Welcome to hypercone.com on July 10 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
WikiProject Christianity / Charismatic / Core / Methodism (Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)
Christianity portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (marked as Unknown-importance).
This article is supported by Core topics work group (marked as Unknown-importance).
This article is supported by Methodism work group (marked as Unknown-importance).

Archives
08-12-29. 09-02-21. 09-04-21


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


Contents

[edit] Reworked God subsection

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)

[edit] Article merging and rework

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)

[edit] Getting Better, but Still some major issues

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 am also a Oneness person (and the individual who wrote the portions of this article that you allude to). I have changed the word "person" to "being," in conformity with Dr. Bernard's usage in The Oneness of God. I do think "person" was indeed confusing, given Trinitarian usage of the same term in their doctrine, so I agree that it needed to be replaced. In regard to part 2 of your comment, I cannot add the last sentence in your first paragraph, as this would require hard proof (though I agree with what you say there, personally) that they "invented" it at Nicea, which we simply do not have. Polemical arguments, yes--but not the hard proof required by this encyclopedia. I did incorporate your comments about the Trinity and the Bible into another section of this article (seemed to "fit" better there); do you have a source for the other part about the concept of personality "limiting" God? If you do, share it, and we can put that one in, too.
Also, Trinitarian insistance that Oneness people are Modalists and cultists arises from our rejection of their doctrine, not from their misunderstanding of ours. I was a Trinitarian for forty-three years, who used to participate in this very derision, so I know! I do agree that they tend to misunderstand our teaching (as I did!), and I don't think their "Modalist" label is completely justified, but their derision of us arises fundamentally from our rejection of the Trinity. It would not matter to them what one believes; if someone rejects the traditional Trinity (Oneness, JW's, Unitarians, Mormons, etc.), they are "cultists" in their minds. Take a gander at the changes I have made (only a couple of words, but I think "being" brings it closer to what you rightly suggest here), and see what you think now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not here to argue I would just like to say the part about "inventing" the Trinity is really all in the way you look at it. Oneness might say it was invented at Nicea, and if that is a belief it merits mention in the article but as a pov that Oneness have and not as undisputed fact. However, Trinitarians would say that Nicea was a culmination of many years and discussions about the nature of God, trying to rightfully discern the questions that arose, they didn't pull the Trinity out of a hat. But as this is about Oneness Pentecostals what Trinitarians think don't concern us here. Its whats Oneness Pentecostals think that should be explained as long as its done in nuetral language that doesn't pick sides in the docrtinal war. Also, Trinitarians do believe that God is a spirit. We say he is a person because well he is a person. He has personality and we can know him like we know anyother person. We believe he is a spirit, but what is he if he is not a person? Of course I'm not disputing taking "person" out of the article, it just seemed from what is written above that you think Trinitarians don't think God is a spirit and that's completely wrong. Ltwin (talk) 18:25, 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)

Yeah having the Oneness vs. Trinity article separate is probably best as it deals with both Oneness and the Trinity. However, I believe that this that "Oneness vs. Trinity" is not a good article title and needs to go. But I'll address this on that articles talk page :) Ltwin (talk) 20:45, 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)

[edit] Fixing Part 1 - Again

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)

I am the person who wrote what you allege to be authored from a "Trinitarian" viewpoint, and I wish to assure you that I most definitely am NOT a Trinitarian. I did not write from any "Trinitarian viewpoint," but rather from the perspective of an average reader of this encyclopedia, the vast majority of whom (if they know anything about Christianity at all, anymore) have only been exposed to Trinitarianism. I, too, have "thought long enough about the Godhead" (having a Baptist preacher for a father; also having studied over fifty different religious denominations, lived in a monastery, and served as an ordained minister in two different sects) to choose Oneness Teaching, and belong to a Oneness Church. For me, Oneness is the greatest revelation I have ever encountered in my spiritual studies; for the first time in my life, the Bible makes perfect sense to me. I don't think of myself as "not Trinitarian," but recognizing that most Christians around me are, I desire to reach them on terms they can understand. If my approach is wrong, then I stand corrected. That having been said, I think what you say here has great merit.
The edit you propose above is too lengthy for the opening section, but I have made a small change to the opener to incorporate "many different ways" instead of "three different ways," with your observations about the various manifestations of God in a footnote. The remainder of what you have suggested has been incorporated into the main body of the article; most of it was already there. Cheers, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Would a oneness person say this about themselves?

