Kingdom Baptist article on oneness

[Jason B]

ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM REFUTED: THE BIBLICAL PROOF FOR PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD

"Scripture statements concerning the nature of God...affirms His unity....But the Scripture as plainly affirms the distinction of persons in the Godhead. 'Unity in plurality and plurality in unity' is the great assertion here...it must not be forgotten or denied, that there are continually exhibited within [the Bible's] pages, in bold relief, truths seemingly opposed to each other...The twofoldness of truth as offered to our view in Holy Writ, is one strong argument of its not being the work of man. It is the glory of man's intellect to produce ONENESS. ..." (Robert Govett, "The Twofoldness of Divine Truth," Norwich, 1892)

The so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses" deny the plurality of Persons in the Godhead. They teach that the Father alone is the God of the Bible. In a similar fashion, the "Oneness" Pentecostals (UPCI, etc.) deny the Trinity (i.e. one God in three Persons). It is easy for the Oneness Pentecostals to confuse many Christians. Usually the cults that deny the Trinity also deny the Deity of Jesus. Yet, Oneness Pentecostals embrace the Deity of Christ, while denying any actual plurality of Persons in the Godhead.

Oneness Pentecostals believe that God exists in three "manifestations" (sometimes even successive "stages"), "modes," "roles" or "dimensions" (not three distinct "Persons"). The historic name for this heresy is "Modalism." This idea was first set forth by a 3rd century presbyter in Egypt named Sabellius. Most oneness advocates believe in baptismal regeneration only in the name of Jesus), and that true salvation must be accompanied by speaking in gibberish. When these oneness groups maintain that they believe in the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost," they do NOT mean that they believe in one Godhead consisting of three Persons.

Oneness Pentecostalism officially began amidst the chaos of Pentecostal "revivalism" in the early 1900's. In these early days of "revival," men and women would violently run and fall against pianos, hide their heads in shoe boxes (to escape their intellects), bark like dogs and make other animal noises, etc. Visions and "revelations" were common occurrences (see "How Pentecost Came To Los Angeles," by Frank Bartleman; or "The Earlier Years of the Modern Tongues Movement," by G.H. Lang). In 1913, in Los Angeles, R.E. McAlister preached a Pentecostal, campmeeting sermon on the need to follow the Apostles in the Book of Acts in regard to the baptismal formula. McAlister stressed the need to abandon the Trinitarian formula commanded in Matthew 28:19. During this same time, John Scheppe claimed to receive a "revelation" from God concerning the power of the name of Jesus. In the constant search for something new and exciting, and with the intellect of the mind rejected as evil, Bible doctrine among Pentecostals became largely dependent upon supposed revelations:

"Advocates of the new [Jesus Only] issue unabashedly admitted: 'You'll never get this by studying it out like some other doctrine. This comes by revelation!'" ("The Assemblies of God: A Popular History," by Edith Blumhofer, 1985 by the Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri)

Frank Ewart (1876-1947) was influenced by McAlister's message (and the new "revelation") to take the whole idea of the name of Jesus even further; he began to systematically denounce the Trinity:

"The terms 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' were titles for one Person, Ewart insisted..." (Blumhofer, Ibid.)

By 1914, Oneness Pentecostalism was fully born. In response, the Assemblies of God held a council in 1916 where Ewart defended his oneness views. The Assemblies of God rejected the movement and lost a quarter of its membership to the new heresy. Today, the doctrine is alive and well in preachers such as T.D. Jakes (The Potter's House Church of Dallas).

The Scriptural Proof for Plurality of Persons in the Godhead

There is not only unity, but plurality of persons in the Godhead. There are not three distinct "Gods," but three distinct Persons in one God:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness...

There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that angels helped God make man. But the above Scripture says "Let US make." Whoever made man is plural in nature. This truth cannot be refuted by referring to the fact that God is "one." For it is true that there is only one God. Yet, what is the nature of this one God as revealed in Scripture? He is one God in three Persons!

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven...

This verse makes perfect sense from a Trinitarian perspective.

Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the LORD, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for US? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

Isaiah 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent ME.

The Trinity is clearly revealed in these mysterious verses in Isaiah! God is talking. Yet God refers to the other Persons in the Godhead. Notice a similar passage in the New Testament:

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, HE SAITH, And let all the angels of God worship HIM.
8 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.

