WHAT ABOUT THE ONENESS PENTECOSTALS? (Part One)
by Steve Lagoon
Who are the Oneness Pentecostals?
Perhaps you may not know much about OnenessPentecostals. This is not surprisingwhen one considers how little hasbeen written about them in the evangelicalcommunity. Most evangelicalbooks on cults simply ignore them,
though this is beginning to change.
This dearth of material on OnenessPentecostalism is surprising, giventhe fact that Boyd (Oneness,227-228)lists them as "the third largest anti-Trinitarian professing Christian groupbehind the Mormons... and Jehovah'sWitnesses... with world-wide estimatesof four to five million."
Boyd(Oneness, 227) also estimates thatabout one out of every four Pentecostals
in the United States, or about onemillion, are Oneness Pentecostals.
WHAT ABOUT THE ONENESS PENTECOSTALS?
The United Pentecostal ChurchInternational (hereafter UPCI) is thelargest Oneness group, estimated tohave a total worldwide membership ofabout one million, half of whom residein the USA or Canada. The UPCI'sheadquarters and publishing houseare located in St. Louis, Missouri. It'spublishing house, the "Word AflamePress," has published over 90 books asof 1987, as well as the denomination'smagazine, the "Pentecostal Herald."
The UPCI is active in foreign missions,operates nine Bible colleges andan orphanage, and supports chaplaincyministries for hospitals, prisonsand the military, though UPCI andother Oneness groups are againstbearing arms and taking human life(Gray,Questions, 98-101).
Because the UPCI reflects its holinessorigins, it has a strong emphasis onwhat it calls "The Standards." Thesestandards include refraining from attendingmovies, worldly sports andamusements, dancing, public swimming,immodest dress and wearingmakeup and jewelry. In addition,women are not to cut their hair at all,
while men are expected to have shorthair. Television and "worldly music"are also frowned on, as well as anumber of other things (Gray, 166-170,190-191 and J. L. Hall, 864).
Aside from the UPCI, Jones (in histable of contents) lists over 75 otherOneness Pentecostal groups. Thedistinctive doctrine that unites allthese groups is their rejection of theorthodox and biblical doctrine of theTrinity, opting instead for Modalism(one God in one person), and alsotheir insistence that water baptism
should be administered in Jesus'name only, rather than in theTrinitarian formula. Hence, they arevariously called "Jesus Only,""Oneness," "Apostolic Oneness," etc.
But where did they come from?
Duringthe second through fourth centuriesof our era there was a heretical
movement known as ModalisticMonarchianism or Patripassianism oreven Sabellianism. This view wasvigorously refuted and rejected asheresy by the church fathers from itsinception to its demise as an historicalmovement late in the third century.
From then until the 20th century,there is very little mention of this ideain church history. But Satan, needinganother disguise to add to his collectionback at the turn of our century,went up into his attic and dug up anold relic called ancient Modalism. Herepackaged it with Jesus' name baptismand began deceiving millionswith this false gospel.
The beginnings of the Pentecostalmovement at the turn of the centuryare well known. Out of that earlyPentecostal movement arose the"Assembly of God" organization in1914. From the inception of theAssemblies of God there was a
smaller movement within known asthe "New Issue." This movement believed
in water baptism in Jesus'name only and quickly identified itselfwith Modalistic anti-Trinitarian theology.
A hard fought battle for controlof the infant Assemblies of God organization
ended at a conference inSt. Louis in October of 1916. Duringthat conference, a "Statement ofFundamental Truths" was drawn up,strongly affirming the doctrine of theTrinity and the traditional threefoldformula in water baptism. This purge
caused the new Assemblies of God organizationto lose 156 of its 585 ordained
ministers (Reed, 646,Dictionary of Pentecostal andCharismatic Movements, 1988).Those Oneness "believers" who hadbeen forced out went on to form a
multitude of Oneness organizations inAmerica and around the world.
Thelargest of these was the UPCI whichbegan in 1945 as a result of a merger
between the "Pentecostal Assembliesof Jesus Christ," who believed waterbaptism was necessary for salvation,and the "Pentecostal ChurchIncorporated," who did not. The"Pentecostal Assemblies of JesusChrist" eventually gained dominanceas the current UPCI theology reflects.
The Oneness Rejection of the Trinity
Let us now examine the fundamentalerror of Oneness Pentecostals; theirrejection of the Trinity.The Bible reveals that there is oneand only one God (against Polytheism),and that within the nature ofthat one God there are three eternaldistinctions we call Persons (againstModalism).
The Trinity is true becauseit is the teaching of God's Wordand therefore has always been affirmedby the creeds and confessionsof the historic Christian church.It would be impossible to give an exhaustivediscussion and biblical refutationof Modalism in this section ofmy article. You can find that sort of
discussion in Gregory A. Boyd's recentbook Oneness Pentecostals and the
Trinity.
