Oneness Pentecostalism

 

In his book, "The United Pentecostal Church and the Evangelical Movement," J. L. Hall (a UPC preacher) made some good points about the possibility of fellowship and cooperation between the UPC and Evangelical Trinitarian organizations. It is true that Oneness Pentecostals and Evangelical Trinitarians share numerous doctrines and concerns in common. In our relationships with Christians who hold different beliefs and convictions it is often better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, and we should recognize that any knowledge that any of us has is incomplete and the Holy Bible is the final authority. (I Corinthians 8:2; I Timothy 3:16-17)

Evangelical Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals do share fundamental beliefs in common, such as:

·        The authority of the Holy Bible.

·        Monotheism.

·        The virgin birth and complete deity of Jesus Christ.

·        The hereditary depravity of man.

·        The blood atonement.

·        Eternal punishment for the unsaved dead.

·        The physical resurrection of Christ and all dead.

·        The second coming of Christ in bodily human form.

·        The necessity of faith and repentance.

·        Concern about a sanctified lifestyle.

While there may be valid reasons for not identifying the UPC as a cult, cultic trends and policies in the UPC are cause for concern. It is not denying anyone’s sincerity or salvation to be wary of unscriptural doctrines and practices. In addition to the numerous valid points made by J. L. Hall, these also should be considered: The fellowship and cooperation between the UPC and Evangelical Trinitarian organizations that is suggested or proposed would require Evangelical Trinitarians to compromise doctrines on soteriology and theology, and the history of the Oneness Pentecostal movement in the Twentieth Century (the UPC in particular) indicates that such compromise is most likely to be completely one-sided.

In 1916 Pentecostals who insisted that Acts 2:38 gives the baptismal formula left the Assemblies of God to form other groups. In 1936 the PAJC (Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ) ratified a five-point agenda with a view toward merger with the PCI (Pentecostal Church, Incorporated), and this was rejected by the PCI because of the proposal that the teaching that water baptism in Jesus' name and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking in tongues constitutes the new birth be accepted as one of the fundamental doctrines. At The Merger of the PCI and the PAJC in 1945 the wording of the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPC (United Pentecostal Church) was chosen because of the different opinions about whether water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues are causes or consequences of the new birth, and without the unity clause, that brethren "shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit" and "shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body," there would have been no merger. John 3:5=Acts 2:38 or Acts-2:38-or-Hell has never been the universal opinion of Oneness Pentecostals, and current policies of the UPC on soteriology violate the agreement of The Merger in 1945. It should also be noted that not all early Oneness Pentecostal leaders adopted the understanding of the Godhead that is being required in the UPC (and other Oneness Pentecostal groups) today, and many Oneness Pentecostals (Howard A. Goss, Frank Ewart, Andrew Urshan, etc.) taught the triunity of God. Some, such as the first General Superintendent of the UPC Howard A. Goss, insisted that belief in a Trinity was acceptable and made a distinction between tritheism and Trinitarianism. The doctrinal statement of the PCI on the Godhead described God as triune, a Trinity.

The theory pushed by Oneness Pentecostals that a doctrine is proven to be a divine truth by a special revelation without scriptural support is a form of Gnosticism and not Christian truth. If you received a "revelation" that you cannot verify with Scripture you should seriously question which "god" gave you the "revelation." God reveals Himself to man through His Word and Scripture itself, comparing Scripture with Scripture, is the key to the interpretation of Scripture. (I Corinthians 2:13; II Timothy 2:15; 3:16) Whether any of us completely understand or accept a Bible truth does not determine if it true. (Psalm 3:5-7; Isaiah 55:8-9)

Is Matthew 28:19 or is Acts 2:38 the baptismal formula? Matthew 28:19 is the only baptismal command in the Bible addressed to baptizers, and all baptismal commands in the Book of Acts are addressed to baptismal candidates. If God had wanted Acts 2:38 to convey that converts are to be baptized for the sake of Jesus Christ or as a submission to the authority of Jesus Christ ("In the name of Jesus Christ") without specifying the words to be spoken by the baptizer, how would He have changed the wording of Acts 2:38? (Consider Colossians 3:17)

It is wrong to say that all Trinitarians are guilty of tritheism or of denying the complete deity of Jesus Christ (as many Oneness Pentecostals contend). It is incorrect to say that the Trinity is a pagan concept; ancient pagans did not worship any trinity, they worshipped triads, and a triad is three gods while the Trinity is one God existing in three persons. Our English word person comes from the Latin "persona," which is literally a face mask used by actors, and hence a person, etc., and the word Trinity is a combination of the word "trine," which means threefold or three times, and the suffix "-ity," which means state, character, or condition. In other words, God is not triplex (1+1+1), God is triune (1x1x1). (Matthew 28:19; II Corinthians 13:14; I John 5:7) There is one God, and that one God is characterized by interior personal relationships. (Genesis 1:26-27; 11:6-8)

If God had wanted to convey that the Son of God is divine, how would He have changed the wording of John 5:18 and Hebrews 1:8? "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8)