God the Father is clearly talking to God the Son. They are NOT two different "gods." God is ONE. These Scriptures reveal two distinct Persons of the same, united Godhead taking to one another. It would be absurd to maintain that these are simply two distinct "manifestations" of the same Person.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

The above verse would be very ludicrous if this is simply two different "titles" of the same person talking to himself. The verse says "with thee." Someone was WITH Someone before the world existed!

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and SAW the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the SON OF MAN standing on the right hand of GOD.

Stephen's eyes were opened in his martyrdom to see TWO distinct Persons in the Godhead. One is called the "Son of man" (Jesus). When the Bible teaches that Jesus is seated or standing on the right hand of God, it is not speaking figuratively. He is literally seated in Heaven on His Father's throne (Rev.3:21).

Notice another similar passage of Scripture:

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the ANCIENT OF DAYS did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the SON OF MAN came with the clouds of heaven, and CAME TO the ANCIENT OF DAYS, and they brought HIM near before HIM.

There are two "hims" in the above Scriptures. Jesus is called the "Son of man" in the New Testament (Rev.1:13, Acts 7:56, John 13:31, 12:34, 6:62, Luke 21:27). The "Ancient of Days" is not symbolic; He occurs in the interpretation of Daniel's vision (Dan.7:22). Oneness Pentecostals frantically try to wiggle out of this passage by appealing to the NIV:

"The NIV translates the phrase in verse 13 as 'one like a son of man.'"
(David K. Bernard, J.D, "The Oneness of God")

This does reveal that using the NIV in serious debate is often like going to battle with a butter knife! An appeal to the NIV is unacceptable in matters of faith and doctrine.

1 John 5:7 For there are THREE that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE.

Oneness Pentecostals focus on the "one" in this verse. But they must define the "three" as referring to "roles". Yet on what evidence? THREE are "bearing record". The doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one God in three Persons. Oneness Pentecostals answer almost every Scripture verse by stating that it cannot refer to three "persons," since that would make three Gods. This is a straw man. It argues against the Trinity by redefining "person" in a way that MUST MEAN "separate God". But we do not define "Person" as meaning "separate God." The Bible teaches that "God" is one in three. We should expect the nature of God to be higher than our thoughts. If God's WAYS are often mysterious, why would not God HIMSELF be somewhat mysterious?

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Oneness Pentecostalism must WORK TOO HARD to exist! This is one way we know error when we see it. Did Jesus pray to Himself with no plurality in the Godhead (Mat.26:39)? The thought is irrational. Almost every Epistle begins with a reference to plurality in the Godhead (Rom.1:3, 1 Cor.1:3, 2 Cor.1:2, Gal.1:1-4, Eph.1:2,3, Phil.1:2, Col.1:2,3, 1 Thess.1:1-3, 2 Thess.1:1,2, etc.). To say that these references to God AND Jesus refer to various "roles" or "manifestations" is unreasonable:

1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(continued)

[Jason B]

Are "Silvanus" and "Timotheus" simply different "titles" of the Apostle Paul? Are they simply "manifestations" of Paul? No. "God our Father" and "the Lord Jesus Christ" are also distinct, as well as unified.

The Holy Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3) and grieved (Eph.4:30). Yet, He is distinct from Jesus (Luke 3:22, 4:1, Mark 12:36, John.14:26, etc.).

We do not embrace Tritheism or Polytheism. We do not worship three "gods." We worship ONE GOD in three Persons. This is the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. Tri-unity) taught in the Bible. But Oneness Pentecostalism is a doctrine of devils. Let us sincerely pray for the dear people blinded by this confused mess.

What think ye?

[Jason B]

To whom it may concern,

I would like to commend this church's web page it is put together very well, and it appears to have a strong conservative element, which we need in this day and time of worldly Christianity.

I would also like to mention that I read the page on oneness pentecostals, and found it to be fanciful, and full of opinion, not fact, it is very poorly put together, and if you are going to have a page on oneness pentecostals, the least that could be done is to honestly portray us. Yes I am a oneness pentecostal, but I was for a time baptist, baptized into the baptist church in 1999. I am aware of the difference between the two. Why write such a fanciful article against us? Just write fact, no we don't believe in the trinity, yes, we believe in baptism in the name of Jesus, yes we believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, (not gibberish) although there have definitely been some in our movement, eager for others to receive the Holy Ghost, that have opened up the door for (rightful and deserved) criticism. Where is the crime in that? Several baptist hav believed the same, look up Wiliam Robertson, Francis Cornwell, the Baptist Confession in Egnland of 1660, even some modern day baptists have this view. About a month ago we had a missionary Baptist church choir from Jackson, MS come to sing at our church(The Pentecostals of Arlington,TX), and our pastor has preached revival for them. I know of friends in the baptist church that have received the true baptism of the Holy Ghost (languages-not gibberish,it is easy to tell the difference) who remain in the baptist church, and this is in The D/FW area.

