Religious Studies Talk

Carl · Guest

In the following article, Mike Barden explains about the cult known as
"Oneness Pentecostalism."

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/

---

The Gospel According To Oneness Pentecostalism
by Mike Barden

Preface

I need to say right up front that I am not saying that all Pentecostalism is
cultic. However, I am convinced that this particular strain of
Pentecostalism is a cult. I realize that this is a serious accusation, but
it is one I plan to support throughout the remainder of this article.

By way of introduction, the term "Oneness" refers to this movement's view of
the Godhead. They believe that the Trinitarian view of the Godhead is pure
tritheism, so instead they conclude and teach that Jesus Christ is Himself
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The largest denomination of Oneness Pentecostals is the United Pentecostal
Church International (UPC, or UPCI). There are also smaller Oneness groups,
such as the Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Bible Way Churches of
Our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. Oneness churches often call themselves
"Apostolic" or "Jesus' name" churches. From the outside, they have been
referred to as "Jesus only" churches. My own experience in Oneness
Pentecostalism happened to be in a church affiliated with the UPC.

My purpose here is to expose the unbiblical "gospel according to Oneness
Pentecostalism," and to present the "gospel according to the Bible." The
primary reason I label this movement a cult is their gross perversion of the
Bible's message of salvation; secondary reasons would include their
unbiblical view of the Godhead, legalism, hyper-experientialism and
spiritual elitism.

Since Oneness adherents believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ, it has
been difficult for some to label this movement a cult. It's a bit easier to
make that assertion of Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, because they
blatantly deny the deity of Jesus. Much has been written to refute these two
groups, but very little has been written to refute Oneness Pentecostalism,
which has been quite a significant movement since its beginnings in 1914.

In some small way, I hope to make a difference as I present this critique. I
hope that some who may not know much about this movement will become
informed enough to recognize it, avoid it, and refute its heresy. Also, I
hope that others who may now be involved in Oneness Pentecostalism will
seriously consider whether their doctrine is truly "Apostolic."

Part 1: How I got into it.

I was raised in a mainline denominational church setting, but had questions
and doubts about Christianity as I grew up. I had checked out a few
different religious philosophies along the way, but my secular college
education resulted in me becoming basically an atheistic skeptic. I
eventually came to the conclusion that the Bible was nothing more than a
book of ancient stories and myths.

Near the end of my undergraduate experience, a friend from out of town told
me some amazing things about a church he was attending. Stories of
present-day miracles, and talk of fulfilled Biblical prophecy rekindled my
interest in the God of the Bible. I became more fully convinced of the
truthfulness of the Bible, and as a result, I ultimately surrendered my life
to Jesus Christ.

The church my friend attended was a UPC church, so naturally I sought to
find a local extension of this denomination. Once I found one, I began to
get wholeheartedly involved with this local assembly.

To solidify my understanding of doctrine, I studied the Bible for hours each
day (under the guidance of UPC literature by authors such as David Bernard,
and the teaching of my pastor). Over time, I became convinced that to be
"born again," a person must:

Repent,
be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" for the remission (forgiveness) of
their sins, and,
receive "the gift of the Holy Ghost," evidenced by "speaking in tongues."

This teaching is based on a misinterpretation of Acts 2:38, which I will
explain in part 5.

As you might imagine, this three-step "new birth" is quite a process (it can
be quick for some, but for others it can take years). However, after a
person has experienced this "new birth," they're not quite yet "out of the
woods." It is also expected that UPC members consistently comply with
several "holiness standards," including, but not limited to, the following:

Women should wear skirts, but never pants or slacks.
Women should never cut their hair.
Women should not wear jewelry or makeup.
Men should only have short, conservative haircuts.
Men should not wear facial hair.
No one should own a TV.
No one should watch movies at a theater.
No one should wear shorts, or anything that would expose the legs.
No one should go swimming in a public place.
These "standards" vary a little bit from church to church, but most are
consistently taught within the UPC (some of the more "liberal" Oneness
churches do not teach these kinds of "standards.")

At the height of my UPC experience, I was fully convinced of the whole
Oneness doctrine. I was excited about it; I believed it, I taught it,
debated it with Trinitarians, told it to friends, and even helped bring a
few other people into the movement.

Part 2: How I got out of it.

When I was involved with the UPC, I wasn't much interested in reading
literature by non-Oneness "Christian" authors. I figured, If these guys
aren't even true "born again" Christians (by the UPC definition), why should
I pay any attention to what they have to say?