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]

This is all well and good, and I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying about "Father." However, I'm not sure you understand precisely where I am coming from here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a witnessing tool (however much you, I, or anyone else might like it to be). As such, I believe that the primary standard for presenting information is precisely "what a casual observer would require," while still giving accurate information "as a Oneness person". We cannot simply present our beliefs without taking into account where other readers are, or might be, coming from. Since most people have never even heard of Oneness, and have been taught a Trinitarian persepctive if they were ever taught Christianity at all (or studied it in its historical context, even), I believe that an encyclopedic article requires us to consider their needs and "requirements." We are not witnessing on Wikipedia; we are presenting information--information that MUST be presented from the most "neutral point of view" possible. I wish it could be otherwise, but I deeply respect what Wikipedia is about with the "NPOV" ideal, and I strive to keep to that ideal wherever possible.
Whenever I speak to someone about Oneness on a personal level, I first endeavor to discern what they know about God, and then strive to "teach them the way of God more perfectly," as Priscilla and Aquilla did with Apollos (book of Acts). But Wikipeida is not the place for that kind of witnessing. We are here to present information, and that requires us to consider where other readers might be coming from when they read this article. I agree that my initial presentation was indeed deficient; I am grateful to you for pointing that out. I think the corrections you suggested visa-vis God as a spirit/being rather than a "person" and much of the rest were excellent, and helpful. I believe the article is better because of your contributions. If I may disagree with some of what you have written here, I still believe that should be said.
We both have valid points here, I think; I believe we're just coming at it from opposite sides of the same coin. I mean no animosity whatsoever by what I have written here, and hope you will take my words in the good spirit in which they are intended. I AM a Oneness person, and that's how I see it. You have the right to see things differently, and I respect you for it. But you do not speak for ALL Oneness people--and nor do I. God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with the NPOV concept I also believe particularily in the opening, a person should get a sense of what oneness is not what oneness is NOT. A canadian is NOT American even though most Canadians describe themselves as this, I believe that the article should contain in NPOV what Oneness people essentially believe, not what the essentially DO NOT believe, that some churches consider oneness a heresy. That would belong in a Trinity and Oneness article. Not a OP article.
When I am reading Wikipedia in the first paragraph we are trying to describe in a NPOV what the core of what we are discussing is about. Not the core of what it is NOT about, that might be limited to one sentence.
I think that Ltwin can tell you that I have been working at this for some time in a NPOV viewpoint. I certainly don't mean annomosity in anyway, and keeping a level head about it very important.
If I was just thrusting my POV on people, I would just go make the changes, but I think your POV what OP are NOT is a wrong approach. Maybe Ltwin can weigh in here on what he thinks the proper approach is... DevonSprings (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be nice. I'd be interested in hearing what he or any other parties might think about all of this. I mean you no disrespect or animosity whatsoever, and hope you haven't felt disrespected by anything I have written. I still stand by what I wrote above, however, and don't necessarily think my wording of the second paragraph of the opener is "POV." It's simply encyclopedic, that's all. Or at least that's my view of it. To me, this is all shaping up to be a "tempest in a teapot," "much ado about nothing." But I respect your right to think otherwise, and in the end, you may prove correct. Opinions, anyone? - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An addition, if I may / changes to the opener

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)

I personally see nothing wrong with the introduction. Its really good to me. An introduction should give a summary or general overview of the topic. I am satisfied with how the Oneness doctrine is handled. This is what makes the need for a separate article from just general Pentecostalism, so its differences from the more acceptetd Trinity view should be mentioned in the intro and this does it just about right. The only deficiency I see, is the lack of a beginning date of the movement in the intro. As this is "general overview" of the article, a beginning date or period should be mentioned. Other than that I think it is fine. Ltwin (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do about that. Thanks for the feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:30, 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)

Take a look at it now, and tell me what you think. BTW: thanks for your kind words and understanding, and for your contributions. It took me awhile to see where you were coming from, but I really do think the things you pointed out will make this article a much better one. Let me know what you think! God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Best it has ever been...