If you are interested I will take time to decipher the fact from the fiction on your page. I know that it will be posted in a negative light, that is fine, you have a right to be against us, your brothers, if you choose, and a right to voice your opposition, but we have a right, as done any group of people to be portrayed accurately.

Perhaps that was the best information available to your church, I don't know, but I am certain that it is untrue on many points, and as Christians, we should all try to do everything with integrity.

Lord Bless,
Jason Badejo
Pentecostals of Arlington,TX

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by Jason

What think ye?

I think that if people would stop trying to prove they're right and get past this already we'd be a lot better off.

No, I don't consider myself to be trinitarian. I don't consider myself to be oneness either. I believe in the God of the Bible, not what any one denomination teaches.

[nahkoe]

I also think your response was good.

I noticed the sweeping generalizations and the harsh criticism in the article and cringed.

Originally Posted by Jason

To whom it may concern,

I would like to commend this church's web page it is put together very well, and it appears to have a strong conservative element, which we need in this day and time of worldly Christianity.

I would also like to mention that I read the page on oneness pentecostals, and found it to be fanciful, and full of opinion, not fact, it is very poorly put together, and if you are going to have a page on oneness pentecostals, the least that could be done is to honestly portray us. Yes I am a oneness pentecostal, but I was for a time baptist, baptized into the baptist church in 1999. I am aware of the difference between the two. Why write such a fanciful article against us? Just write fact, no we don't believe in the trinity, yes, we believe in baptism in the name of Jesus, yes we believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, (not gibberish) although there have definitely been some in our movement, eager for others to receive the Holy Ghost, that have opened up the door for (rightful and deserved) criticism. Where is the crime in that? Several baptist hav believed the same, look up Wiliam Robertson, Francis Cornwell, the Baptist Confession in Egnland of 1660, even some modern day baptists have this view. About a month ago we had a missionary Baptist church choir from Jackson, MS come to sing at our church(The Pentecostals of Arlington,TX), and our pastor has preached revival for them. I know of friends in the baptist church that have received the true baptism of the Holy Ghost (languages-not gibberish,it is easy to tell the difference) who remain in the baptist church, and this is in The D/FW area.

If you are interested I will take time to decipher the fact from the fiction on your page. I know that it will be posted in a negative light, that is fine, you have a right to be against us, your brothers, if you choose, and a right to voice your opposition, but we have a right, as done any group of people to be portrayed accurately.

Perhaps that was the best information available to your church, I don't know, but I am certain that it is untrue on many points, and as Christians, we should all try to do everything with integrity.

Lord Bless,
Jason Badejo
Pentecostals of Arlington,TX

[Jason B]

(the first reply-this guy is fast, I only emailed him 10 minutes ago)

Greetings,

By all means, please show us where the alleged fiction is in the article. You did not provide any information in your email below, but only affirmed that you do not believe 1 John 5:7, etc.

Thanks,

Joey

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Jason

What think ye?

Nothing new here.

Same song. Differerent singer.

Originally Posted by nahkoe

No,I dont consider myself to be trinitarian. I don't consider myself to be oneness either. I believe in the God of the Bible,not what any one denomination teaches.

I'm curious.
In your view, what does the Bible teach on that issue?

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I'm curious.
In your view, what does the Bible teach on that issue?

Deut 6:4

[Hoovie]

They got this part right.... at least by some Oneness Pentecostals.

Oneness Pentecostals answer almost every Scripture verse by stating that it cannot refer to three "persons," since that would make three Gods. This is a straw man. It argues against the Trinity by redefining "person" in a way that MUST MEAN "separate God". But we do not define "Person" as meaning "separate God." The Bible teaches that "God" is one in three.

[Jason B]

Brother,

I do not seek an argument, because it is unlikely to be fruitful. So despite other things that I dislike about the page (for example opening the page with a paragraph from a book instead of something substantial from scripture-as though man's opinions give any merit to the number of persons in the Godhead) I will limit my comments only to those things which I feel ought to be corrected.

