For historical, theological, and practical reasons, it is important for Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals to communicate with each other and to develop a greater understanding of one another’s beliefs. When both groups were small and rejected by mainline society and religion, it was relatively easy for them to remain isolated from the world and from each other. Today, however, both groups have experienced such growth and acceptance that they need to consider how to relate to each other as well as to the world at large.
The growth of Pentecostals as a whole is well documented, but Trinitarian Pentecostals are just now beginning to acknowledge the growth of the Oneness movement. In June 1997, Charisma magazine reported 17 million Oneness believers.1 The most thorough study of this subject, presented as a master’s thesis for Wheaton College in 1998, documented approximately 20 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide. 2
Trinitarian Pentecostals typically have misconceptions about Oneness Pentecostal beliefs and practices. As a result, misinformation is commonly disseminated. For example, a 1997 study of Pentecostals erroneously states that in the view of Oneness pioneer Frank Ewart “baptism in the Holy Spirit . . . [was] received only in the immersion rite and only if administered in the name of Jesus.”3 It further claims that “many” independent Jesus Name congregations “practice such oddities as snake-handling and free love.”4 No source is given for either assertion, and there is no reason to believe that the cited “oddities” are any more prevalent among Oneness churches than Trinitarian churches. Similarly, a 1990 work erroneously says that Oneness Pentecostals consider water baptism to be “valid only when the newly baptized spoke in other tongues.”5Oneness Pentecostals do not seek the approval of Trinitarians, nor would they necessarily wish to participate in various ecumenical activities. They would, however, appreciate a respectful, fair, and accurate treatment of their historical and present significance to the Pentecostal movement and to Christianity generally, and they would welcome discussion.
Theologically, three factors have blocked significant discussion between Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals: (1) the doctrine of the Oneness of God, ever since the adoption of an explicitly Trinitarian statement of faith by the Assemblies of God in 1916, (2) the apostolic soteriology of Oneness Pentecostals, and (3) the conservative holiness practices espoused by most Oneness Pentecostals in contrast to most Trinitarian Pentecostals today.
With regard to the doctrine of God, we must remember that the Assemblies of God was founded on the basis that there would be no creed but the Bible, that the Oneness movement began about the same time as the formation of the Assemblies of God, and that many early Pentecostal leaders embraced the Oneness doctrine, including workers under Charles Parham and at the Azusa Street Mission. The Oneness people in 1916 argued for continued fellowship but were voted out.
Oneness believers are not likely to modify their core beliefs on the Godhead, but discussion could help to dispel misconceptions, eliminate false differences, and clarify true differences. Perhaps it could lead to a greater appreciation for insights offered by Oneness Pentecostals, some of which have been suggested in scholarly terms by mainstream theologians.6
On the doctrine of salvation, the Fundamental Doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), the largest Oneness Pentecostal body, states:
The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.7
Oneness Pentecostals indeed believe that they have a more complete understanding of “the Bible standard of full salvation,” but from the beginning they acknowledged the genuine spiritual experiences of other Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals. They spoke of a progressive experience of salvation as people walked in the light of the gospel, and they associated the fullness of salvation with the complete apostolic experience. In this regard, they followed the lead of the earliest Pentecostals.
The concept of “full salvation” appears in the writings of John Wesley and other Wesleyan and Holiness authors. Early Pentecostals applied the terms “full salvation” and “full gospel” to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The second paragraph of the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI is based on Ephesians 4:3, 13. Many early Pentecostals made a similar appeal to maintain “the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith.” In 1913 this phrase appeared in the writings of Frank Ewart, D. W. Kerr, and Andrew Urshan, and on the masthead of The Christian Evangel.8 In 1914 it appeared in the original constitution of the Assemblies of God.9
The first paragraph of the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI is based on Acts 2:38. Charles Parham wrote in 1902 that God drew his attention to the necessity of obeying Acts 2:38, and for a time he baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.10 Many Pentecostal pioneers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, including chroniclers of the movement and founders of the Assemblies of God, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.11 Parham also taught that to be in the church, the bride, the body of Christ, and the Rapture, one must be baptized with the Holy Spirit.12 A few years later, William Durham (died 1912) “elevated Acts 2:38 to the normative pattern for Pentecostal belief and practice.”13
In recent years, a number of evangelical and charismatic theologians have identified Acts 2:38 as the paradigm for New Testament salvation, including Leighton Ford, David Pawson, Kilian McDonnell, and George Montague.14
Discussion on this matter could be mutually enlightening. As one example, both Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals proclaim the importance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Among Trinitarian Pentecostals, however, only about 35 percent of members have received this experience.15 In Oneness Pentecostal circles the percentage is far higher. In the church I founded in 1992 in Austin, Texas, about 90 percent of all those age 10 and above have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, and most of the rest are relatively new to the church. It would be interesting to explore the reasons behind this significant difference.