If Jesus had wanted to convey a distinction between Himself and the Father and the Holy Ghost how would He have changed the wording of John 14:23, 24, and 26? "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:23-24) "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

If Jesus had wanted to convey that He and the Father have separate wills how would He have changed the wording of Matthew 26:39? "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)

If God had wanted to convey that Jesus Christ was completely God and not just part God how would He have changed the wording of Colossians 1:19? "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." (Colossians 1:19)

If God had wanted to convey that Jesus' human nature was not separated from His divine nature how would He have changed the wording of Mark 2:5-12? "When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion." (Mark 2:5-12)

If God had wanted to convey that the Father and the Lamb are distinct persons how would He have changed the wording of Revelation 5:1-9? "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." (Revelation 5:1-9)

Consider a few of the problems with the John 3:5=Acts 2:38 or Acts-2:38-or-Hell theory:

In Acts 2:38, why is the command to repent given in the second person plural while the command to be baptized is given in the third person singular? If God had wanted the baptismal command to be directed to people who have already repented and been forgiven how would He have changed the wording of Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19? "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19) If Mark 16:16 were changed to read "He that believeth and pays tithes (or other Christian activity) shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned," would you assume that tithing (or whatever Christian activity is inserted) is a prerequisite for salvation?

B-o-r-n does not spell baptized. John 3:5 was a response to the supposition that the new birth could be wrought through physical means, such as childbirth. (John 3:4) There are always cases of people assuming that they are saved because they were born and raised in a certain religion or denomination or assuming that they were saved through rituals and ceremonies, and this was true of many when Christ walked the earth. (John 1:12-13; 3:1-6) The new birth is a personal experience with Jesus Christ. (John 3:5-16; Titus 3:5-7)

Some New Testament passages used to prove baptismal regeneration refer to Spirit baptism. If God had wanted Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-5, I Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, & Colossians 2:12 to refer to baptism into the body of Christ, which occurs in the initial experience at faith and repentance and can only be done by the Holy Ghost, how would He have changed the wording of these passages? “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16) "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Romans 6:3-5) "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (I Corinthians 12:13) "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27) "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)

I Peter 3:21 says that water baptism satisfies the demands of a good conscience and is figurative (symbolic/declarative) of salvation. How can a figure be that of which it is a figure? If God had wanted to convey that Noah's safety during the deluge was the outward confirmation of the grace he had already received years earlier (Genesis 6:8) and that, in the same way, Christian baptism is the outward confirmation of the grace a Christian had already received when he trusted Jesus Christ as Savior how would God have changed the wording of I Peter 2:20-21? "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (I Peter 3:20-21)

Faith and repentance are inseparable; saving faith is the turning to Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) for salvation, and repentance is the turning from sin to God. (Acts 20:21) The Greek words rendered "and" (Kai) and "for" (Eis) in Acts 2:38 have many possible meanings, so whether Acts 2:38 means that repentance or water baptism is the effective agent for the remission of sins depends on the immediate context and the context of New Testament teachings, which indicate that repentance is the effective agent for the remission of sins. (Consider Luke 24:47; Acts 2:21; 3:19; 17:30-31; 11:18; 26:20; I Corinthians 1:17)

Wrong conclusions are inevitable when it is assumed that every spiritual experience mentioned in the New Testament, or that every blessing of the blood atonement, is a prerequisite for salvation. It should be noted that the Bible teaches a distinction between various works and ministries of the Holy Ghost, and not all blessings of the blood atonement are prerequisites for salvation. Are all the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 expected to accompany the conversion of every Christian? Is there any solid teaching in the Book of Acts that "tongues" must accompany the conversion of every Christian and is prerequisite for salvation? Is there any solid teaching in I Corinthians that "tongues" must accompany the conversion of every Christian and is prerequisite for salvation? Is there any solid teaching in the whole Bible that "tongues" must accompany the conversion of every Christian and is prerequisite for salvation?

Ananias addressed Paul (then Saul) as brother before Paul was baptized in water. (Acts 9:17-18; 22:12-16.) Note that Acts 22:16 does not say that spiritual cleansing is a result of water baptism or of the baptizer calling on the name of the Lord. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) If God had wanted to convey that the washing away of sins is the result of the convert calling on the name of the Lord how would He have changed the wording of Acts 22:16?

The Ephesian believers were called disciples before they spake in tongues, and Paul implied that if they had a Christian baptism they would have heard of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 19:1-6; consider the wording of Matthew 28:19)

If water baptism is part of salvation and not after salvation, wouldn’t this put the baptizer in the position of priesthood?

Acts 2:38 is a truth, but Jesus is the truth. (John 14:6) While there is more to life in Christ than the initial experience, salvation is a personal experience with Jesus Christ and is through the finished work of Calvary, not the blood of Christ and additional supplements. (John 3:13-16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Romans 5:1-2, 8-11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7; I Peter 1:3; I John 5:20)

The main hindrance to fellowship and cooperation between Oneness Pentecostals and Evangelical Trinitarians is the Us-Only pride and We-Versus-They complex being promoted by the UPC and other Oneness Pentecostal organizations. (Mark 9:38-42; Philippians 1:18)