"Yet, Oneness Pentecostals embrace the Deity of Christ, while denying any actual plurality of Persons in the Godhead. " I don't have a negative comment on this, but find it interesting-why is this a bad thing? Because we confess that there is one God, who was manifest in the flesh, who is the Almighty and judge of all mankind? Gen 1:1, Duet 6:4, Isa 43:10-11,44:6,44:24, 1 Tim 3:16, Rev 1:8,etc This is in stark difference to Jehovah's Witness, and in fact, we are much more stubborn about the deity of Jesus Christ than many trinitarians, again, why is this a bad thing?

Oneness Pentecostals believe that God exists in three "manifestations" (sometimes even successive "stages"), "modes," "roles" or "dimensions" (not three distinct "Persons). While people have accused Sabellius of this form of "modalism" It is much more likely that He was misuderstood by his opponents, which happens often in religion, yes it is even the reason for the e-mail I am writing. In short we do not believe in "successive stages" of God. We believe He is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost simultaneously. Besides the successive stages comment, I feel the rest to be accurate enough.

This idea was first set forth by a 3rd century presbyter in Egypt named Sabellius
Perhaps the idea attributed to Sabellius was set forth in the 3rd century, but the thought of Jesus being the one God has plenty of support before this time, even Justin and Tertullian admitted that the majority of believers were against their theories on the Godhead. So to try and point oneness as originating in the 3rd century is very misleading and untrue. truth be told, history bares out the trinity originating about this time, in fact it would be another 150years (Constinople AD381) before there was a good statement on three persons of God/Trinity. I am sure you are not unaware of this fact, though it is conveniently missing from the article.

Most oneness advocates believe in baptismal regeneration only in the name of Jesus),.... We don't believe in baptismal regeneration. We do believe that water baptism is included in the plan of salvation, but to say baptismal regeneration as in the act of being baptized saves (see Roman Catholic), no that is false. we do ascribe to the belief that action follows true repentance, and that action should be submitting to water baptism, as it was in John's day (Matt 3,etc.) Peter's day (acts 2:38,Acts 10:45-48) Paul's day (Acts 22:16, 19:1-6), etc. Also, the Bible plainly links repentance and water baptism together (Mark 16:16,Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-4,etc.). And strongly implies that to refuse baptism is to deny the will of God in ones life, see Luke 7:28-30.

In short we don't believe that the water does anything, we believe that it is obedience to the commandment of God, and faith in the name,person, and work at calvary of Jesus Christ that makes water baptism effectual. The water itself does nothing, void of faith, all someone did was get wet. furthermore, perhaps there is some confusion, but many (not all) oneness pentecostals believe that it is at this point that the blood is applied and sins that have been repented of are washed away, we get this belief from Acts 2:38,Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-4, 1 Peter 3:20-21, 1 cor 6:11,etc. Also we take that the water in john 3:5 is referring to baptism, see Acts 10:47.

Also, what is wrong with baptism in the name of Jesus, the Bible plainly tells us that baptism was in his name, and in several more scriptures implies that name in water baptism (see Gal 3:27,rom 6:4, 1 Cor 1:13,etc.) And, we have the historical witness. Most (I don't know of any that do not) secular or religious encyclopedias state that all christian baptism in the first century was in the name of Jesus, that baptism into the trinity is a 2nd century practice at the earliest. My personal Bible Dictionary (Hastings Dictionary of the Bile,which I purchased at Lifeway,a baptist owned store.) emphatically attests to this fact. Furthermore the Bible tells us that is only ONE name under heaven whereby we MUST be save, what is that name? Jesus (Acts 4:10-12), and we are told that everything we do, should be in the name (literally invoking the name) Col 3:17.

and that true salvation must be accompanied by speaking in gibberish
know matter who wrote this article, they knew that this was untrue, and inaccurate. Most pentecostals do believe in speaking in tongues, and many believe it to be the "evidence" of the Spirit. See Acts 2:1-4,Acts 10:45-46, Acts 19:2,6,etc. Now as wrote in my original email, there have been some who have engaged in speaking gibberish, and that is well deserving of criticism and correction. However, the majority of this abuses (while oneness people are not completely innocent) has been done by the charismatic branch of pentecostalism, which is mostly trinitarian. Now many oneness people equate tongues with the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that is why it plays into salvation (John 3:5,8 & Romans 8:9). Why not state that oneness pentecostals believe that when someone receives the Holy Ghost that they will most likely speak in tongues. (apparently repenting and being baptized does not equate having received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, if so, explain Acts 8 & Acts 19).

(continued)