Oh no not another Trinity Thread!!!

[PeteSinCA]

phpBB lacks a "Thank You" feature for great posts; but it does have this appropriate smilie: CT !

I'm far from averse to thinking on the nature of God, but the over-arching purpose in life is our relationship with God. And that's very personal and experiential. Relationship does not negate learning about and meditating on God's nature, it's the context into which such learning and meditation fits. It is my belief that God used, maybe even planned, my first encounter with one of Jehovah's witnesses to drive me to drive me to His Word to be the foundation for what I know of Him. Without that foundation I could have gotten pretty weird in later Christian (and "Christian") experiences.

[ClassicalTeacher]

Pete As always, well put! Of course I like to ponder God's mysteries, too. But, sometimes I get dizzy trying to wrap my head around some things--take eternity for example! How do you explain or make sense of eternity? So, when I find myself scratching my head over some of these things, I find it easier (and more fulfilling) to rest my head upon His loving heart...and just be with Him.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Well I got a response, he rejects the plural use of the words, he cannot provide an explanation why the text should be interpreted as such even in light of the context I provided he just kept asserting that is the interpretation. Even if the correct interpretation is one it is still divisible, divide one by 3 and you get .33333333333333333333333333 off into infinity does this mean God is infinite!!


Anyway all he has are assertions, it was a bit like talking to alter2ego. I guess there is no point in continuing with him as I feel like I am trying to reason with a brick wall.

OK...that was the response I thought you'd get. Although since he cannot explain why, I have to assume he's not into understanding.

Anyway, here is the explanation as to why he rejects the plural use of the words: because his rabbi says so...period. The rabbi says so because that is what he learned at rabbinical college and the college says so because Maimonides (Google him) replaced the Hebrew ehad (One) with yahid (only one). Ehad is a compound unity* while yahid is an isolated unit, a singularity.

So...Rabbinical Judaism has hardened their heart towards their God in spite of the biblical evidence of God's triune nature! If you've read B.W.'s thread you'll see the evidence for yourself.

Don't despair! If you can get him to read the Bible, that is a big step. May I suggest you ask your Jewish friend to read Isaiah 53? Rabbis usually forbid their congregation to read this chapter. Maybe this bit of information will prompt him to read it!

FL

*think of one bouquet or a crowd or one week and so on. Each of these entities is composed of similar units.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Well I got a response, he rejects the plural use of the words, he cannot provide an explanation why the text should be interpreted as such even in light of the context I provided he just kept asserting that is the interpretation. Even if the correct interpretation is one it is still divisible, divide one by 3 and you get .33333333333333333333333333 off into infinity does this mean God is infinite!!


Anyway all he has are assertions, it was a bit like talking to alter2ego. I guess there is no point in continuing with him as I feel like I am trying to reason with a brick wall.

OK...that was the response I thought you'd get. Although since he cannot explain why, I have to assume he's not into understanding.

Anyway, here is the explanation as to why he rejects the plural use of the words: because his rabbi says so...period. The rabbi says so because that is what he learned at rabbinical college and the college says so because Maimonides (Google him) replaced the Hebrew ehad (One) with yahid (only one). Ehad is a compound unity* while yahid is an isolated unit, a singularity.

So...Rabbinical Judaism has hardened their heart towards their God in spite of the biblical evidence of God's triune nature! If you've read B.W.'s thread you'll see the evidence for yourself.

Don't despair! If you can get him to read the Bible, that is a big step. May I suggest you ask your Jewish friend to read Isaiah 53? Rabbis usually forbid their congregation to read this chapter. Maybe this bit of information will prompt him to read it!

FL

*think of one bouquet or a crowd or one week and so on. Each of these entities is composed of similar units.

Unfortunately he no longer wants to discuss religion for obvious reasons but if he ever does I will be sure to ask him to read Isaiah 53.

Thank you for your time, I think I got more out of it than he did.

[Jac3510]

I appreciate the concern about not getting too heavily into speculative theology, especially if it gets in the way of one's devotion to God. At the same time, I think we can all agree that the more one can understand God (even if that understanding is still essentially nothing after all is said and done), the better on every level. We're to love God with all our hearts and souls and minds.