Still, I had an insatiable appetite for learning the Scripture. If I didn't
understand something, I would search and study until I did. I started
reading non-Oneness authors, but only to debunk them. I would see a
statement like "to be saved, all you have to do is accept Christ as your
Lord and Savior," and I would think, "that is not even in the Bible; I have
much more Scripture to back up my position than they have to back up
theirs!" "Traditional evangelicalism" seemed so much more shallow than the
depth of experience and doctrine I had received as a Oneness Pentecostal.

However, as I studied, I ran across a passage in the Bible that shook my
whole theological structure; it was the 4th chapter of Romans. When I
honestly studied it, and grasped the full significance of it, I realized
that I had forced the whole Bible to conform to my own misguided
preconception. In light of this highly significant passage, the whole
message of the Bible, including Acts 2:38, became startlingly clear. I
realized that I had fully embraced "another gospel" than the one in the
Bible!

One basic principle of Bible study is that "Scripture interprets Scripture."
If one Scripture is clear, and another is unclear, you must interpret the
unclear one in light of the clear one, not vice versa. Romans 4 is very
clear, as I will show you in part 3. However, I knew that there was some
debate about what exactly Acts 2:38 meant, because of the words and grammar
of the original Greek text. Still, I had always interpreted this verse in
light of Oneness doctrine, and not truly in the light of "the whole counsel
of God." Sure, I had lots of "supporting scriptures" to back up my position,
but I also misinterpreted them to maintain my Oneness convictions.

I will soon explain the specific message of Romans 4; but for now, suffice
it to say that once its truth fully took hold of me, I could no longer stay
in this movement.

They say that hindsight is 20/20, and since I've been out of it for a while,
I have been able to identify other serious problems with Oneness
Pentecostalism, which I will touch on in part 6. The fact is that error
always begets more error; when the foundation is flawed (in this case, the
basic gospel message), the rest of the structure (the other details of the
religion) can never be quite right.

Part 3: How Romans 4 changes everything.

Before we begin to examine specific scriptures, you must remember that
Oneness adherents (along with the Churches of Christ, and some others)
believe that water baptism is an essential part of spiritual rebirth.
According to this interpretation of Acts 2:38, it is through water baptism
that one's sins are forgiven (or "remitted," as the King James Version
reads).

"Justification by faith alone"

As I said before, the basic teaching of Romans 4 is very clear. The theme of
the whole chapter has been called "justification by faith alone," which was
a primary principle in the reformers' position against Roman Catholicism.
The distinction made by the reformers was the word "alone." In other words,
God "justifies" (or declares "not guilty") a sinner the moment he puts his
faith in the saving work and authority of Jesus Christ. Works of faith (like
baptism, and a holy lifestyle) follow afterward, but these works can never
bring about a person's right standing before God.

Like Roman Catholicism, Oneness Pentecostalism would agree with the idea of
"justification by faith," but they would not use the word "alone." They
believe that in order for faith to take its saving effect, it must first
must be demonstrated through certain works. In both Catholicism and Oneness
Pentecostalism, the primary work in one's initial salvation is baptism, but
subsequent obedience is also necessary to maintain one's standing before
God. For Catholicism, it is obedience to the Sacraments; for Oneness
Pentecostalism, it is obedience to the "standards of holiness."

The message of Romans 4

As you run across the word "justification," you should know that it was
originally a legal term, and that to be "justified" is to be legally
declared 'not guilty.' It is a declaration from God that happens at one
specific point in time.

Also, keep in mind that the Jews considered themselves "saved" because they
were circumcised, in the same way that many Christians consider themselves
"saved" because they are baptized. Here is a brief summary of the chapter
(you can read the specific verses in your own Bible):

V.1: Paul, the writer of Romans, uses Abraham to illustrate his point,
because Abraham was considered by the Jews to be the ultimate biblical
example of faithfulness.

V.2: Abraham could perhaps do good works to justify himself before people,
but no good works could justify him before God.

V.3: Genesis 15:6 is quoted to show that Abraham was accounted, or credited
with righteousness simply because He believed God's promise.

V.4: If we could earn salvation, it would not be a gift, would it?

V.5: A person is not justified through doing something, but only by
believing in the God who justifies undeserving, ungodly people.

V.6: This is not only a New Testament idea; king David wrote about it in the
Old Testament.

