Kingdom Baptist article on oneness

[Jason B]

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

[Hoovie]

You are doing very well Jason!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother,

I do not seek an argument, because it is unlikely to be fruitful...

God bless you for speaking up for OP's brother.

As for me, personally, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince these people.

That verse about casting pearls before swine comes to mind.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I am definitely interested in what the response will be, if any, from the Trinitarian.

[Praxeas]

I stopped at his idiotic assertion we believe you have to speak in gibberish to be saved. No point in trying to dialog with a person like that.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

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.

That's sort of a strawman in reverse.

I NEVER argue that

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason

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?

I think as long as they say this I don't give a hoot how much they whine about being called polytheists

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason

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)

True baptismal regeneration is the view that baptism and baptism itself makes someone saved BY conferring upon that person the Holy Spirit which OPs do not believe

[dansamy]

I really liked this guy's explanation: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...asondiffer.htm

It made it simpler for me. I have always believed in one God and that Jesus was fully God while yet being fully man, but I never considered the POV that the most accurate picture was to look at what God tells us hundreds of years prior to the Messiah's birth: Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD.

Guess I should add that if this guy happens to post here: thanks for writing a great article that helped me have a better perspective on the oneness of God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason

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.

early methodist long before the 20th century also made "noises" and exhibited other things commonly associated with Pentecostals

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:

This is a strawman. I have never read any Pentecostal say the intellect or mind were evil.

"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.

And this quote is suspect. He quotes a book on the AOG? Gives the author but WHO actually said these words? This is an antagonistic witness claiming OPs said this, but does not give the name of who said it.

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.

He is misrepresenting the view that the "us" were angels, which I see ALL Trinitarians and even OPs that don't want to objectively consider this view say. As you said the angels WERE present. And angels might just have a nature similiar to man and God seeing that they are spirits, God IS a Spirit and we all humans are body soul and spirit

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.

Exactly...and this verse never said 'Godhead', 'person' or any such trinitarian theological ideas.

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.

lol...exactly...on the right hand of God is not figuratively yet he is sitting ON God's throne?

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.

Actually in Daniel we have the Ancient of Days and we have "the Son of Man" and only ONE Of them is called God...how does this support the Trinity?

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?

I don't think Trinitarians have proven the Spirit is a distinct person from God or Jesus. If that is the case who is the Spirit of the Father or Christ mentioned in Rom 8:9? John says the Father is Spirit. It does not make any sense ontologically to say the Spirit can't be blasphemed but the Father and Son can if all three are equally God

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.

Exactly no Trinity. No "person". No "Unity in the godhead". In fact MOST depictions are of God and His son Jesus

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.

OPs don't deny a distinction either. We deny they are distinct Divine Persons