Besides, the Trinity (properly understood) helps guard against a wide range of heresies. Open theism, for instance, would not even be possible if one bought into the proper doctrine. The idea of Jesus being a created being? Not possible. There is deep devotional value to the Trinity--it has already been mentioned somewhere in this thread about God being essentially relational. There is an entire field of philosophy and theology called process philosophy/theology that spawns all sorts of serious problems that a classical view of the Trinity prevents fro even getting off the ground. It also helps us make a positive case for the deity of Christ and helps us understand the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

It's not an essential doctrine (in my view), but it does help us put a lot of pieces together that would otherwise be foggy. I think, then, that while it is admirable on some level to simply wash one's hands of all speculation and just lean in trust on Christ, it is more admirable still to get one's hands "dirty" and really work with the truths God has revealed, to really seek to understand them and attempt to see God as He sees Himself. For in doing so, we can come to love God not as an image of our own creation, but a little more like He truly is, and what is more precious than worshiping the One True God in Spirit and Truth?

[PeteSinCA]

It's not an essential doctrine (in my view), but it does help us put a lot of pieces together that would otherwise be foggy. I think, then, that while it is admirable on some level to simply wash one's hands of all speculation and just lean in trust on Christ, it is more admirable still to get one's hands "dirty" and really work with the truths God has revealed, to really seek to understand them and attempt to see God as He sees Himself. For in doing so, we can come to love God not as an image of our own creation, but a little more like He truly is, and what is more precious than worshiping the One True God in Spirit and Truth?

That first clause of your first sentence speaks to a point on which I'm a bit fuzzy. Jehovah's witnesses reject the Trinity, the Deity of the Son and the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit, and core/essential problems flow from that rejection. That's "easy" enough to recognize. More subtle, for me at least, are the "Oneness" Pentecostals (e.g. the United Pentecostal Church). They also reject the Trinity, but they are Modalists; (as I understand them) they see "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" as modes in which God expresses Himself, with the Son, Jesus, being sort of the central or core expression. To the best of my understanding, their soteriology is within orthodoxy, toward the Arminian view. OTOH, 2 Cor. 11:4 warns against preachers of "another Jesus"; how much gap is there between this and Gal. 1:8-9? IMO, the Jesus of the Oneness folk is to some degree "a different Jesus". But in what I "know", that hasn't taken them out of orthodox soteriology (their Arminianism came from their Wesleyan-Holiness roots, not from Modalism). So I'm unsure how to regard Oneness folk - brothers and sisters in Christ or ... ? Maybe the essentials--non-essentials distinction sometimes can be too simplistic in practice?

[B. W.]

...That first clause of your first sentence speaks to a point on which I'm a bit fuzzy. Jehovah's witnesses reject the Trinity, the Deity of the Son and the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit, and core/essential problems flow from that rejection. That's "easy" enough to recognize. More subtle, for me at least, are the "Oneness" Pentecostals (e.g. the United Pentecostal Church). They also reject the Trinity, but they are Modalists; (as I understand them) they see "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" as modes in which God expresses Himself, with the Son, Jesus, being sort of the central or core expression. To the best of my understanding, their soteriology is within orthodoxy, toward the Arminian view. OTOH, 2 Cor. 11:4 warns against preachers of "another Jesus"; how much gap is there between this and Gal. 1:8-9? IMO, the Jesus of the Oneness folk is to some degree "a different Jesus". But in what I "know", that hasn't taken them out of orthodox soteriology (their Arminianism came from their Wesleyan-Holiness roots, not from Modalism). So I'm unsure how to regard Oneness folk - brothers and sisters in Christ or ... ? Maybe the essentials--non-essentials distinction sometimes can be too simplistic in practice?

Oneness Pentecostals in my opinion are fellow believers stepped in religious pride in what I term, We's the right ones, in your face kind of pride. Many are difficult to reason with and so opininated that any reason bounces off their skulls. They use patterned answers, much like the cults do. They tend to be overly legalistic in their concept of grace. Don't mention baptism to them if you are not prepared for a long arduous debate. In my opinion, they are folks bound to a religious prideful spirit.

I do consider them fellow Christians with attitude because they do proclaim the gospel that Jesus as the only way to salvation. I am not impressed with their water baptism in Jesus Name only mentality. Some of these groups hold to that Church of Christ idea of' baptismal salvation but likewise many more groups do not and dropped this from their statement of faith. There are changes going on in many of these groups for the better, like, grace, a toning down of the unknown speaking in tongues for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, a declining modalist understanding of the Trinity, and less formal attire required during church services. Some are more willing to include the standard Baptist model for water baptism and not force one to be re-baptized in Jesus name only for those inclined to join their congregations. So there is hope. Many of these changes came by Christian apologetic approaches to their leaders and letting them reason out conflicts with the Oneness Statement of Faith they hold. However, there are still many who refuse wisdom from the bible in exchange for their denominational traditions with militancy.
-
-
-