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)

Take a look at it now; I've rewritten it to try to incorporate what I think you are saying here. Take a gander, and tell me what you think. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:00, 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)

[edit] Status of Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine)

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)

I'm sorry; I thought I had posted something to that article's talk page already--I had proposed eliminating the article entirely, as it has been substantially merged into this one. I believe I put the idea out there, and called for feedback and/or suggestions. I'm still thinking that deleting the article and redirecting to the Oneness Pentecostalism article is the way to go, but I'm open to contrary views, if any. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh did you? Ok well I'll go see what you wrote over there and comment. Just wanted to know. Ltwin (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the comment that the Nicean Creed codified the Trinty.

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)

Yes, I agree that this is poorly phrased though it shouldn't be deleted, just rephrased. The qoute I believe you're referring to is the following: "Since the Trinitarian dogma was first officially formulated at the fourth-century Council of Nicea". This does give the reader, in my opinion, a distorted view that the Trinity was "formulated" at this very meeting. In reality, the Trinity was already here, as were other concepts of God's nature, thats why there was a dispute and a decision to be made for the unity of the church. Its fine to say that Oneness Pentecostals contend that there is no biblical bases for the Trinity and that, therefore, the Council's conclusion was wrong and in error, but to give an impression, which by the way I don't think this was intended, that the Trinity was "formulated" on the spot just to persecute those who didn't agree is an error. Ltwin (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The Council of Nicea may or may not have used the word "Trinity," but the doctrine of the Triune Godhead most certainly WAS accepted there by the unified Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox church (which was one body at that point in time). This dogma was given its firm expression through the adoption of the concept and terminology of "hypostasis" by the fathers of this council, and via various other deliberations and even downright arguments, during the course of one of which Arius (proponent of the Arian heresy) was actually slapped across the face by none other than Nicholas of Myra--our modern "Santa Claus"! These deliberations led to an expression of Trinitarian dogma in a far more complete and developed form than had existed prior to this conclave. I disagree with the deletion of this phrase from the article, though I did change the wording from one of "formulation" by the council (which we could argue over forever) to one of being "mandated" by it (with which no one can argue, this being an established fact of history). I think this will tend to a more NPOV position for that particular phrase. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The document is starting to really convey Oneness Pentecostalism

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)

I've made an addition to the "Baptismal Formula" section of this article, to incorporate your observation about the mention of the Jesus-name formula in Acts and Oneness views on the origin of the Trinitarian formula, with appropriate references. I like your observations about the proximity of closeness between OP's and TrP's, vs. TrP's and Ang's. Take a look, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


It is Excellent. I think that captures it. When you read it you wonder, where do Trinitarians ever get the Trinitarian formula as right. My current pastor said it is because Jesus said it.

There is a part about the Jesus Only thing in the baptism part, and I think that belongs somewhere else.

Where is it? I went to the section entitled "Baptism," and I didn't see it--unless I missed it, which is always possible! ;) - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The bottom of "Oneness Baptismal Formula" last paragraph. Its an important point but just not there. I wonder how many trinitarian people know that Matt 28:19 was never carried out in the Bible.

DevonSprings (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to the "Name of Jesus" section, where I thought it might fit best. However, there are a couple of other places in that same area where it might look better ("Characteristics of the One, True God" or "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"); do you think it goes best where I moved it, or somewhere else? - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:47, 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:

  • Section "Sources of Oneness theology" starts with Oneness Pentecostal theology is rooted in ... but with the unique distinction of denying the Trinitarian dogmas espoused by these sects, and by most other Christians. The word "sects" generally has negative connotations, and here seems to be being used to include all(?) Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant denominations. Suggest changing "sects" to "denominations".
  • The following paragraph states ...Oneness theology proceeds entirely from biblical exegesis, as opposed to ... the alleged teachings of the Church Fathers or other ecclesiastical leaders. Again, the word "alleged" carries negative connotations to describe an important part of the development of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant denominations. Suggest removing "alleged".