V.7: Psalm 32:1,2 is quoted to show that justification includes the
forgiveness and covering of sins.

V.8: The Lord no longer holds sin against a justified person. Remember,
justification is God's legal declaration about a person.

V.9: The question is raised: Does a person have to be circumcised (an Old
Testament sign of obedience) to receive this blessing of justification?

V.10: The answer is, No.

V.11: Abraham was circumcised as a sign of obedience to God, but only after
he had already put his faith in God, and after he had already been justified
by God. In the same way, we are justified before we ever obey God.

V.12: As Abraham was justified by faith alone, we are in the same way
justified by faith alone.

V.13: It was not God's commandment that brought about God's promise to
Abraham, but simply Abraham's faith in God's promise.

V.14: If people could obey God perfectly, there would be no need for faith
(but of course they cannot).

V.15: God's commandments only serve to show human guilt, and to bring about
God's wrath...

V.16: ...That's why God's grace is offered through faith (alone); so that
all believers can benefit, whether they are circumcised or not.

V.17: That's how Abraham is the father of "many nations." He is the father
of all who put their faith in God, whether they are circumcised or not.

V.18: Abraham's faith was in God's promise that seemed impossible.

V.19: The circumstances of Abraham's life made God's promise seem even more
impossible.

V.20 Still, Abraham unswervingly trusted God's promise.

V.21 He trusted that what God promised, He could and would do.

V.22 It is because of this kind of faith (trust in God's promise) that God
justified Abraham (declared him "not guilty").

V.23 The whole point of this discussion is not only to show Abraham's faith,
but...

V.24 ...for everyone who has the same trust in God's provision of salvation
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

V.25 The promise Christians believe is that Jesus took the punishment for
our sins, and he was raised from the dead so that we could be justified
(declared "not guilty").

Here are the significant points of this chapter:

Abraham was justified because of his faith alone, not because of anything he
did (vss. 1-4).

This justification includes the forgiveness (or "remission") of sins (vss.
5- Cool

.

Abraham was justified by faith alone before he did any acts of obedience
(vss. 9-12).

The specific kind of faith Abraham had was simply an unswerving trust in
God's promise (vss. 13-22).

In the same way, we are justified (credited with perfect righteousness) when
we trust in God's provision of salvation through the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ (vss. 23-25).

Yes, it is also said in James 2:21-23 that Abraham was "justified by works"
when he offered up his son as a sacrifice to God. This "justification"
obviously took place several years after the justification referred to in
Romans 4. God justifies us at the moment of our faith; however, others
cannot see our faith until we display it through obedience to God. When we
obey God, our invisible faith is made visible, and we are then "justified"
in the eyes of those who witness our lives. James 2:21-23 was written to
teach that true faith always manifests itself in good works.
However, it is still true that justification comes from God before any good
works are done.

Notice that Romans 5:1 states that it is "justification" that gives a
believer peace with God; also notice that water baptism is not mentioned
once in this entire passage. In fact, the whole idea that God requires water
baptism for the forgiveness of sins is incompatible with the teaching of
Romans 4. Forgiveness from God and peace with God come before a person could
ever be baptized in water.

Another observation should be mentioned about justification. It is a
declaration that comes from God at one specific point in time. Before God
justifies a person, they are guilty of all their sins, and are considered to
be children of the devil (John 8:44). However, after God has justified a
person, they are freed from all guilt, and they are considered to be
children of God (John 1:12-13). Either a person is saved, or they are not;
there is a universe of difference between these two conditions, and the only
thing that makes the difference is God's justification of the sinner.

The reason I bring this up is because according to the Oneness gospel, there
are three "steps" in the new birth: Repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues. If someone
has not completed all three of these "steps," they are still "in the
process" of their new birth. For example, if a person has repented and
spoken in tongues, yet they haven't been baptized "correctly" ("in the name
of Jesus Christ"), they would not be considered born again. If a person has
repented, and been baptized "correctly," yet they have never spoken in
"tongues," they would still not be considered born again.

This unbiblical view of salvation creates great and unnecessary spiritual
frustration for anyone seeking salvation. Instead of understanding the
amazing grace of God that immediately frees a undeserving sinner from the
guilt of their sin, people in Oneness churches are taught that they are not
yet saved if they haven't spoken in tongues. Oneness Pentecostals also
cannot believe that any non-Oneness Christian is really saved, because they
haven't been baptized "correctly." In Oneness thinking, to be baptized "in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is the
equivalent of not being baptized at all. A common saying among Oneness
Pentecostals is, "If you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, all you got was wet."