[domokunrox]

...That first clause of your first sentence speaks to a point on which I'm a bit fuzzy. Jehovah's witnesses reject the Trinity, the Deity of the Son and the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit, and core/essential problems flow from that rejection. That's "easy" enough to recognize. More subtle, for me at least, are the "Oneness" Pentecostals (e.g. the United Pentecostal Church). They also reject the Trinity, but they are Modalists; (as I understand them) they see "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" as modes in which God expresses Himself, with the Son, Jesus, being sort of the central or core expression. To the best of my understanding, their soteriology is within orthodoxy, toward the Arminian view. OTOH, 2 Cor. 11:4 warns against preachers of "another Jesus"; how much gap is there between this and Gal. 1:8-9? IMO, the Jesus of the Oneness folk is to some degree "a different Jesus". But in what I "know", that hasn't taken them out of orthodox soteriology (their Arminianism came from their Wesleyan-Holiness roots, not from Modalism). So I'm unsure how to regard Oneness folk - brothers and sisters in Christ or ... ? Maybe the essentials--non-essentials distinction sometimes can be too simplistic in practice?

Oneness Pentecostals in my opinion are fellow believers stepped in religious pride in what I term, We's the right ones, in your face kind of pride. Many are difficult to reason with and so opininated that any reason bounces off their skulls. They use patterned answers, much like the cults do. They tend to be overly legalistic in their concept of grace. Don't mention baptism to them if you are not prepared for a long arduous debate. In my opinion, they are folks bound to a religious prideful spirit.

I do consider them fellow Christians with attitude because they do proclaim the gospel that Jesus as the only way to salvation. I am not impressed with their water baptism in Jesus Name only mentality. Some of these groups hold to that Church of Christ idea of' baptismal salvation but likewise many more groups do not and dropped this from their statement of faith. There are changes going on in many of these groups for the better, like, grace, a toning down of the unknown speaking in tongues for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, a declining modalist understanding of the Trinity, and less formal attire required during church services. Some are more willing to include the standard Baptist model for water baptism and not force one to be re-baptized in Jesus name only for those inclined to join their congregations. So there is hope. Many of these changes came by Christian apologetic approaches to their leaders and letting them reason out conflicts with the Oneness Statement of Faith they hold. However, there are still many who refuse wisdom from the bible in exchange for their denominational traditions with militancy.
-
-
-

I know exactly what you are talking about, BW. Oh, the hours I have logged with these folks in these discussions. Unfortunately, they refuse to talk any further to me. I'm guessing it has to do with how red their faces get in discussions with me.

Just so you guys have an idea of how ridiculous these conversations are. I had one of them try to make his point that if he wrote me a check pay to the order of "father, son, and holy spirit" that I can take it to the bank and cash it.


In any case, its unfortunate that the doctrine of the trinity is really poorly misunderstood. The way I present it is with the perfection point of view. God would not be perfect if he was not "3 dimensional".

[B. W.]

Here is an interesting note on the Oneness Movement quoted below:

Oneness Pentecostalism

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apol ... talism.htm

Oneness Pentecostalism is a movement of Pentecostal Christianity that believes in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, His soon return, and the Word of God as contained in the Bible, but differs from mainstream Pentecostalism by following the doctrine of Oneness. Oneness Pentecostalism teaches a literal interpretation of the biblical teaching of salvation with emphasis on the teaching of Jesus Christ & His Apostles, citing "John 3:1-12 & Acts 2:38 experience" as necessary for salvation and places special emphasis on the direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as shown in the Biblical account of the Day of Pentecost. It teaches that personal conversion is to be followed by holy living and exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit Galatians 5:22(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism). Oneness people are many and varied. The two main groups that hold to Oneness theology are the United Pentecostal Church International (the largest) and the United Apostolic church. There are others like the Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible Way Churches of Our Lord Jesus Christ as well as a host of independent Oneness churches scattered throughout the United States. The primary Oneness Pentecostal website is http://www.upci.org/.

The Oneness Pentecostal groups generally hold to the following points of doctrine.

