“Oneness Pentecostals” are, as one might expect, people committed to a Pentecostal understanding of sign gifts, and people who are likewise committed to a non-trinitarian understanding of the trinity. Pentecostal can either describe people who hold to a peculiar view, or it can describe people of a particular denomination. “Reformed” is much the same way. When it comes to theological categories, I am Reformed. That is, I believe in the theology of the Reformers- I’m a Calvinist with respect to how we are redeemed. I have a covenantal understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. But I’m not Reformed denominationally. There are any number of denominations that call themselves Reformed, mostly from a Dutch background.
There are any number of Pentecostal denominations, and then there are denominations and individuals who embrace “Pentecostal” thinking. In that broader category the distinguishing qualities would be the belief that sign gifts, such as speaking in tongues, miraculous healings, prophecy, etc. are still around for us today.
A second doctrine common in Pentecostal circles is the notion that it is possible for Christians to no longer sin. This is a significantly destructive error. It is one of those errors where I just can’t see how they get around the plain teaching of Scripture. John says “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (I John 1:8). The only thing not perfectly clear in this passage is what John means by “the truth is not in us.” Does he mean merely that anyone making such a claim is in error, or that said person is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
Oneness Pentecostals, however, are another matter. They not only likely believe it possible for a man to be without sin after his conversion, but they deny that God is one God who exists in three persons. This sub-group denies an essential of the faith. They affirm a damnable heresy, modalism, that was condemned by the church over fifteen hundred years ago. (Modalism, in short, teaches that there is one God who appears in three different roles, masks, or modes.)
One could make the case that one ought not to reason with these folks, that such is a dangerous casting of pearls before swine. These are not merely lost souls who haven’t heard the gospel. These are not merely saints caught up in error. These are heretics that disturb the peace of the church. On the other hand, if we are indeed called to reason with them, here are two general tracks one might consider. First, one might begin by arguing for the doctrine of the Trinity from the Scriptures. Just as I don’t know how perfectionists could possibly deal with the I John passage mentioned above, I don’t know how Oneness folks answer the baptism of Jesus, wherein while Jesus is baptized the Spirit descends and the Father speaks. I don’t know how they deal with Jesus’ promise to send “another” helper. I’m sure, however, they’ve heard these objections, and at least have some attempt at an answer.
I have in the past encouraged people caught up in this kind of error to consider the a-historical nature of their perspective. That is, I encourage them to understand better the nature of the church. If the church spoke fifteen hundred years ago, in and through an ecumenical council, then wouldn’t it be prudent to submit to the wisdom of the church? What else is open to debate, if the church can never settle an issue?
Finally, in all honesty, the weakest point, the point of vulnerability may well be the doctrine of perfectionism. These folks know, deep down, that they are sinners, and that they aren’t fooling anybody. Show them their sin, and they may just, by the sovereign grace of God, cry out for the grace of God in Christ.