Could you give some consideration to this, please? Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I used "groups" instead of "denominations," to avoid using the latter word twice in the same section. I believe "group" will answer your concerns; let me know if it doesn't! Your suggestions were excellent; thanks very much for pointing this out! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article "Jesus' Name doctrine"

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)

Sorry so late in replying! I've been working on an article on a town in Alabama located near where I grew up, but once I get done with it, I'm thinking about seeing what might be done with the article you mentioned. It and the Oneness vs Trinity articles are both in dire need of revision, as you have observed. I agree that scrapping significant portions of the Jesus name article--or, at a minimum, totally recomposing them--would be a good start. Let me finish with the article I've been working on, and I'll see what I can do. I'd appreciate any help you'd care to offer, as (I'm sure) would all the other contributors to this article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article "Oneness vs Trinity"

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)

[edit] looking for seminary

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)

You might want to check out the Wikipedia page on the UPCI. This page lists several Pentecostal educational institutions, both undergraduate and graduate, at the end of that article (with webpage access provided). God bless, brother! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities

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)

I don't see the harm in including such information, as the article ought to point out ways in which Oneness people are similar to, as well as dissimilar from, other Christians--especially given the rather radical differences between Oneness and other Pentecostals on the Godhead and Jesus'-Name baptism. Furthermore, not all Christians, or even all Pentecostals, believe in foot-washing as an ordinance, so this should be mentioned. I restored much of the remaining deleted material, though I did move a couple of things around from where they were earlier in the article. No disrespect intended, but I just didn't see any good reason for deleting that information. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There are several reasons why it is best not to include similarities with other groups. The main one is that it makes the article longer, and longer means more difficult to read. More people are likely to be familiar with Evangelical Protestantism, or Pentecostalism in general, than with Oneness Pentecostalism; and we have articles on the first two if they want to know about it. If someone wants to know about the differences it seems counterproductive to make them read through the 90% of doctrines that are the same in order to find the 10% that are different.
I completely agree that where there are differences they should be mentioned. Foot-washing is a good example; so is baptizing only in the name of Jesus. But beliefs in baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, believers baptism, salvation by faith, inerrancy of scripture - all of these and many more don't need to be mentioned.
The other reason why we shouldn't list all this stuff is that it makes the articles seem like it's promotional. Even if it isn't intended to be, it looks like it. I'm happy to discuss what is considered "distinctive" and what is not, but I don't think we should just lump everything into the article. Certainly the similarities should not go into the introduction, where people are looking for a very brief overview of the subject. If you absolutely insist, but them into the main body of the article for now. But why not put our effort into writing about what is distinctive? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm not Oneness Pentecostal I find it very unscriptural so there is not promotion on my part. It seems that you are saying that we can't discuss thier full beliefs, only those which differ from the rest of Christianity? Then that makes it impossible to make a comprehensible article. It also makes it look like this is the only thing they believe. So we go from promotion to distortion. Wikipedia shouldn't do this. Ltwin (talk) 18:11, 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)

Actually all Pentecostals (I should know I'm one) do not require baptism of any type to be saved. Many only require a confession of faith. Most don't believe that one must speak in tongues or be spirit baptized. The difference is important as from mainstream pentecostals OPs practice a "works" salvation as opposed to one based on "grace". Of course that is POV and I'm not suggesting it should be in the article. But those are differences and it springs from a different understanding of what salvation is. Ltwin (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, while some Trinitarian Pents. do follow strict "holiness" guidelines such as dress and not cutting hair, today most Pentecostals do not embrace the idea that your hair length and style of clothing determines if you have been sanctified or not and can be seen wearing all kinds of styles of clothing and all kinds of hair styles. Ltwin (talk) 18:37, 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)

And I meant no offense about the works thing. Maybe I should have written clearer, but what I was trying to do was cite an example of why it was so important to have the discussed paragraph in the article. The whole dispute, and I'm not saying its work salvation but that has been charged so I brought it up, about works and grace comes from what is discussed in the paragraph. You can't understand what makes Oneness Pentecostalism what it is without realising there are fundamental differences in the ideas of salvation. That is only what I was trying to do and I completely agree with Ecjmartin. Ltwin (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I still believe the lead should do a better job of describing the Oneness view of salvation. Despite what has been written above, an article lead should be a comprehensive overview of the topic. Any overview needs to mention what their stance is on salvation. Ltwin (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Section

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)

[edit] Accusations of Arianism

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)

The point of my removal was that 'you didn't say in the article, nor did you cite any references about who makes these accusations. You have posted some here but please, put the references in the article, not the talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 19 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.