Within the Historic Christian Faith

There is only one God in all existence
The Bible is God's inerrant word
Jesus was born of a virgin
Jesus had two natures.
Justification by faith
Baptism must be by immersion
The elements of communion are bread and wine and are only for believers.
Foot-washing (John 13:4-5), is a divine institution to be practiced by church members. (Pastors in The Evangelical Covenant Church literally foot wash their members).
Abstain from joining secret societies (James 5:12; 2 Cor. 6:14-18).
There will be a future rapture of the Church where the Christians will be transformed (1 Thes. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; Phil. 3:20-21).
Outside of the Historic Christian Faith

Denies the doctrine of the Trinity. (Makes them a cult)
Denies justification by faith alone by stating that baptism is also required for salvation.
Jesus is God the Father.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
The name of God is "Jesus."
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Denies pre-existence of the Word as the Son. Teaches that the He existed as the Father.
Being born again means repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues.
Baptism must be administered by an ordained Oneness minister to be valid.
Baptism must be administered with the phrase, "In the name of Jesus" instead of the phrase, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).
Speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, saved. It is claimed to be the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
Restitution of all things, though the devil and the angels will not be restored.
Women may be pastors. (Read 1 Cor 14, 1 Tim 2-3)
Only Oneness people will go to heaven.

Doctrine #1 The Oneness doctrine of the Trinity

Quote from the United Pentecostal Church website:

In distinction to the doctrine of the Trinity, the UPCI holds to a oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one. The UPCI teaches that the one God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ was and is God. In other words, Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (John 1:1-14; I Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9). While fully God, Jesus was also fully man, possessing a full and true humanity. He was both God and man. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is God with us and in us. Thus God is manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration" (http://www.upci.org).

If this is true, then can any Oneness Pentecostal answer these questions?

1. Who was Jesus praying to during his earthly ministry?

2. If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"?

3. Oneness theology teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. God was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an angel in the following verses: Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-8). But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46). If they were seeing God Almighty (Exo. 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, then who was it?

I have engaged some Oneness in debate on the Internet and on the phone, and all too often do they refuse to directly give an answer to one of my questions, or they make up theologies that the text clearly does not endorse. I was speaking with one Oneness follower and he was trying to explain that the apostolic sign gift of tongues was required of all believers to have. He was proof-texting John 3 among various passages in Peter to prove his point. The problem with his interpretation was that only he could see it. No one who looks at the text and reads it for what it says could come up with such a unbiblical theology.

Doctrine #2 Baptism is required for salvation & must be done in Jesus name only

Oneness Theology teaches that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. In order to be saved, one must be baptized by immersion. If you are not baptized you cannot be saved. Such a teaching is very contrary to the Biblical teachings on Baptism. No where in the Holy Scriptures is it taught that Baptism is essential for salvation. Many Oneness folk turn to Acts 2:38 to prove that Baptism can only be done in Jesus name.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The verse seems contrary to the instructions in Matt 28 that say to baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. Let's look at the CONTEXT of Acts 2.

Acts 2:5 (NKJV) And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.

Go to a Greek dictionary or a Strong's concordance and look at this verse, and you will see what the word "devout" means in the original language. The CONTEXT of Acts 2:38 is with Peter speaking to Jews that already believed in God. They were not Gentiles, so there would be no reason for Peter to have mentioned the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, as Jesus did in Matt 28. Many Oneness folk ignore the overall CONTEXT of Acts 2:38 to come to their conclusion that the Trinity is not Biblical.

Doctrine #3 Speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, saved. It is claimed to be the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

Is this true? Well let's examine the scriptures to see.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 (NKJV)
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

1 Cor 12:29-30 (KJV)
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

The gift of tongues is not required for salvation, and was one of the several Apostolic Sign Gifts that ceased at the closure of the canon. Nowhere in the Bible is it ever stated that Tongues is a requirement for salvation, nor a sign of a fulfilling of the Holy Ghost. If tongues was a sign of salvation why would Paul ask the question if all had this gift? Itís obvious that Paul knew that people could be saved without speaking in tongues. How the Oneness cult gets around these clear plain teachings is beyond me.

I by no means am bashing the Oneness crowd with this message. For the most part Oneness people are kind, loving individuals. However an infamous leader within the Oneness movement named Steve Winter seems to be quite contrary to my normal experience with Oneness people.

Listen to What Apologist Hank Hanegraaf said about Steve Winter

Steve Winter on the Bible Answerman

Steve Winter has on a number of occasions publicly attacked me, and called me defaming names. Winter has not only attacked me but has harassed females as well. Below are some of his public statements against me and other Christians that have disagreed or strongly opposed his views.