I can scarcely begin to tellthe important void his book fills.Boyd's book is "must reading" thatwill thoroughly equip Christians forencounters with Oneness
Pentecostals. I can only give arepresentative discussion here, butencourage interested parties to minethe vast resources of Boyd's book onthe discussion of the Trinity.
Since I've already given a definition ofthe Trinity (one God existing eternally
as three distinct persons), let me nowdefine the Oneness Pentecostal viewof God. Trinitarians strongly affirmbelief in only one God. The differencethen lies in the fact that whereasTrinitarians believe God existseternally as three persons, Onenessbelieves God exists as only oneperson. The Father and Holy Spiritare just different names or titles ofthat one person of God.
Then what dothey believe about the Son of God?
They believe that the Son refersprimarily to the humanity of Jesus, orto God after he has taken upon himselfhumanity. Thus they deny thatthe Son has any real existence beforethe incarnation (Bernard, Oneness121).Whereas Biblical Christology believesthe eternal Word (the Son) becameincarnate, Oneness believes it was theFather (Holy Spirit) who became incarnate,and thus Jesus Christ is Godand Father and the human Son in oneperson. Remember, in Oneness theologythe Word, or Son, did not actuallypre-exist the incarnation.
Since Oneness affirms the deity ofChrist, the argument will center ontwo other important questions.Question #1: Are the Father, Son andHoly Spirit real and distinct persons?Question #2: Did the Logos or Word,pre-exist the incarnation as a persondistinct from the Father? If one candemonstrate from the Bible that these
questions are to be answered in theaffirmative, you have effectively destroyed
the very basis of Onenesstheology.
Distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Let us examine the first of these twoquestions. Does the Bible teach thatthe Father, Son and Holy Spirit arethree distinct persons in relation toeach other? The Oneness view acknowledgesthat there are many passagesthat "appear" to show this, suchas John 14:16,23; John 10:13; John17:5 and Romans 8:26; etc. How do
Oneness adherents explain such passages?In two ways, the first of whichsays that the distinction between theFather and the Son is the same as thedistinction between the humanity anddeity in the person of Christ. This isknown, says Boyd (32-33), as the"Oneness key." Boyd continues (35)"Therefore, as paradoxical as it
sounds, for Oneness theology, Jesuswas and is both the Father who lovedand sent his Son, and the Son wholoved and obeyed the Father."
As anexample of this sort of Oneness exegesis,take Luke 23:46 which says
"...Father, into your hands I commitmy Spirit...." For Oneness, this onlymeans that the humanity of Christentrusts his spirit to the deity ofChrist. As Boyd (35-36) points out,this understanding leads to the impossibleidea that the two natures inChrist relate, and he properly asks"How can two natures relate?" Ofcourse, as Trinitarians believe, theFather and the Son are two personsand naturally relate.
“Illusion of Plurality”?
The second Oneness approach to explainthe apparent distinctions of thePersons in the Bible is what Onenesswriter Robert A. Sabin calls "apparentseparation" or the "Illusion ofPlurality." Start with a passage likeJohn 14:8-10, 18, which Oneness
writers mistakenly see as proof positiveof their uni-personal view of God.The extrapolation is made that anyother passage which seems to show adistinction must be an illusion.
Butwhy, I ask, would God create an illusionconcerning himself, which Boyd
(119) says is "all too convincing," if infact it is not true? Sabin answers:
Why was it necessary for Jesus tospeak enigmatically in a veiledmanner? Jesus was a man. As aman he spoke of God as all menmust speak of God, with deference,reverence. Had he not done so, hewould have as a man been usurpingthe prerogatives of God.... ThereforeJesus spoke in proverbs, similesand metaphors regarding his divinity.... Jesus could not and would notclaim divine prerogatives as his ownduring the time of man's probation,that is this present time, without"grasping after equality with God."Any such willful ostentatious displaywould mar his perfection as ahuman being, as a sacrifice. (SabinOneness Ministries Seminar 1992—"Jesus speak summary sheet XI")
Sabin continued, "It is necessary forChrist to present himself as though hewere separate from God." At thissame seminar (which I attended),Oneness minister Timothy Petersontaught that "God likes to play hide-and-seek." This Oneness picture ofChrist is not pretty. It presents aChrist who must go around deceivingpeople as to his true identityand not let the secretout that he's also God Almighty, becausethat would be grasping at theprerogatives of God.
I wonder howyou could grasp at something that youalreadyhave? This sort of reasoningmanifests that Oneness writers reallydo unintentionally conceive of Christas two persons. Because Jesus likesto "play hide-and-seek," humble as he
was, he just couldn't stand keepingthe secret to himself, and so everyonce in a while he let his disciples inon the secret. But this Oneness-Jesuserred, for he didn't realize that histalkative disciples would share thesecret that he was God with others,even writing it down in the Bible. Didthis Oneness-Jesus "grasp at the prerogatives of God and mar his sacrifice"?
