Oneness Pentacostals

[afterdeathwhat]

Oneness Pentecostals
http://www.letusreason.org/Onenes1.htm

These are exerts from the book 'Who is Jesus '? Answering Oneness Pentecostals attacks on the Trinity. (spiral  notebook from Let Us Reason ministries Wahiawa HI 96786)

Before reading: I don’t want to be perceived as someone angry nor vengeful; I reserve the right to be just as passionate and clever in my arguments as Oneness adherents are, but I do not want this to be misinterpreted as just an attack. I have painfully gone through numerous writings on their teachings , discussed it at great length with acquaintance’s and friends. I have also participated in 3 debates with them on salvation and the trinity. So I’m not a foreigner to their statements and understandings of the subjects. This book is mostly a rebuttal to D. Bernards book "the Oneness of God." Please read with an open heart and mind…

Introduction

The Christian church has become very familiar with anti-Trinitarian cults over the last 10-15 years. Jehovah's Witnesses who have over 8 million worldwide, Mormons who now have 10 million worldwide, Iglesia Ni christo, the Way International and numerous others are mostly enjoying growth. What has gone very much unnoticed by the church and is also enjoying growth is the Oneness Pentecostal / Apostolic church movement. Which now is the third largest anti-Trinitarian church in the world, having anywhere from 5-6 million or more adherents. Oneness Pentecostals are unique as far as being considered a cult. Much of what they say we could agree upon and they with us. Yet the very nature of God is at the center of this modern day controversy. Unlike other cults that deny the deity of Christ they affirm it, however they pour a new and unique way of defining it. Its not that this is something altogether new but actually something very ancient

What has been revived is the ancient Sabellian heresy that God is singular in person. This emerged in the 2nd century as another heretical competitor with Gnosticism which the church was currently contending against. Sabellianism did away with the eternal Son, and had the eternal Spirit take on modes under which he was called the Father, then the Son , then the Spirit. Sabellias taught that God was a divine monad who revealed himself to mankind by projecting himself into the father and the Spirit. God being only one at a time, became another for different dispensations of time. In the different dispensations the Father was the creator and the lawgiver, the Son was the redeemer, and the Spirit was the giver of grace. In the third century this evolved into Monarchianism which was a more sophisticated form of modalism (Sabellianism) and the church which 75 years before had thought they put an end to this, had to once again confront the errors on Gods nature. To the defenders who engaged in the doctrinal challenges this was not just another battle, but the battle. These were not passing clouds that the wind would one day blow away.  It was in their hands to stand firm and with everything they could counter both logically and Biblically in defining Gods nature.

[afterdeathwhat]

ONENESS THEOLOGY

Oneness theology teaches that there is only one God. That God is numerically singular, and that Jesus Christ is that one God. With Deut.6:4 as their proclamation, they reject any concept of unity that would change the numerical one from its strict singular meaning. Oneness theology tries to explain the Oneness of God at the expense of the threeness. By using this as their beginning premise they can only come to the conclusion that the three who are called God, the Father, Son and Spirit can only be singular in person. Interpreting that God is one as a strict numerical statement of his person, God becomes something he is not described as in Scripture. With both the Father and the Son being in the Old and New Testament, Oneness must come up with explaining the relationship of both the Father and the Son in some other fashion. While Oneness holds to the affirmation of Jesus being fully God and fully man, however they reinterpret this as the Father being the deity in the Son who is strictly the humanity. To be put simply, the Son is not God, but only the man whom God the Father dwelt in.

David Bernard a Oneness Pentecostal and one of their premier apologists says, "Modalism is the same as the modern doctrine of Oneness." (the Oneness of God p.318 ) As we examine history we will see this is not so, today’s modalism is synthesized from diverse views held centuries before.

There are various forms of Modalism but all agree God is strictly one person. One version is that God was the Father who then became the Son, and then the spirit in different dispensations.(different periods of time ). Another version is that there are three manifestations of the one Spirit who is God. That the one person who is God shares the titles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and as Spirit can manifest to be all three. While we agree that God is an eternal Spirit, the difficulty that arises is how he is that one Spirit and who is that one. The Oneness view denies that the distinctions are real, saying that they are only roles God plays for different functions.