Pastor Steve Winter public quotes

Quote #1
I am amazed at the audacity of some of the false Christian scum like the gutless anon John Wolf

Quote #2
Now common sense should make us aware that Satan is going to have his servants like John Wolf pretending to be Christian teachers

Quote #3
I guess that must really frustrate a Satanic devil like Jason Gastrich, eh?

Quote #4
Jason Gastrich is a false-Christian scum who is upset because he was shown to be a brazen liar in front of all of his buddies.

Quote #5
Amazing what liars these three-god false-Christian scum are! Is this that lying polytheistic slime Donovan Hill?

After reading these quotes can you see the love of Christ in any of Winterís statements? I sure canít! Winter seems to be teaching a different gospel in both his doctrinal statements and his life. John 13:35 makes it clear that men will recognize who is and who is not of God by their love, and Gal 5:22-23 makes the fruits of the spirit very obvious.

Galatians 5:22-23 (NKJV)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Winter does not have love, and this is very obvious with not only his website, but also his public attacks on those that disagree with him. While there are many Oneness pastors and ministers like Steve Winter in the cult, there are even far more that want nothing to do with Pastor Steve Winter. Only God can save Oneness, and I am Biblically convinced that the best way to evangelize to Oneness is to demonstrate the Christ-like love that Steve Winter and many of the others need.

© Church Education Resource Ministries

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in anyway other than to correct minor spelling and grammar errors. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. And exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Church Education Resource Ministries.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Wolf © Church Education Resource Ministries. Website http://www.cerm.info. Email: johnw@cerm.info.

[B. W.]

Here is another from CRI ....

Sharing Your Faith with a Oneness Pentecostal (Part 1)

http://www.equip.org/articles/sharing-y ... al-part-1/

Article ID: DO077-1
By: Gregory A. Boyd

Perhaps the most important thing to remember when dialoguing with Oneness Pentecostals is to demonstrate to them the unconditional love and acceptance of Jesus Christ. The most problematic aspect of my theology when I was a Oneness Pentecostal was the belief that no one other than us Oneness Pentecostals was going to heaven. Trinitarian Christians simply were not saved! So every time I met Trinitarian Christians who clearly reflected the loving presence of Jesus in their lives by the way they related to me, I confronted more strong evidence that my theology could not be true.
A second vitally important component of witnessing to Oneness Pentecostals is to confront their misunderstandings of what Trinitarians believe. Like most Oneness Pentecostals, I was firmly convinced that Trinitarians worshipped three separate gods and that they didn’t “really” believe that Jesus Christ was Himself the Lord God Almighty. This is how Oneness Pentecostals are indoctrinated to perceive Trinitarians. Hence, when dialoguing with Oneness Pentecostals it is vitally important to be utterly empathic about your own belief that there is only one God — not three — and that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of this one God!

If need be, explain to them that the Trinitarian creedal language about God existing in “three persons” does not literally mean that there are three “people” who are God. It is rather simply a shorthand way of saying that God eternally exists in three personally distinct ways (who would deny that God is capable of that?).

Most importantly, emphasize as strongly as possible that Jesus Christ is the very center of your faith and life. Oneness Pentecostals honestly believe that they are the only ones for whom this is true. When I as a Oneness Pentecostal first confronted some informed Trinitarians who successfully conveyed this to me, it effectively loosened the grip which my elitist theology had on me.
The third important ingredient in a witness to Oneness Pentecostals is confronting their theology on its weakest points. Like other authoritarian doctrinal systems, Oneness Pentecostal theology pretty much stands or falls as a whole in the minds of its followers. If you can show it to be in error at all, even on a peripheral point, you have gone a long way toward undermining their trust in the entire doctrinal system which holds them in bondage.

Among the erroneous beliefs which Oneness Pentecostals hold, there are four that are especially weak and open to effective refutation: (1) their belief that tongues is the necessary sign of salvation; (2) their denial of the pre-existence of Christ; (3) their belief that Jesus was Himself the Father; and (4) their belief that baptism “in Jesus’ name” is necessary for salvation. In the remainder of this article I will briefly discuss how one might refute the first of these beliefs. In Part Two (next issue) I will discuss effective approaches to the latter three beliefs.
Oneness Pentecostals believe that unless one has spoken in tongues, one does not have the Holy Spirit (not just the fullness of the Holy Spirit, as certain other Pentecostals hold). And, since a person cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9), it follows that only those who have spoken in tongues are truly saved. This belief is (loosely) based on the fact that speaking in tongues is mentioned in three of the four accounts of people receiving the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts (2:4; 10:46; 19:6). What follows are some of the considerations which were most effective in changing my views on this matter and which I have in turn found effective in helping other Oneness Pentecostals out of their misguided theology.