Sarcasm aside, let me say thatOneness writers often ridicule theTrinitarian understanding that theHoly Spirit is less in view in the NewTestament due to his humility anddesire to glorify the Father and theSon as he inspired the Word of God. And yet I find this "humble OnenessJesus" who can't keep his identity as
God a secret far less plausible, evenpreposterous. This "illusion of separation"
argument is senseless. Thereis no logic to that logic and thereforethe "illusion of separation" is itself anillusion, and the separation of thepersons is real indeed!
Is Jesus the Holy Spirit?
I should also mention that Onenesswriter Robert A. Sabin advocates athird way to explain passages ofScripture which seem to indicate pluralityof persons. He sees that evenafter Christ's ascension to heaven,when the Holy Spirit is referred to, it
can still refer to the humanity ofChrist speaking thus in John 16:13:"But when He, the Spirit of truth,comes, He will guide you into alltruth. He will not speak on his own;he will speak only what he hears, andhe will tell you what is yet to come."(All Biblical quotations NIV unlessotherwise noted.)
So while it appearsto us that the Holy Spirit takes ordersfrom someone else who is also God,Sabin says that it is the humanity ofChrist who is speaking and obeyingthe deity of Christ (Sabin, A Onenessperspective on John 16:13, 1992).
While novel, even clever, and, I'msure, sincerely developed, no amountof exegesis can change the fact that itis the Holy Spirit and not the humanityof Christ is being referred to in John16:13!
Sabin's view requires that it isthe "Father part" of Jesus speaking inverses 13 and 14, and that this"Father part" is referring to the"humanity part" as the coming Spirit. However, this understanding collapsesin verse 15 where the one continuingto speak identifies himself assomeone other than the Father. Thistotally destroys Sabin's argument andshows the real distinction of theFather, Son and Holy Spirit, whichbrings us right back to the Trinity.
The Pre-existence of the Son
Now to the second important question:Does the Bible teach that theLogos or Word pre-existed the incarnationas a distinct person from Godthe Father? Again Oneness theologiansacknowledge that there are versesthat seem to teach the distinct preexistenceof the Logos or Word, suchas John 1:1-18; 17:5; Col. 1:13-18; andHebrews 1:1-12.
How do OnenessPentecostals respond to these kinds ofpassages? There are two main ways(though Boyd mentions other variations).The first says that Christ preexisted,but not as the Word or Son,but as God the Father. So when John
1:30 says "A man who comes after mehas surpassed me, because he was before
me," this only means he preexistedas God. So it is not enough toshow Oneness people Christ preexisted.
Pre-existence as only Foreknowledge?
We must show that He preexistedin distinction from the Father.The second argument is that whilesome verses do talk about the Word orSon as pre-existing, this only meansthat the Son existed before the incarnationin the mind of God. Just asGod knew of us in His foreknowledgebefore we actually existed, so in the
same way this is the only way Christpre-existed.
Boyd (38) quotesOneness writer Springfield as saying"The Son pre-existed in the mind ofGod only." But John 1:1 says "...Andthe Word was with God." The word"with" implies two persons in side-bysiderelationship, not just somethingin God's mind. John 1:3 also says"Through him all things were created,"but how can that be if he didn'texist yet? Oneness just says that Godcreated everything with the non-existingSon in mind.
That interpretation, of course, is totallyopposite of what John was affirming,
that a pre-existing Word, whowas with God the Father and who wasGod himself, created all things. Whenwe come to Colossians 1:13-18 we seethe same thing. We are hard pressedfrom a Oneness perspective to seewhat is so significant about Paul'spoint that Christ pre-existed if hemeans nothing more than that theSon only pre-existed in the foreknowledgeof God the Father, because inthat sense, we all pre-existed. ButPaul's real point is that the Son ispreeminent over all created things becausehe existed before them and actuallycreated them Himself.
In closing this section on the Trinityand the Bible, let me add that whenyou discuss the Trinity with OnenessPentecostals, you may find as I havethat they have some misunderstandingson the Trinity. They are sincerelyconvinced that we Trinitarians are tri-theists,and so you need to emphasizethat Trinitarians believe in only oneGod. They will tell you about thehundreds of passages in the OldTestament that show there is only oneGod as if they need to prove this toyou.
Even their leaders make this mistakeat times. Robert A. Sabin has frequently
quoted Isaiah 44:24 in orderto prove God was alone in creation.Trinitarianism maintains that withinthat one God are three (count them—three) Persons. And so as the lateWalter Martin used to say, "We'llhave to scale the language barrier."