Oneness Pentecostalism officially began amidst the chaos of Pentecostal "revivalism" in the early 1900's In the modern sense of organization, this is accurate, but in the historical sense, it is not. See my above notes on the trinity doctrine, and even the noted baptists I mentioned from the 1700's who believed this doctrine. Furthermore there are several witnesses in history of people not believing in the trinity, Michael Servetus wrote a book against the trinity, and so the protestant hero john Calvin had him burned alive, how terribly Christian. (Perhaps Calvin misunderstood wen Jesus said, let your light so shine?)
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 Sources please, perhaps someone ran into a piano at one time, if so, they likely did not do it on purpose. But to make it sound like we think there is some religious experience in running into things is ridiculous and untrue. To say we hide our heads in shoe boxes is also untrue. I assume you are referring to William Seymour, who didn't "hide" his head, but kneeled down and prayed in such manner, behind a makeshift pulpit. So if one person hides puts their head in a box, does the whole movement do it? BARK LIKE DOGS, and other animal noises. I have NEVER seen anything that could even be confused for this. The only thing I can think of is the "so-called" Toronto Blessing, which was not at all oneness, but was charismatic trinitarians, and was obviously not of God. If someone barks like a dog, I am totally with you, they should be condemned in the most strong terms, for that is obviously not the spirit of God, but the spirit of error. Overall, this sentence is perhaps the most slanderous,untrue, and despicable in the whole article. It is a blatant lie, and should be removed if integrity means anything to your church.
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) I have never been in one service where we had any authority other than the Bible. When we speak of revelation, we normally speak of the understanding that the almighty God is Jesus. Outside of that (which has a TON of scripture to back it up,even trinitarians agree on the deity of Jesus) I don't know that I have ever heard of revelation used in any other context, with the exception of the Book of Revelation. So I think this is really stretching it, it makes us appear to depend on human revelation, much like Jehovah's witnesses depend on the Watchtower revelation from Brooklyn. Furthermore, you quote someone who has a vested interest in bashing oneness pentecostals as your source, instead of a oneness person who actually said this. and the quote is out of context, I am pretty sure it speaks of the revelation of who Jesus is, and the reason that some say it comes by revelation only is because of
Matthew 16:17 and the cripture that says taht no man knows the Son,except the Father reveal it to Him.( I cannot recall where the second statement is in the gospels, but I am sure you are familiar with it). So then this is the only context that revelation applies in oneness churches. Therefore, your assessment is again, inaccurate.
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 TrinityEwart is not the Father of oneness, nor MacAllister. Isn't that part of the problem, no one can pinpoint who the founder or originator of pentecostalism is or of oneness, yet we know that Luther started the Luteran church, King Henry VIII the anglicans, john smith the baptists, Campell, wesley, etc.
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 I question the history, and if Ewart was the reason for the council, however the end result is accurate.
There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that angels helped God make man. Nor do we believe that angels helped God make man.
Isaiah 44:24 is pretty clear that God ALONE created everything. However
Job 38:7 does state that the angels were present at creation of the earth, and by extension, on the sixth day when man was created.
Concerning the scriptures listed, I believe that you have missed the context, and would reply, but as I said I am trying to limit this to inaccuracies concerning oneness,not your interpretation of scripture, so I will go on.
They are NOT two different "gods." God is ONE. These Scriptures reveal two distinct Persons of the same, united Godhead talking to one another. I suppose I am confused on the definition of One. How can there be ONE, when THEY are TALKING to one ANOTHER. Anyway, I digress...
Stephen's eyes were opened in his martyrdom to see TWO distinct Persons in the Godhead Did Stephen SEE the FATHER? Why didn't he see three? Why didn't Paul see TWO when God appeared to Him (a monothiestic Jew), who asked Jesus, who are you LORD (tetragramation). Furthermore when Stephen called on God, what did He say? Answer:Lord 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). I see the heavens opened, and the SON OF MAN standing on the right hand of GOD Did He stand up for Phillip's sake? Maybe the view wasn't good? Which is it, is He literally standing, or sitting? Is He on the throne, or on the right side of the throne, are there two thrones? I digress again, I'm trying not to, please pardon me.
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 This is a great scripture for oneness, who is frantically trying to wiggle out of this. In fact it reveals Jesus to be the Almighty, the Ancient of Days of Daniel's vision, see
Rev 1:8-18. I don't get why someone is trying to represent us as being frantically scared of the scripture, again totally untrue.
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. 1)This verse doesn't use the word Son although I think that is significant, it is not a major point of emphasis as this is 2)it is common knowledge that this verse is widely believed, even by the most faithful trinitarian scholars as an interpolation, so it is a VERY,VERY weak argument for the trinity (see Erasmus) and 3)it ends these three are ONE, which is exactly what oneness believe concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or Word if you will. I guess I fail to see your point if this is the sledge hammer scripture for the trinity. Pretty unflattering.
Did Jesus pray to Himself with no plurality in the Godhead (Mat.26:39)? Did Jesus pray as God? Does God need to pray? If one person of the Godhead must pray to another, how are they co-equal? Please explain to mean the prayers of Jesus, again, Was GOD praying?
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.). Correction almost every epistle refers to the God in Spirit, and the manifestation of God in flesh, strangely all of these epistles mention only a duality, not a threeness.
1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians ...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. So then are you implying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three as Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy are three persons. It certainly seems that way. Again, in what sense is this ONE, and why are you writing against us, for not believing that God is three persons similar to Paul,Silvanus, and Timothy. I guess I fail to see your point.
This is the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. Tri-unity) taught in the Bible. But Oneness Pentecostalism is a doctrine of devils. Strange indeed. Wouldn't you say that devils are behind pagan religions, such as hinduism, yet many pagan religions have a belief in a trinity. What devils or pagan belief ever emphasized that there is one God, and embraced the deity of Jesus. I suppose if oneness is a doctrine of devils, it is indeed a trend setter.
Let us sincerely pray for the dear people blinded by this confused mess. Please do, lead us out of confusion so that we may embrace the "mysterious doctrine of the trinity."
I believe I have shown several errors in your article, and I challenge you on the grounds of human decency, as well as Christian integrity to correct these errors.
Well, what do you think?
Jason
Threaded Mode
