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)
Threaded Mode