The doctrine of justification by faith alone, as it is clearly presented in
Romans 4, completely disassembles every false religious system of "salvation
by grace through works of faith," including the whole "gospel" according to
Oneness Pentecostalism.

Because the teaching of this chapter is so powerful and so clear, we must
now interpret the rest of Scripture in light of it. We must keep this fact
in mind as we interpret other verses, like Acts 2:38, that speak of
conversion, baptism, and the Holy Spirit. But first, we will consider
another significant "proof text" for the Oneness view of salvation -- John
3:5.

Part 4: "water and the Spirit"

According to John 3:5, Jesus told the Jewish teacher Nicodemus that no one
can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are "born of water and the Spirit."

Oneness adherents see this as a clear parallel to Acts 2:38, where both
water baptism and the Holy Spirit are mentioned. According to this view,
unless one is baptized ("in the name of Jesus") AND they give evidence of
the Holy Spirit (i.e. speaking in tongues), they are not born again, and
they cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Let's take a look at these terms Jesus
used in John 3:5:

"Water"

In Oneness thinking, the "water" of this verse is a direct reference to
water baptism. The exact meaning of the phrase "born of water" has been a
point of debate for centuries, but in light of the teaching of Romans 4
(i.e. that one is forgiven when they believe God, before they could ever
obey God in a work like baptism), we cannot take this phrase as a reference
to Christian water baptism. It is true that John the Baptist was already
baptizing people at that time, and that both Jesus and Nicodemus were aware
of that fact, but neither John nor Jesus taught that this baptism was a "new
birth," or the entrance into the kingdom of God.

It has also been theorized that "born of water" is a reference to natural
childbirth. A person is born once, after their mother's "water" breaks; but
in order to be saved, one must also be born "of the Spirit," referring to
Christian conversion. This interpretation seems a bit weak, since natural
childbirth is never referred to as a birth "of water" anywhere else in the
Bible, or in any normal figures of speech.

The better interpretation of this phrase comes from first understanding that
this was a conversation between two highly trained and intelligent Jewish
teachers. In spiritual matters, their common point of reference would have
been the Hebrew scriptures, or what Christians call the Old Testament.

In Ezekiel 36:25-27, God promises a spiritual restoration to the wayward
Jews; this restoration includes both a cleansing from sin (with "clean
water"), as well as the gift of a new "spirit," which would be loving and
obedient to God, instead of hardened and disobedient. Nicodemus would have
immediately recognized this terminology as a reference to God's prophetic
promise of spiritual restoration to the Jews.

When Nicodemus responded by saying, "How can these things be?" (v. 9), Jesus
responded, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?"
(v. 10) It wasn't that Nicodemus didn't know the Scripture; he just couldn't
comprehend how a person could be "born again," or spiritually re-created,
once they were old and set in their sinful ways. Jesus was noting that
Nicodemus had a difficult time comprehending the spiritual reality of this
promise.

Before examining "the Spirit" Jesus spoke of, we should quickly look at
other verses that are commonly used by Oneness Pentecostals (and others) to
show that water baptism is essential to salvation. Let me first say that the
Bible does indeed teach that new believers should be baptized, but it does
not teach that water baptism is a requirement for salvation.

As we look at these other verses, we must keep in mind the clear teaching of
Romans 4; that is, that one is justified and forgiven by God at the first
moment of real faith. If we believe that the Scripture never contradicts
itself, Romans 4 alone is enough to make it impossible for any other
Scripture to teach salvation through water baptism. Still, we should examine
these verses closely to see if any of them clearly teach that water baptism
is an essential component of salvation:

Titus 3:5 and 1 Corinthians 6:11

Titus 3:5 states that "He saved us ... by the washing of regeneration and
renewing by the Holy Spirit," and 1 Corinthians 6:11 uses similar language.
These verses clearly refer to the spiritual cleansing that happens when a
person is forgiven and restored by God, and it would be a bit of a stretch
to say that they are referring to water baptism. If they do somehow refer to
water baptism, they do so rather figuratively; for that reason, these verses
should not be used to teach salvation through water baptism.

We now need to ask, Do these two verses clearly teach that water baptism is
an essential component of salvation? The answer is, No.