 

Bernard states, "Noetus was Praxeus’ teacher in Asia Minor, Praxeus preached in Rome about 190, and Sabellius preached in Rome about 215.".."Sabellius relied heavily on Scripture, especially passages such as Ex.20:3, Deut.6:4, Isa.44:6, Jn.10:38 to prove his position. He said that God revealed himself as the Father in creation, Son in incarnation, and Holy Ghost in regeneration and sanctification." Bernard qualifies these ancient men’s statement saying, "some interpret this to mean that he believed these three manifestations were strictly successive in time. If so, he does not reflect the beliefs of older Modalism or of modern Oneness." (p.240 The Oneness of God) The historical facts state otherwise. It is important to note that the Oneness today differs from Oneness in early Church history, it was developed. This is equally significant, because this is exactly what they claim happened to Trinitarian theology. Actually it was these men (Praxeus and Noetus) who held to the original form of modalism and he has no proof otherwise. Today there are variations to the original form. Oneness writer David Bernard says, it is the eternal Spirit who is the Father, and the Son is the humanity only.

Today there are variations to the original form, Oneness writer David Bernard says, It is the eternal Spirit who is the Father and the Son is the humanity only.

The nature of God is crucial for Christianity. The Christian view is what separates one from the polytheistic interpretations of Hinduism (multiple Gods) and the strict monotheism of Islam. How does one explain and clarify the God of the scriptures ? Because one lacks understanding of this subject does not justify one to revert to a simplistic view to solve the problems of explaining away the threeness. Oneness groups claim that their belief is compatible with the essential doctrines of Christianity and that it is the Trinitarian view that is not. What we need to do is let history tell its tale and the scripture speak to settle this issue.

If modalism was the teachings of the apostles and those afterwards as claimed today by the Oneness adherents, then when the Trinitarian concept arose in the church it would have caused a great controversy. Instead the very opposite occurred. Those who tried to introduce this NEW doctrine were clearly modalistic which means the church already was teaching and practicing something different. The church contended against Modalism, the concept of one God as a singular person that came in assorted forms and manifestations in different ages.

We can only concede what has been communicated to us through the Scriptures. While we may never have a complete comprehension an apprehension of what is revealed will suffice any seeker of truth. The post apostolic church Fathers (pre-Nicene, as they are referred to in church history) were the ones who recognized and preserved what we have today as our sacred Scriptures. They rejected false letters that were circulating by comparing them with the revealed word of God. They became trustees guarding over the canon that we now have as our Scriptures today. These are the same church fathers that wrote on the triune nature of God, refuting numerous false concepts of his nature that arose from inside the church. It was understood by following the Scriptures, they then pronounced it as heresy.

The Trinity doctrine was formulated by necessity from the Scriptures to answer a series of errors, one of which was Modalism, (Oneness) that sprung up in the mid second century. Many realized what was at stake. Athenagoras in 160 AD. Had a grasp on Gods nature, representing the church’s belief said that, "they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order."(A plea for the Christians .10.3.)

At that time the church did not have a precise teaching written down on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity doctrine is criticized by Oneness and others, because they claim it was developed and was not fully accepted until the fourth century at the council of Nicaea. All one has to do is look at history to find the enlightening truth. The doctrine was not developed, but the explanation of it. Almost all the theological doctrines have had some development through the years to explain them in a better fashion. As assaults were launched and men rose to the challenges to defend and affirm what the Scriptures say, explanations needed to be clarified. Other such doctrines that were significant in the development of the Church’s history were the nature of man, doctrines of salvation, church government, the attributes of God, the inspiration of Scripture, what was part of the canon, and the afterlife. Many of these issues continue on today and are still currently being formulated in written fashion to give us a better understanding.

The church in the beginning was not any different than it is today in its efforts to understand the Apostles writings. Christological errors were rising in the 2nd to 3rd centuries under the terms monarchianism (dynamic) and modalism. Men named Sabellius, Noetus, Callistus, Praxeus rose from within the church claiming that God was numerically one person, that the names Father and Son were just different offices of that one person, who is God. They were over reacting to the paganism in their culture, and wanted to preserve the monotheism of Christianity. Unfortunately, they went to the other extreme, and sacrificed the eternality of the two persons that the Bible also calls God. Other men such as Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Novation and many others opposed their view in a series of debates in public forums and councils. From these gatherings they put into writing their expression of the nature of the one God (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and how they relate to one another. Christology became the key to having a clear understanding of who the Son is. What we need to keep in mind is that these were only men. They were not right on all things, but their articulation on the nature of God was at times brilliant, and unsurpassed in explanation even to our day.

The church contended vehemently against the concept of one God as strictly a singular person who came in different forms and manifestations in different ages. In searching the scripture they found these so called titles of modes were existing simultaneously and were personally involved in relating to one another. From these controversy's came the descriptive terms of subsistences, hypostases, and personas to describe the persons that make up the ontological nature, the being called God.