On the practice of holiness, the potential for interaction on the grass-roots level becomes increasingly difficult due to the changing lifestyle of Trinitarian Pentecostals. In this regard, the Trinitarians, by and large, have changed, while the Oneness believers have consciously sought to maintain the holiness lifestyle that Pentecostals embraced from the beginning. Common ground diminishes when Trinitarian Pentecostals begin smoking, drinking socially, and wearing heavy ornamentation.16
It is common for Trinitarian Pentecostals and especially charismatics to deride Oneness Pentecostals for their conservative stance on such issues. In 1997 Charisma accused Oneness Pentecostals of legalism, elitism, mean-spiritedness, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, and spiritual pride, apparently with no awareness of the irony involved in judging them harshly based on anonymous or disgruntled sources.17 A greater understanding and appreciation for our mutual Holiness-Pentecostal heritage would bring perspective on this subject.
To this point, the Society for Pentecostal Studies has served as the primary forum for theological interaction between Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals. Practically speaking, further discussion would have to come at the initiation of Trinitarians. Ideally, it would involve mainstream representatives of the Oneness movement. Some years ago, Nathaniel Urshan, then general superintendent of the UPCI, proposed such a discussion in a letter to the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God.
On a personal level, it is easy for Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals to find much common ground and to feel a kindred spirit. Worship, prayer, and preaching can be points of identity. When I have attended various evangelical functions, I have observed Trinitarian Pentecostals muting their distinctive beliefs and worship styles, even when they composed a majority, in order to attain the least common denominator required for ecumenism. Yet when I have had the liberty to interact with them on a personal level or in Pentecostal-style worship, it seems that we Pentecostals have more in common with each other than with evangelicals generally or with people in mainline denominations.
For instance, one Trinitarian Pentecostal interviewed me as part of his research for a master’s thesis. His premise was that Oneness Pentecostals are a heretical cult who preach another gospel and worship a different Jesus. I invited him to attend Sunday services at our church and to have social interaction with our people. When I asked him to stand and greet the congregation, he gave thanks that we worship the same Lord. His thesis still argues that the Oneness doctrine is erroneous, but it no longer accuses Oneness Pentecostals of worshiping a different Jesus.
Perhaps we could all benefit from a discussion in the context of classical Pentecostal prayer, worship, and Bible study.
Notes
1. J. Lee Grady, “The Other Pentecostals,” Charisma, June 1997, 63.
2. Talmadge L. French, “Oneness Pentecostalism in Global Perspective: The Worldwide Growth and Organizational Expansion of the Oneness Pentecostal Movement in Historical and Theological Context” (master’s thesis, Wheaton College Graduate School, 1998).
5. Vinson Synan, “An Equal Opportunity Movement,” chap. 3 in Harold B. Smith, ed., Pentecostals from the Inside Out (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1990), 45.
6. See, for example, quotations from Oscar Cullmann, James Dunn, and Frank Stagg in David Bernard, “The Word Became Flesh: Oneness Pentecostal Perspectives on the Incarnation” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, Mo., March 1999).
7. Manual (Hazelwood, Mo.: United Pentecostal Church International, 1998), 22. These two paragraphs compose a section of the UPCI’s Articles of Faith entitled “Fundamental Doctrine.” It appears every month in the Pentecostal Herald, the official organ of the UPCI.
8. David Reed, “The ‘New Issue’ of 1914: New Revelation or Historical Development?” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Wheaton, Ill., November 1994), 8.
9. Combined Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1914-17, 4-5.
10. Charles Parham, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Baxter Springs, KS: Apostolic Faith Bible College, 1902), 21, 23-24. Howard Goss testified that Parham baptized him in the name of Jesus Christ in 1903. Fred Foster, Their Story: 20th Century Pentecostals (Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1975), 98, 121.