1. The Oneness Pentecostal position frequently results in sincere believers “seeking for the Holy Ghost” for days, weeks, and even years (I’ve seen some die yet seeking!). These poor souls are literally begging God to save them. The reason they do not receive the Holy Spirit, and hence salvation, is presumably because they lack sufficient faith, or they have unacknowledged sin in their lives.
In a loving way, ask Oneness Pentecostals if they have ever wondered why there is no biblical precedent for this sad phenomenon (I assure you, they have!). Why is salvation so “easy” in the Bible? And if sinners must first believe “sufficiently” and cleanse themselves “sufficiently” in order to receive (as a reward?) the Holy Spirit, why does the New Testament portray faith and sanctification as the result, not the basis, of receiving the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3; Rom. 15:16; 2 Thess. 2:13)?

2. The “tongues” doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism is a doctrine based entirely on a historical record, not on an explicit teaching. Explain to your Oneness friend that by all recognized scholarly standards this constitutes very unsound hermeneutics (Bible interpretation). One can no more base a doctrine about the necessity of tongues on a historical report about tongues than one can base a doctrine about the necessity of communal sharing of property in the church on Luke’s historical report about it in the early church (Acts 4:32-37). To say that something occurred is very different from saying that this something should always occur. Luke tells us the former but not the latter. His purpose is simply to provide an “orderly account” of what happened in the early church so that Theophilus, his reader, will be convinced of the truth of the Gospel message (Luke 1:1-4). This is very different from teaching doctrine.

Ask the Oneness Pentecostal why — if it is in fact so clearly taught in the Bible that salvation itself hangs on believing it — no one throughout church history has ever arrived at the Oneness Pentecostal position on tongues until the twentieth century?

3. If your Oneness Pentecostal friend persists in maintaining that Acts is a blueprint for all church history, ask him to show you where in the Book of Acts does one find individuals seeking for the Holy Spirit and expecting to receive tongues as the sign that He’s come? This is the standard way the “baptism of the Spirit” occurs among Oneness Pentecostals, but it has no parallel in Acts. In Acts, the Holy Spirit always falls on entire groups who are not expecting tongues (or any other sign). So the Oneness Pentecostals do not even follow their own (misguided) hermeneutic. This insight was a wound to my pride as a Oneness Pentecostal, for the belief that “we alone do it just like the Bible says” (!) is the essence of the Oneness Pentecostal position.

Gregory A. Boyd (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary) is currently Assistant Professor of Theology at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota.

For Part two see:

http://www.equip.org/articles/sharing-y ... al-part-2/

[PaulSacramento]

I think that the speaking in tongues things is one of the worst abuses of the HS there is.
I have serious issues with the whole "charismatic" movement that has people acting like the HS has "possessed" them.
Rather disturbing at times.

From the direct reading of the accounts of "speaking in tongues' it seems clear that these "tongues" were different languages that were recognisable by others and passed off as "gibberish" by those that never heard them before.
The key element that SOMEONE can understand them.

It is also clear that the HS, WHEN He gives a special gift like speaking in tongues, can also give any other gift He so chooses, such as:
Healing, prophecy and perhaps the most important, the ability to TEACH the Gospel to others.

[PeteSinCA]

Thanks for the info on Oneness folk, and for helping me adjust my views of them.

I think that the speaking in tongues things is one of the worst abuses of the HS there is.
I have serious issues with the whole "charismatic" movement that has people acting like the HS has "possessed" them.
Rather disturbing at times.

Not sure why you use quote marks around the word charismatic. It's been common usage, that I know of, since at least the early 1970s (when I started fellowshiping among charismatic churches and people). Whether the name was originally chosen by charismatics of those days or was given to denigrate them (and then used by charismatics), I don't know.

"Abuse" was a well-chosen word, as abuse entails a proper use. And I will certainly agree with you that abuse is much more common than it should be. I've seen out-of-control assemblies, and I've seen assemblies that were properly controlled. I also have trouble with Pentecostal and charismatic churches that are not properly controlled - misusing the gifts of the Spirit or suppressing the gifts (haven't seen the latter much among Pentecostals and charismatics).

From the direct reading of the accounts of "speaking in tongues' it seems clear that these "tongues" were different languages that were recognisable by others and passed off as "gibberish" by those that never heard them before.
The key element that SOMEONE can understand them.