History tells us it was modalism in the late second and early third century that gave the church the impetus to search the Scriptures to see what the apostles believed on Gods nature. We find such men as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, later Athanasius and many others structuring their faith on the nature of God in unqualified Trinitarian expressions. God would use these expressions to help the church grow mature and stable. The modalistic concept was always treated as heresy in the church, as were numerous other distortions of the nature of God. Epiphanius, who was also a defender of the triune nature of God states that " they derived their entire heresy from certain Apocryphal books, especially from the Gospel of the Egyptians" ( Schaff-Herzog religious encyclopedia).

All this occurred a hundred and thirty years before the council of Nicaea when a new challenge was from a man named Arius who claimed Christ was a created being . His challenge was met by a person named Alexander and his then deacon Athanasius, who proved from scripture that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, being co-equal.

Some of the statements made by Oneness adherents are very revealing for example … "The variety and diversity of God’s self revelation forces him (God) to use language that may seem to imply plurality of individuals, but if such is accepted literally the effect would be a belief in a plurality of Gods." (Godhead K. Reeves p.51-52) With this logic we would end up saying Jesus had to be two separate persons a human and divine since according to them two or three cannot in any sense be one.  It is this attitude that is necessary to be countered by sensible explanations . Without it we can never move forward to help those involved in understanding the historic Christian position.

We do know that the word "person" did not have the same connotation that it carries today, that God as three persons is three separate people. They to had to wrestle with terms of distinction and unity in the best way their language had to offer. With much controversy and challenges, they tried to describe a being of infinite nature.   Today, the doctrine of God's nature is being challenged more than any other teaching by numerous so called Christian groups. The Trinity is still the watershed issue of our time.
http://www.letusreason.org/Onenes7.htm

[afterdeathwhat]

Proofs of the Trinity

What we believe

We believe there is one God who has revealed himself in 3 persons. That the Father is God unbegotten ,That Christ Jesus is God begotten of the Father. Being the Son of God from eternity, who took on human flesh, died and rose in the same body and sits at the right hand of the Father until he returns. That the Holy Spirit is God. all are different personalities which share in the same essence of eternal, uncreated Spirit.

When we say that they are all personal, we note that there are necessary elements that constitute personality (separate identities ) in each one. Each has a will, intellect and emotions, besides different titles and names to describe functions in their positions. All this makes them different persons. These distinctions do not take away from their unity as one God. For example, It is the Son who died for all mankind; the Father and the Spirit did no, the Son became human flesh, and still is in the flesh, while the other two are not.

Each have a different position and function yet none act on their own but in unity. There is never more than 3 mentioned as God. All 3 are involved in creation and redemption of man. All of these persons are eternal, co- equal in power and majesty and deserve our worship.

The view that God is numerically one person undermines the doctrine of the Triune God. Those that hold this view claim that the triune nature of God is incompatible with a faith that says there is only one God. Although it appears harmless, it cuts at the core of the very nature of God. They misrepresent what the history of the church taught. Putting blame on the Roman Catholic church, claiming that it taught a Chritianized paganism. They have not taken the time to understand why we have come to the biblical conclusion on the Trinity.

We hold to the scriptural interpretation and the traditional orthodox belief that was delivered in the early church from the Apostles. The same men that preserved and protected the Bible, sometimes giving their lives, also defended the triune nature from such one's who denied the deity of Christ, and other Christological errors. It is for this reason that Christianity has classified the denial of Jesus Christ's deity and the Triune nature of God as the common denominator of all cults.

Modalism is the Hollywood interpretation of God. Each new act deserves a new role or form , as God assumes a new title and name, yet no one of them are the permanent person. There is no eternal Son or Father because they cease, as they are only temporary roles dispensed with after they are used By the "one person."

Trinitarian theology revolves on a Christology that is key to Gods persons. While pre-existence does not prove he is the son (because it could mean he is the Father) the clear statements of all three pre-existing rule out any other conclusion. If any one person is to be called God they would have to be eternal omniscient and omnipresent. We find that all three the Father , the Son and the H.Spirit all share in common these attributes .

All 3 are THE ONE GOD

Oneness likes to think that Father, Son and Spirit are only titles and roles that God the Spirit plays throughout time. If we examine the biblical record their view is "contradictions are us."

The Father is God Gal.1:1, Eph..4:6, Gal.1:1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;" the him is the Son)

Phil.1:2 "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord"

The Son is God Rom.9:5, Col.2:9, Jn.1:1... "and the word was God."