11. See Walter Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1972), 32, 43 n. 21. Examples are A. H. Argue, Frank Bartleman, E. N. Bell, Howard Goss, B. F. Lawrence, R. E. McAlister, Aimee Semple McPherson, D. C. O. Opperman, and H. G. Rodgers.
12. Parham, 27, 31, 35.
13. Reed, 22.
14. Leighton Ford, “The ‘Finger of God’ in Evangelism,” in J. I. Packer and Paul Fromer, eds., The Best in Theology, Vol. 1 (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 1987), 292-93; J. David Pawson, The Normal Christian Birth (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), 13, 143-46; Kilian McDonnell and George Montague, eds., Fanning the Flame (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 14.
15. D. B. Barrett, “Statistics Global,” in Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Patrick Alexander, eds., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 820.
16. In recent years the International Pentecostal Holiness Church officially abandoned its historic stand on these matters.
17. Grady, 64-65.
The above article was reprinted with permission and is from Dr. Bernard's recent book, "The Apostolic Life", published by Pentecostal Publishing House.
I think that quite a few trinitarians (regardless of whether or not they are pentecostal) would argue the same thing Dr. Bernard does here: that the oneness folks have misconceptions which result in the disemination of misinformation regarding trinitarianism. Intersting to note that the good Dr. feels that the proverbial ball of brotherhood and open discussion is in the court of the trinitarians and that they are the ones who will need to initiate further dialogue. Tough to do when he also claims that oneness believers are "not interested in engaging in ecumenical activities" with those who have dropped the "practices of holiness". That is akin to me telling someone I look forward to speaking with them later on, and then giving them a phony cell number.
Apparently, Dr. Bernard has settled in the powerless role of a victim. He seems to easily dispose of the responsibility, as a leader in UPCI, to seek unity in the Body of Christ. This would seem an elementary practice for those who lay claim to having the biblical standards of full salvation.
Dr. Bernard claims that UPCI has kept the "holiness" standards. This is a matter of personal opinion. These superficial outward standards that are typically taught as "holiness" have led to the judgmental, legalism, etc... which has become the reputation.
Before I go any further, I should probably say that I am a oneness pentecostal who is a member of a church associated with UPCI. I don't smoke, drink, or ornament myself. So my response is not because I'm offended at his oneness doctrine, or his personal standards of holiness.
What is offensive among the UPCI is the obvious absence of the two GREATest commands to love God and then your neighbor. I'm glad the congregation that I'm a part of has made great strides to include this as a fundamental teaching. Teaching us to love one another has helped remove the false security that comes with teaching superficial standards.
This isn't exactly anonymous, and I'm not disgruntled, but I am validating that a good number of UPCI people are exactly what Charisma claims. Thank God there are many of us who are seeking change, most of us being the next generation. We're not impressed with the religious attitudes we grew up with.
I hope Dr. Bernard will provide Belief Corner with an article that is of more substance and beneficial to the church.
Many of us are eager to hear good sound doctrine, that will change us from the inside out. We're not interested in just cleaning up the outside of the cup. We want a changed heart, this will lead to changed behavior and appearances.
Based upon some of the registered comments, I think there may be a misunderstanding of what Dr. Bernard wrote or perhaps intended to convey in his article.
Yes, it can be said that misconception is a two-way street, and I'm fairly certain that Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals are mutual practitioners in this area. However, the misconception of Trinitarianism on behalf of the Oneness movement has not resulted in ad hominem charges or labels of cultism. And while I'm no linguist, being labeled as a cult is among the highest order of defamatory impedance to a mutually beneficial dialogue. And due to the unfortunate stigma associated with that label, this mess must sorted out and cleaned up in the Trinitarian camp in order to facilitate even the most modest of open discussions. In this sense, therefore, the proverbial ball of brotherhood rests in Trinitarian circles.
Also, Oneness Pentecostals not being interested in ecumenical activities is not the same as refusing to engage in open dialogue. Dr. Bernard noted how Pentecostal worship behavior underwent observable changes when placed in an ecumenical environment. The inference I drew is that the distinctive form of church worship ought not to be compromised for the sake of ecumenism. However, Dr. Bernard has suggested that an open discussion of our differences would be "mutually enlightening" and that "we could all benefit" from it.
By: Dr. David Bernard (
