“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.
“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?”
That sounds a bit like how the Roman Catholic Church operates. It came into power about that time. Maybe you should think about that for a while. It is not prudent to submit to any error, even if it comes from a large group of men called an ecumenical council.
It is bad enough when someone teaches error, but when they misrepresent what others teach, wouldn’t that also be error? I do not know anyone in the UPC that teaches those errors. That doesn’t mean someone, somewhere, maybe at some time did, or still does, or there may be books out there somewhere that taught that. I know, probably thousands of those from the UPC, read numerous books and tracts and so forth put forth from them, but not what you presented here. Please stop spreading error!
Michael- are you suggesting that oneness Pentecostals do not hold to modalism? And that perfectionism isn’t something sometimes taught by oneness Pentecostals?
Thank you for your response. By the way, I agree with, and like most of your posts. Most really “hit” the spot.
“Michael- are you suggesting that oneness Pentecostals do not hold to modalism? And that perfectionism isn’t something sometimes taught by oneness Pentecostals?”
“(Modalism, in short, teaches that there is one God who appears in three different roles, masks, or modes.)”
For the last 49 years, I have attended, mostly UPC churches. I have also, at other times attended other denominations. I do not agree with everything taught by any church/s I have attended. As far as I can recall, and I have been to thousands of UPC services (taught and preached at times in such churches as Foursquare Gospel [Trinitarian]), also various kinds of Pentecostal churches, and read a lot of their material (agree with most, but not all), “perfectionism” is not a teaching held to by any I know. As far as “modalism,” that is a very odd, anomalous definition or explanation, it’s off base. So, I would have to say no.
Perfectionism may not be something you’ve heard but its history encompasses Wesleyanism, Pentecostalism and Oneness Pentecostalism. As for modalism, of course these days the UPC and other oneness groups want to cover up their doctrine. But the charge fits well.
“As for modalism, of course these days the UPC and other oneness groups want to cover up their doctrine.”
Really? Cover up their doctrine? I don’t know any Christian who truly loves God that wants to hide or cover up their doctrine. Are you honorable enough to read what I wrote on this issue?
I have a manuscript that covers four important teachings.
Creation vs evolution & age of the earth;
The Sabbath Day;
Tithing;
Monotheism
If brave enough, email me, and I will send a PDF file of this manuscript.
“What is a “Oneness Pentecostal”? How does one reason with one?”
How about two analogous questions?
What is a “Trinitarian”? How does one reason with one?
Well, how did Paul reason with the Jews? “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scripture” (Acts 17:2).
I have already offered to do so (I am willing to send what I have written on this). But as yet, you seem unwilling to do so. So, here is a bit, ponder this and please respond.
“The Scriptures are entirely lacking from declaring and affirming the Trinity, thus, those who insert that dogma into their writings, doxologies, and creeds are compelled to leave the Bible and invent words and use phraseology that is unsanctioned by Scripture. It is strange, a doctrine many consider fundamental is full of misapprehension and so undefined; that it must be hunted through detached, isolated, and distant parts of Scripture and can be made out only by inference and conjecture.
In keeping with the idea of letting Scriptural words define our doctrines, this section features a partial, not exhaustive list of phrases and terminology compiled (verbatim) from the writings of Trinitarians. Here you will find terms, ideas, and phases, with virtually no exceptions, are foreign (when referring to the Godhead) to Scripture and need to be purged from any discussion of the one true God and His Godhead.
The list may contain terminology Trinitarians might quibble and argue should not be included, for some of these examples may appear within Scripture to describe the one true God. However, no term in this list is ever applied to the Godhead as used by Trinitarians. Even if we concede one or two exceptions, this will not change the fact that the lion’s share of these words reflects alien concepts of God, which do not come from—and are incompatible with—the Scripture:
Trinitarian Terms & Phrases
• Trinity
• Trinitarian God
• Trinitarian Godhead
• Triune nature of God
• Triadic
• TRI-UNITY as in three-as-one
• Tripersonal
• Three-ness
• Three separate persons
• Three divine persons
• Three distinct entities
• Three distinct hypostases
• Three simultaneous persons
• Three distinct personalities
• Three distinct consciousnesses
• Three personal distinctions
• Three distinct persons who are not the same divine persons
• Three individuals
• Three members of the divine essence
• Three coeternal persons
• Three persons that equal one Being
• All three members of the Trinity
• God exists as three persons
• The divine essence includes three persons
• Plurality of persons
• Multiple centers of consciousness
• Three centers of consciousness
• Multipersonality
• A Union
• A Person
• 1st Person
• 2nd Person
• 3rd Person
• God the Son
• God the Holy Ghost
• Coeternal
• Co-ordinate
• Consubstantiality
• Subordination (down-ranking) within the Godhead
• Members of the Elohim
• Distinctions within the Godhead
• Family or organization
• Equality of Nature, subordinate in persons
• A Substance or one substance
• Collective Godhead
• Eternally begotten
• Eternal Sonship
• One person is designated as the Holy Spirit
• One person is designated as the Father
• One person is designated as the Son
• Solidaric unity
• Unity of spirits
• Unity of entities
• Unity of beings
• Unity of persons
• Uniplurality
• Plurality of spirits
• Plurality of beings
• Jesus is one of the Three Divine Persons
• Jesus/the Son is God
• The Holy Spirit is a separate Spirit
• Father 1st in first place
• Son 2nd in second place
• Holy Spirit 3rd in third place
• Plural personalities within the one God
• The Holy Spirit is a person
• Unified essence
• Multipersonal
• Each person of the trinity is equally God
• The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each another Personality
• The persons of the Trinity are mutually exclusive of one another
To this non-biblical list can be added Greek terms such as Homoousios “of the same substance,” and Perichoresis, used by Trinitarians to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead.
Whenever someone says they believe in one God and they use the words listed, they classify themselves as what I can only describe as Tritheism or Tri-God advocates. For when someone has Three Persons in their Godhead, it means they worship three individual and separate beings.”
From “God is One Divine Being: A Defense of Monotheism, Series No. 4”
If you do not respond to this. This will be the last comment I will make on this issue.