Mark 16:16

Because of the wording of this verse, it has caused some confusion in
debates about baptism. However, an easy way to clear up this confusion is to
temporarily replace "baptism" with some other Christian activity, like
"generous giving." Jesus could have said, "He that believeth and giveth
generously shall be saved; but he who believeth not shall be damned." That
would be a perfectly true statement, and we wouldn't need to interpret it to
mean that generous giving is essential to salvation. Only belief is clearly
said to be essential to salvation. In this verse, Jesus is emphasizing
belief as the pivotal issue of salvation, not baptism; He links condemnation
with unbelief, not a lack of water baptism.

Does this verse clearly teach that water baptism is an essential component
of salvation? Again, the answer is, No.

Acts 22:16

Notice that there are two separate commands in this verse: 1)"be baptized,
and 2) wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." The washing
away of sins is done by "calling on the name of the Lord"; "be baptized" is
a separate command, and it is not connected to the washing of one's sins.

Does this verse clearly teach that water baptism is an essential component
of salvation? The answer is, No.

1 Peter 3:20-21

In this verse, the waters of the worldwide flood are said to have "saved"
Noah and seven others; this is seen as a predictive picture of Christian
baptism, which "doth also now save us." Because of this terminology, this
passage is often used as rock-solid proof that water baptism is essential to
salvation.

However, before jumping to that conclusion, we need to notice two things: 1)
How water "saved" Noah and his family, and 2) Peter's own qualification of
his statement that water baptism now "saves" us.

First, let's look at Noah's salvation by "water." Noah's faith caused him to
spend many years building the ark that would protect his family from the
Genesis flood. When the water came, he and his family were "saved" from
God's judgment against the sin of the world. However, notice that Noah's
external salvation by "water" is not the same as his real, spiritual
salvation by God's grace. Before he ever began building the ark, Noah had
already "found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6: Cool

Clearly, Noah's
safety during the flood was the outward confirmation of the grace he had
already received from God years earlier. In the same way, a Christian's
water baptism is also the outward confirmation of the grace he or she
receives when they first put their trust in God's promise of salvation
through Jesus Christ.

Second, let's look at Peter's qualification of his own statement. He
parenthetically writes that water baptism's "salvation" comes not from "the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
toward God." In other words, it is not the external act that saves; the only
significance that water baptism has is when it is done out of a clear
conscience toward God. The only way we can possibly have a "clear
conscience" before God is if we already know our sins have been forgiven. Of
course, this happens at the moment of justification, when a person first
puts their faith in God's promise of salvation through Jesus Christ.

The most wooden, literalistic interpretation of Peter's statement that
"baptism now doth also save us," would be that water baptism is our savior.
No one would reasonably argue that view. However, neither is Peter teaching
that water baptism is the required means of God's saving grace.

All Peter is saying in this passage is that as Noah's salvation was
confirmed through an experience with water, so our salvation is confirmed
with an experience with water.

The question remains, does this passage clearly teach that water baptism is
an essential component of salvation? Again, the answer is, No.

Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12, and Galatians 3:27

These verses are often used to teach salvation through water baptism, but
none of these passages mention water. It would be more biblically consistent
to take them as references to baptism into the body of Christ, which can
only be done by the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit baptism will be discussed
in more detail in the next section.

Do any of these verses clearly teach that water baptism is an essential
component of salvation? Again, the answer is, No.

Let's now look at the other term Jesus used:

"The Spirit"

The Holy Spirit is called "the Holy Ghost" in the King James Version, but
I'll stick with the term "Holy Spirit," since the word "ghost" sounds a
little "spooky" in our modern English.

Both "spirit" and "ghost" are translated from the Greek word pneuma, which
refers to the breath (wind), or life principle of a living being; it can
also refer to someone's personality. "Holy" means morally unblemished, or
perfect. "The Holy Spirit," therefore, refers to God Himself, actively
relating to humans in this world.

The Holy Spirit works in a multitude of ways in the life of every Christian;
here are some examples:

He convicts sinners of their sin (John 16:8-9)

He regenerates (or gives new life to) believing sinners (John 3:6-8)

He baptizes (or places) them into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13)

He seals (or guarantees) the eternal inheritance of believers (Ephesians
1:13)

He helps them pray (Romans 8:26)

He gradually transforms them into the image of God (2 Corinthians 3:1 Cool

until the day they personally see Jesus, and they are completely perfected
(1 John 3:2).