Paul makes quite clear in 1 Cor. 14 that in an assembly of believers, an utterance/message in tongues must be followed by an interpretation. Keep in mind, however, that not only is speaking in tongues identified as a gift of the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12, but interpretation of tongues is also. IOW, an interpretation of tongues is as supernatural as an utterance in tongues (in an assembly of believers). Thus, Acts 2 is not the sole pattern for proper use of the gift of speaking in tongues.

It is also clear that the HS, WHEN He gives a special gift like speaking in tongues, can also give any other gift He so chooses, such as:
Healing, prophecy and perhaps the most important, the ability to TEACH the Gospel to others.

I'm not sure what your purpose is in making this comment. Pentecostals have been teaching about the gifts of the Spirit - Rom. 12 and 1 Cor. 12 - since at least the Azusa Street Revival ( ). The comment I remember from a charismatic movement teacher (in the 1970s) about "the most important" was this: the most important gift is the one fits the need at hand. Not exactly profound, but the practical common sense of it and his direct brevity made it memorable for me.

[Jac3510]

That first clause of your first sentence speaks to a point on which I'm a bit fuzzy. Jehovah's witnesses reject the Trinity, the Deity of the Son and the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit, and core/essential problems flow from that rejection. That's "easy" enough to recognize. More subtle, for me at least, are the "Oneness" Pentecostals (e.g. the United Pentecostal Church). They also reject the Trinity, but they are Modalists; (as I understand them) they see "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" as modes in which God expresses Himself, with the Son, Jesus, being sort of the central or core expression. To the best of my understanding, their soteriology is within orthodoxy, toward the Arminian view. OTOH, 2 Cor. 11:4 warns against preachers of "another Jesus"; how much gap is there between this and Gal. 1:8-9? IMO, the Jesus of the Oneness folk is to some degree "a different Jesus". But in what I "know", that hasn't taken them out of orthodox soteriology (their Arminianism came from their Wesleyan-Holiness roots, not from Modalism). So I'm unsure how to regard Oneness folk - brothers and sisters in Christ or ... ? Maybe the essentials--non-essentials distinction sometimes can be too simplistic in practice?

I regard Oneness folks as saved, even though I regard their theology proper and Christology to be mistaken. I do not regard the JWs as saved, and not just because their theology proper and Christology are mistaken.

I take John 20:31 as representative of the biblical presentation of the essentials regarding what we must believe (about Jesus) to be saved. We must believe 1) that He is the Christ; and 2) that He is the Son of God. If we believe those two things ("believe" here having the added nuance of trusting or relying upon--that is to say, we are relying upon Him as the Christ, the Son of God), then we have life.

With that said, we must understand "Christ" and "Son of God" the way John presents it in His book. I talk about that in a good bit of detail here, so let it just suffice for now to say that, in my view, "the Christ" is (for John) the One who grants eternal life--that is, the Savior (cf. John 11:24-27)--and "the Son of God" is to be the One who is, in some sense, God Incarnate (cf. John 1:14).

OPs believe both of those things, even if they have an incorrect view of the incarnation wrong. And I argue that to they extent that they believe you can lose your salvation, they have a different Jesus as well, since they have a Jesus giving "temporary life" rather than "everlasting life." In short, they are relying on Him for something He doesn't promise! But to the extent they are relying on Him for eternal life, I think they have met the requirements of John 20:31.

None of that can be said about the JW. They reject the incarnation and don't believe in Jesus for everlasting life (they have a very works-based salvation). In that, they're just a typical cult. So says I, anyway!

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks for the info on Oneness folk, and for helping me adjust my views of them.

I think that the speaking in tongues things is one of the worst abuses of the HS there is.
I have serious issues with the whole "charismatic" movement that has people acting like the HS has "possessed" them.
Rather disturbing at times.

Not sure why you use quote marks around the word charismatic. It's been common usage, that I know of, since at least the early 1970s (when I started fellowshiping among charismatic churches and people). Whether the name was originally chosen by charismatics of those days or was given to denigrate them (and then used by charismatics), I don't know.

"Abuse" was a well-chosen word, as abuse entails a proper use. And I will certainly agree with you that abuse is much more common than it should be. I've seen out-of-control assemblies, and I've seen assemblies that were properly controlled. I also have trouble with Pentecostal and charismatic churches that are not properly controlled - misusing the gifts of the Spirit or suppressing the gifts (haven't seen the latter much among Pentecostals and charismatics).