1 Jn. 5:20..., and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Rom. 9:5 Isa. 9:6, Col.2:9, Heb. 1:8

The Holy Spirit is God Gen. 1:2, Acts 5:3-4, 1Cor.2:11, 1 Cor.6:19, 1 Cor3:17 .."Now the Lord (Yahweh) is that Spirit" Isa. 11:2 The Spirit of the Lord.

All three simultaneously exist

The Father is eternal James 1:17

The Son is eternal Hebrews 13:8 " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." Micah 5:2 " speaking of Jesus-whose goings forth are from old (ancient times) from everlasting (eternity)"

The Holy Spirit is eternal Heb. 9:14

This is crucial to knowing who and what is God, to be infinite, eternal before anything exists includes all three. If not then one must choose which one to exclude. But why the Son? Why not the Father ? These are questions that will be made clear as you read through the book.The point is why call all three God or eternal unless all three are different. While words are used to describe any of these three in different functions and ministry it does not say they are God or eternal. The scripture is clear that there are only three attributed to being eternal and called God.

All three were responsible for creation.

the Father was involved in the creation; ( Eph. 3:14, Mal. 2:10)

The Son was involved in the creation ( Jn.1:3, Heb. 1:2 Col. 1:16 ) All things were made through him.

The Holy Spirit was involved in the creation ( Ps. 104:30, Job 26:13 "By his spirit he made the heavens Job 33:4

The term Elohim is the most ancient name that describes the God who is the creator of all things existing. There are also three persons that are associated with the creation, and have Gods attributes, never more than three. I challenge any Oneness adherent to find otherwise ! How can all three be attributed to being the creator if there is only one existing at a time?

Since all three were involved in creating and all other acts of God. They all are eternal, and are responsible for the same activities. Then all three are the one Elohim, three in unity, acting as the one God.

This is denied by Oneness, Bernard one of their apologists states... "God was the Holy Spirit back at creation and used his role as spirit in creation (Gen.1:2) furthermore, God used his role as son-that is, he depended upon his plan for the future sonship-back at creation. (Heb.1:2)" (Oneness of God p.143)

The son is only a plan that will unfold in the future, how convenient. What we now have a contradiction. Because all three are attributed in the same manner as being involved in creation of the world and man. Bernard insists the Son is the humanness only and that it speaks of him in the future tense. If this is so why should we believe that the Father or Spirit were there too ? The lengths some will go to deny the eternal Sonship.

Actually we shouldn’t be surprised if another movement comes along and says the Son alone existed and the Father wasn't there. They would have just as much ammunition in scripture to twist for their beliefs. The truth of the matter is, if the Bible attributes eternality and participation to all three, then we should believe it and not be unbelieving.

Bernard goes further in his prophetic philosophizing saying, "We cannot confine God to three or any other number of specific roles and titles. Neither can we sharply divide him because he is one. Even his titles and roles overlap." (Oneness of God D.Bernard p.143)

God is the maker of the universe, creator of all that exists. He is worshipped by all the creatures, made both angels and men. He is called the only Lord and God.

ONE LORD

The scripture states there is one Lord Eph.4:5 Yet we find this position assigned to three and no more than this.

The Father- is Lord of heaven and earth Mt.11:25

Jesus- Jesus Christ is Lord Phil.2:10-11, 2 Cor.4:5 He is called the Lord from heaven in 1 Cor.15:47. He is Lord of Lords king of kings in Rev.17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them; for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful".

Deut. 10:17 tells us that Yahweh is the LORD OF LORDS. Only if Christ IS Yahweh and the Father IS Yahweh do we have any consistency in scripture. You CANNOT have two LORD OF LORDS! Deut. 6:4 says there is one Lord. They are the one God, they are one YAHWEH (Lord).

The H.Spirit - "Now the Lord is that Spirit , and where the Spirit of the Lord is their is liberty" 2 Cor.3:17.

The Greek word used for Lord is kurios in the NT. which is equal to Yahweh in the O.T (kurios is used in the Septuagint is the OT. Hebrew translated into Greek Scriptures).  By this we equate there to be one Yahweh.   As we go into the nature of God we find Lord (Yahweh) is applied to three persons. But there is only one who is called the Lord Jesus Christ. Why?  Because only one person of the Triune God became human.  Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit incarnated, the Son of God became the Son of man.  Nowhere will you find the Father saying he sends himself or will become a man.  You do find this being said for the Son.