Obviously, the Holy Spirit does some of these things before a person becomes
a Christian (conviction), some of these happen when a person becomes a
Christian (regeneration, baptism, sealing), and some of these happen after a
person becomes a Christian (help with prayer, spiritual transformation).

For the sake of this article, I will focus on the Holy Spirit's baptism (1
Corinthians 12:13). This spiritual baptism is an essential aspect of a
person's salvation; if a person does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is
not saved (Romans 8:9).

It is the Spirit baptism, not water baptism, that unites a sinner with
Christ. There are a few verses that teach this fact, but unfortunately they
often get applied to water baptism, even though water is never mentioned.
These verses include Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2:12, and
were discussed in the previous section.

It is clear from 1 Corinthians 12:13 and these other verses that the "Spirit
baptism" is an essential component of the whole salvation package. Oneness
Pentecostals would agree with this assertion. Now the question is, Is
speaking in tongues the universally expected, initial evidence of this
baptism? Oneness adherents would say, Yes. Let's see what the Bible says.

Mark 16:17

Jesus briefly mentioned "tongues" in Mark 16:17 as a sign that would
accompany future Christian believers. Oneness Pentecostals see this as an
indication that every believer should speak in tongues. This was, in fact, a
miraculous sign that was recorded in the book of Acts. However, other signs
mentioned by Jesus included:

Casting out of demons

Taking up of serpents, unharmed

Drinking of poison, unharmed

Complete physical healings through the laying on of hands

Again, these signs were fulfilled through certain people in the early
church, but no one could reasonably argue that all of these signs are
expected to accompany every Christian. Still, Oneness Pentecostals maintain
that "speaking in tongues" must accompany the conversion of every genuine
Christian.

The crucial question to ask here is, Does this verse clearly teach that
"tongues" is expected to accompany the conversion of every Christian? Once
we look at it in context, the answer is, No.

Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19

"Speaking in tongues" is specifically mentioned in chapters 2, 10, and 19 of
the book of Acts, and it is implied in chapter 8. In the book of Acts,
speaking in tongues was the supernatural ability to speak in unlearned, yet
understandable languages (which, as a side note, I have never heard in my
entire Pentecostal experience; most of what passes for "tongues" is
nonsensical gibberish).

"Tongues" is presented in Acts as a miraculous occurrence that accompanied
the conversion of some people in the early years of the Christian church.
Thousands of people were converted, but only a relative few of these people
are reported to have spoken in tongues.

In Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19, we can find a very specific purpose for each of
the supernatural confirmations. In Acts 2, God confirms His acceptance of
the Jews, who rejected their Messiah; in Acts 8, He confirms His acceptance
of the Samaritans, who were considered by Jews to be outside the will of
God; in Acts 10, He confirms His acceptance of the Gentiles, who were
considered by Jews to be "uncircumcised" and therefore hated by God; and in
Acts 19, He confirms His acceptance of the disciples of John, who were true
believers, but were not aware of the Pentecostal outpouring. Each of these
events were unique, crucial moments in the church, wherein God made His
acceptance of all people very clear.

Again, the question must be asked, Is there any solid teaching or
implication in the book of Acts that "tongues" is expected to accompany the
conversion of every Christian? Again, the answer is, No!

1 Corinthians 12-14

Tongues are again mentioned in chapters 12, 13, and 14 of 1 Corinthians. In
these chapters, "speaking in tongues" was a supernatural gift given to
certain believers. In order for this gift to have any validity, however, the
language must have been interpreted and clarified by someone else in the
church (14:27).

We must answer the same question about these chapters: Is there any solid
teaching or implication in 1 Corinthians that "tongues" was expected to
accompany the conversion of every Christian? Again, the obvious answer is,
No!

The rest of the Bible

Paul applies Isaiah 28:11-12 to the Corinthian "tongues" problem, to show
that they are a sign to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:21). Aside from this
Old Testament reference, "tongues" are not mentioned anywhere else in the
entire Bible (though some verses are unconvincingly applied to tongues, like
Romans 8:26, James 3:5-10, and Jude 20).

As we survey the rest of the Scripture, is there any solid teaching or
implication in the whole Bible that "tongues" is expected to accompany the
conversion of every Christian? Again, the answer is, NO!

The only biblically taught, universally expected sign of the baptism of the
Holy Spirit is the transformed character of the believer. Where there once
was selfishness, there is now selflessness. Where there once was hatred,
there is now love. Where there once was recklessness, there is now
self-control. These attributes are known as "the fruit of the Spirit," and
they are mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23. These qualities can only come from
God; unlike "tongues" they cannot be faked. The "fruit of the Spirit" is the
only positive outward evidence that a person has been "born again."