From the direct reading of the accounts of "speaking in tongues' it seems clear that these "tongues" were different languages that were recognisable by others and passed off as "gibberish" by those that never heard them before.
The key element that SOMEONE can understand them.

Paul makes quite clear in 1 Cor. 14 that in an assembly of believers, an utterance/message in tongues must be followed by an interpretation. Keep in mind, however, that not only is speaking in tongues identified as a gift of the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12, but interpretation of tongues is also. IOW, an interpretation of tongues is as supernatural as an utterance in tongues (in an assembly of believers). Thus, Acts 2 is not the sole pattern for proper use of the gift of speaking in tongues.

It is also clear that the HS, WHEN He gives a special gift like speaking in tongues, can also give any other gift He so chooses, such as:
Healing, prophecy and perhaps the most important, the ability to TEACH the Gospel to others.

I'm not sure what your purpose is in making this comment. Pentecostals have been teaching about the gifts of the Spirit - Rom. 12 and 1 Cor. 12 - since at least the Azusa Street Revival ( ). The comment I remember from a charismatic movement teacher (in the 1970s) about "the most important" was this: the most important gift is the one fits the need at hand. Not exactly profound, but the practical common sense of it and his direct brevity made it memorable for me.

My point was to make the gift of tongues a gift more than any other is, IMO, quite wrong.
Also that speaking in tongues doesn't mean "divine language" but in the tongues of the nations.

[PeteSinCA]

My point was to make the gift of tongues a gift more than any other is, IMO, quite wrong.
Also that speaking in tongues doesn't mean "divine language" but in the tongues of the nations.

As I said, the "greatest" gift is the one needed for the situation at hand. So I don't regard speaking in tongues as any greater than the other spiritual gifts (and, as I've mentioned previously, that includes the spiritual gifts Paul listed in Rom. 12, not just the more obviously supernatural gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12).

As for the kind of language a particular utterance in tongues might be, I'm satisfied to leave that to the choice of the Holy Spirit. Scripture says little to that effect, though not nothing. In Acts 2, the utterances in tongues by 12-120 people speaking more or less simultaneously were described by the hearers thus, "we each hear them in our own language to which we were born." That the utterances were in each of those languages is the more natural assumption/understanding. However, the fact that as many as 120 people were speaking more or less simultaneously and the number of languages represented among the hearers raises a very reasonable possibility that the miracle was not that the 12-120 believers spoke the many languages of the hearers, but that God miraculously caused the hearers to "hear" what was spoken in their native languages. But even assuming what I call the more natural assumption/understanding, Acts 2 is a single example, not really a sufficient basis for certainty. I'll return to that thought in a minute.

At any rate, the other place Scripture speaks to the languages speaking in tongues might be is 1Cor. 13:1, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (NASB). I've heard the "explanation" that "and of angels" was hyperbole, not a real possibility. The problem with that "explanation" is that there is nothing in the text to support it; it's what Walter Martin might have called "eisegesis", reading something into a text that isn't there.

Returning to building a doctrine on a few historical examples (and possibly something in the background of your comments, "It is also clear that the HS, WHEN He gives a special gift like speaking in tongues, can also give any other gift He so chooses" and "to make the gift of tongues a gift more than any other is, IMO, quite wrong"), the doctrine that speaking in tongues is the evidence that one has been baptized in the Holy Spirit is common among Pentecostals and charismatics. The basis for this is the supposed fact that every time in the book of Acts some one is filled with the Holy Spirit for the first time, they spoke in tongues. I've never believed this doctrine, not from my first exposure to it in reading David Wilkerson's book, The Cross and the Switchblade, in 1971 or 1972. I saw three problems in it. First, the claimed fact about events in the book of Acts in not correct. What Paul did when first filled with the Spirit is not described; in another instance (Acts 19), the event is described thus, "they began speaking with tongues and prophesying", which may or may not support the claim (Did those who prophesied first speak in tongues? Or did they simply prophesy? It's nitpicking, but if you're building a doctrine on such texts they should support what is claimed). Second, building a doctrine on a half dozen or so historical events, IMO, is not sound, unless, Third, Scripture plainly states those events to be the norm ... which it does not. It may come as a surprise to you, but I've never had occasion to discuss this doctrine with anyone in nearly 25 years in charismatic churches. I've never heard it taught from the pulpit or in classes at any charismatic church I've attended.

This is getting pretty far afield from the Doctrine of the Trinity, and there is a thread elsewhere that focuses on experiences with the Holy Spirit. If this conversation continues, maybe it should do so in that thread.