  • The Bereans explicitly state that Oneness is a renewal of Modalism, or Sabellianism. The article mentions Arianism with regard to other groups, but I see nowhere that it says Oneness are Arians.
  • 'Patti requires a login and I can't see it. From your description it's a forum post, in which case see below. If she was already corrected then we certainly don't want to waste time with her.
  • This sermon does indeed accuse Dr Bernard of Arianism, but that is not the same as accusing all Oneness Pentecostals of it. He explicitly quotes Bernard as saying "there was a time when the Son did not exist", which is counter both to Trinitarianism and to my understanding of Oneness. This may be an error in the sermon; or is it that Bernard holds a view that other Oneness Pentecostals would not agree with? Or maybe this viewis part of Oneness, in which case it should probably go in the article.
  • Theophilus is one guy on a blog post talking about an unrelated matter and mentioning Oneness in passing. It's probably a mistake on his part. Anyway, I don't think it's appropriate to spend a paragraph of an article refute a single accusation on a forum.
  • Again, this is just a blog posting. The guy is clearly not very knowledgeable, and doesn't understand the difference between Modalism and Arianism. One blog does not an accusation make.

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)

I believe you may misunderstand Oneness teaching, at least as it has been expressed to me by different Oneness pastors and in various Oneness publications (including Bernard's) that I have read. Oneness Pentecostals DO teach that there was a time when the Son did not exist, save as a forethough in the mind and foreknowledge of God. The Son, according to Oneness teaching, refers either to the humanity of Christ, or to the humanity joined to divinity, but NEVER to the divinity alone. "God the Son" does not exist for Oneness Pentecostals, and never did, though the "Son of God" does exist--but only after His incarnation in the Virgin Mary, not before. God, for Oneness believers, remains ONE throughout all eternity; the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same for us, not two separate "persons" forming part of a "Trinity." In Jesus, this one God took on human flesh, creating the Son, whom we see as wholly and completely God in His divinity, united to human nature to form one person, Jesus Christ. This is not easily explanable, even for a Oneness believer; I'm not a theologian or university-educated scholar of religion (though I have been to university). This is precisely where the accusations of Arianism come from: we say that the Son did NOT always exist, but rather came into being at the moment of His incarnation.
While I can see your point about the various blog entries (I can't understand Patti's not letting you in; I got in just fine without any login or other formalities), it is still obvious that accusations of Arianism are being levelled against Oneness Pentecostals--not necessarily in any formal sense by any established church or denominational authority, but much more rather by individuals. Nevertheless, the accusations ARE still out there, hence (in my opinion at least), they should be responded to. However, I can see your point that the accusations tend much more to those of Modalism than Arianism; hence, I have reworded that portion of the article to incorporate both ends of this dilemma without going in too much detail on the Arian part. Take a look at it, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned that if Bernard's teaching on the Son not preexisting the Incarnation IS indeed Oneness teaching, it should go in the article. It's already there; see the last paragraph in the section "Father, Son and Holy Ghost." - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Spirit

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)

"Holy Ghost" is used by most of the Oneness Pentecostals I've ever run into, and in all the Oneness Churches I've attended; however, on Oneness websites, usage is split between "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit." I have no objections personally to changing this. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll change that then. DJ Clayworth (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. I've left the direct quotes of course. DJ Clayworth (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity vs. Category:Oneness Pentecostalism

Category:Oneness Pentecostalism is itself a category within Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notable People References

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)

[edit] Making the Point

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)

I agree with your observation, but I also believe that an article of this nature should offer an explanation of why the Oneness people believe as they do--written in the style (as you suggested above) of "this is their belief, not necessarily established fact, and it's not necessarily seen this way by others", rather than a polemical argument. In restoring what I did, I rewrote it so that it would present that way, so as to give a reason for their beliefs (especially since they represent a significant deviation from the Christian "norm" in terms of baptism and the Godhead) without turning the article into a tract or other polemic advocating their beliefs. But I do believe their arguments should be presented--as their arguments, nothing more. To delete them altogether robs readers of the potential to understand why Oneness Pentecostals believe as they do, and thus lowers the overall quality of the article as a whole, in my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a really bad time with keeping these arguments encyclopedic. It's very easy to make them one-sided, and very hard to trim them down to not be one-sided without making the article sound like it's a debate. I guess I'm OK with some explanation of their reasons, but we have to avoid anything that even sounds like it's justification or proselytization. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need the detailed explanation? There is a fuller one at Jesus' Name doctrine, which would probably do. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oneness_Pentecostalism"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs