason) as not accurately equated with Oneness doctrine.
So, are you disagreeing with Dr. Bernard's assessment as an expert of Oneness theology?
I thought we were not allowed to make our own assessments of information; to conduct our own research.
Nonetheless, if your issue remains that this is covered later in the text of the article, where is the harm in moving the information in summary to the introduction? Once again, if the arguement is that it is addressed later in the body, then it invalidates the arguement that it's categorically untrue and should be removed because it is there already.
This logical applies to the other proposed edits. If the Shema is mentioned later, why not switch the position of the "word game" with the Trinity example with the Shema? This would maintain the presence of both sources, convey the same message from a wholistic standpoint (ie article as a whole) and sufficiently communicate the true foundational principle of the doctrine.
To say a few things in closing this reply, I have learned a great deal of things in the past few days that have encouraged me concerning the deep thought and care Wikipedia editors put into these articles. As a scholar of a different field, I have always avoided Wikipedia because in academic writing it is unreliable presumably because anyone to write anything and publish it. While that is technically true, I can see that there are checks and balances of a sort. It isn't perfect but it's a great concept and tool for sharing knowledge for free.
I can see beyond a doubt that my originally proposed edits would not meet Wikipedia's standards for style for a number of reasons. However, I'm not convinced that there style issues cut to the content itself or my core intent to bring central facts to the lead section that are cited elsewhere. As I've said before, if these points are covered, then it is about order of presentation and not the content itself.
I am learning. I will continue to learn. All I ask is for clear, succinct responses with Wikipedia-jargon clarified within the context of the response. Timboact238 ( talk) 15:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Typographical error: I said, "In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with Oneness."
And I meant: "In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with modalism." Timboact238 ( talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
no, LDS thought is not a version of Arianism. In Arianism Jesus was a subordinate creature. In LDSism, Jesus was begotten, not made - just as every other human being is a literal natural child of God, and God and his wives and his brothers and sisters and his cousins and his aunts are all natural children of other gods before them, ad infinitum. Far from Arianism or JWism. -- 142.163.195.18 ( talk) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Whiteguru ( talk · contribs) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --
Whiteguru (
talk) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
HTML document size: 305 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 52 kB References (including all HTML code): 148 kB Wiki text: 80 kB Prose size (text only): 32 kB (5233 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 21 kB
Hello, fellow editors! I have a concern about a potential dispute on the Baptismal formula section of the article, specifically in regards to the statement, "and several scholarly sources used by Oneness Pentecostals deriding it have been outdated pertaining to modern consensus on the Didache's text and dating." Here's the context: "In contrast, the Didache (a Jewish Christian text generally dated to the first century AD) cites the Trinitarian formula, and several scholarly sources used by Oneness Pentecostals deriding it have been outdated pertaining to modern consensus on the Didache's text and dating.[126][127][128][129] Additionally, mainstream Christians exegete "in the name of Jesus Christ" as by the "authority of Jesus" which denotes baptism in the name of the three persons of the Trinity." I have a few concerns with this statement, which is why I removed it in an edit, but I noticed that it was restored, so I wanted to open up a discussion to hopefully resolve the issue.
My concerns are mainly this:
Instead of re-deleting the text in question, I have decided that opening a discussion would be a better way to resolve this issue. Here are my recommendations for moving forward with this particular statement:
Please let me know your thoughts on this! Thank you for your input! JParksT2023 ( talk) 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello JParksT2023, thank you for initiating this discussion. I intended to begin it, but my internet was temporarily unavailable; forgive me. Looking through these sources, specifically, the one Oneness Pentecostal source within the cohort, the Oneness scholar stated it was a second century AD text; others generally accepted it as a first-century AD text. Therefore, the statement against impartiality cannot be substantiated in this sense. I do resonate with you, being an adamant Oneness Pentecostal according to your personal account, feeling this makes your religion's viewpoint as "oudated and naive." With that stated, none of us (regardless of our viewpoints) should have those emotions and attempt to usurp against a supposed personal grievance with the information for the purpose of it attacking our religion (according to personal emotional appeal). If that were so, I would have written a statement about creation science a long time ago, respectfully dear Wikipedian and collaborator of a like-minded faith. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 23:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
With all this in mind, I don't think that it's an accurate statement to say that "most scholars" or even "most mainstream Christian scholars" reject the Oneness assertion. In fact, there are many who support it. So, I would suggest that the wording be changed to "and this view has received support from some scholars." or something similar to accurately present the information in a fair way.
Thank you for your continued work on this page! JParksT2023 ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it is our purpose to be understanding. As for me believing the Nicene Creed, I care less for Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian personal viewpoints, meaning I give equal weight to all Christian traditions just as I would Democratic and Republican-based articles here on Wikipedia; if you cannot remain impartial, this is not the place to be. Therefore, this assumption can be characterized as unequivocally false, though thought in good faith. Anyways casting all of that introductory clarification aside to the betterment of collaborative editing, that reference is removed from that portion, following personal disagreement which is applicable contextually; as for the statement, mainstream references all the majority of Christendom as has existed before 1913-1914 (which means the referencing of Trinitarian Christendom). Without mentioning the Trinitarian rebuttal, couldn't that be considered undue weight? As for agreeing with Oneness development on the doctrine of the Trinity, that first secular source is as flawed as the citation removed, especially considering nowhere does the Nicaean Council refer to establishing the Trinity inasmuch so as some Seventh-Day Adventists and others of Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian variety claim (using sources) that Constantine compiled the Bible. The Britannica sources are mentioned frequently enough in this article too, which could be citatitive overkill, respectfully writing (particularly considering the whole article consists of mainly pro- or pro-leaning Oneness sources). Regarding the dictionary source published in 1992, that information evokes the same outdated information as it solidified the Holy Spirit's role in a Christian's life and the world, not proclaiming, "we finalize the creation of a new doctrine called the Trinity, huzzah." These are suggestions focusing on a mere word and its lack, yet neither is the suit and tie worn by many mentioned in the Bible among other things. The so called, source of The Dictionary of the Bible appears to be deliberate misquotation and apparent advocacy due to rebuttals from those of the institution they came from and heralded, the Catholic Church (example: Jehovah’s Witnesses: Masters of Misquotation). When presenting sources, this is about verifiable, contextual accuracy, not something that merely supports one point of view over another (thereby being balanced). Therefore, I would suggest in return that quotations out of context are no longer used, out of context. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was Oneness Pentecostal for seven years. My stepmother had been Oneness most of her life. We often went to church more than once a week.
Not once, NOT ONCE! did I ever hear ANYTHING denouncing the Trinity. Not from my stepmother, not from any preacher, not from any teacher. Such a preposterous allegation makes no sense since the Trinity is supported by much scripture and Oneness Pentecostals emphasize meticulous examination of scripture.
Most all of the emphasis that differs from ordinary Pentecostals is about baptism. Admittedly, Oneness Pentecostals also deny the idea of salvation by faith alone. Yet this isn't uncommon among many Protestants.
In this article about Oneness Pentecostalism found on the UPCI website, any opportunity to denounce the Trinity is seriously overlooked. https://www.upci.org/about/about-oneness-pentecostalism .
Charlemange's 42- ggson ( talk) 18:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
It is true that doctrinal statements on Apostolic church websites usually don't delve deeply into theology or mention/contradict the Trinity. Is that right? Why not? -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) But even such a statement as "There is one God who has manifested Himself to the world as the Father in creation, the son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in regeneration" is incompatible with trinitarian teaching, since trinitarian teaching declares that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate divine Beings, who still constitute one God, not manifestations of one Being. But the reason websites often don't go into detail and come right out and say they don't believe in the Trinity is to avoid starting arguments, or scaring people off. Or not being honest in what they really believe? -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The only way I could respond to the above statement was to do so in bold text. -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)