The conclusion is this: A person is baptized by the Holy Spirit, into the
body of Christ, as an invisible, inaudible work of God. No miraculous
evidence of "speaking in tongues" is to be sought or expected.

Recap: The simple meaning of John 3:5

When Jesus spoke of being "born of water and the Spirit," He was not trying
to mysteriously communicate to Nicodemus the essentiality of water baptism
to one's salvation. He was simply using recognizable, Old Testament
prophetic terminology to describe the supernatural transformation that
happens to a person who humbly trusts God's promise of salvation.

Part 5: So what exactly does Acts 2:38 mean?

When we correctly understand the meaning of Acts 2:38, the whole Oneness
"gospel" gets dismantled; it cannot exist without misinterpreting this
verse.

Let's look at this verse, phrase by phrase, in light of all that has already
been established about water and Spirit baptism (I'll use the King James
Version, as would most Oneness Pentecostals):

"Then Peter said unto them,": The apostle Peter never heard Jesus teach
that baptism was essential to forgiveness, and in his later preaching, Peter
never taught it again. Unless Peter was mentally unstable, or grossly
mistaken, he would not preach a different message in this sermon than what
Jesus taught him, nor would he preach a different message here than he would
anywhere else.

"Repent,": Repentance is simply "a change of mind." This is the true moment
of Christian conversion, when a person stops living according to their own
selfish desires, and starts living according to the promises and will of
God. In the Greek text, this command is in the second person plural; it is
addressed to the crowd as a whole. This is significant, as we will soon see.

"and be baptized every one of you": This is indeed a command to be baptized
in water, but it is given in the third person singular, addressed to
specific individuals who would soon come to saving faith. Again, the
significance of the grammar will soon be apparent.

"in the name of Jesus Christ": Oneness adherents insist that this means
that the words "in the name of Jesus Christ," or some equivalent, be spoken
by the baptizing pastor at the time of the baptism. Biblically, however, to
do something in someone's name means it is simply done in the authority and
place of that person. This may or may not be accompanied by spoken words;
Christians are commanded to do all things "in the name of Jesus Christ," but
we are surely not expected to say "in the name of Jesus Christ" whenever we
do anything. If a person is baptized as a submission to the authority of
Jesus Christ, they are baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," no matter
what was spoken by the baptizing pastor.

"for the remission of sins,": Remember, remission is the same as
forgiveness, which was already discussed in relation to Romans 4. The Greek
word translated "for" is eis, which has two legitimate biblical meanings. It
can mean "for the purpose of," or it can mean "because of." Depending on how
you translate it, Peter is either preaching baptism "for the purpose of"
forgiveness yet to be received, or baptism "because of" forgiveness already
received. In light of the teaching in Romans 4:7-8, we know that God's
forgiveness comes at the moment of justification, which happens when a
person trusts in God's provision of salvation through the death and
resurrection of Jesus (Romans 4:23-25). Knowing this fact, we must assume
that Peter was commanding new believers to be baptized "because of" the
forgiveness they would have received at the first moment of their faith.

"and ye shall receive": This last part of Acts 2:38 is now back to second
person plural, addressed to the whole crowd of listeners. This fact is
reflected in the King James translation, which uses the word "ye" (plural)
in this phrase, and the word "you" (singular) in the command to "be
baptized." The significance of this grammar is that "the gift of the Holy
Ghost" is connected directly to repentance, not water baptism. The middle
command to "be baptized" is a parenthetical command, addressed to those
individuals who would already have repented and been forgiven.

"the gift of the Holy Ghost.": Notice also that Peter never teaches a
prerequisite "seeking" in order to receive the Holy Spirit ("seeking," or
"tarrying," is a common situation in most Oneness churches, and can include
kneeling, praying, crying, continuous "repenting" of sins, raising of the
hands, saying "hallelujah" repeatedly, etc.; this process may be only for a
few minutes, or it may be repeated over a span of years). The Holy Spirit is
a free gift, and He comes directly and instantaneously to the person who
truly repents. For more about the exact nature of the Holy Spirit, go back
to the previous section on "the Spirit."

When we see the real, simple message of Acts 2:38, we see that it does not
at all support the "gospel according to Oneness Pentecostalism," but that it
teaches a simple, powerful message of the grace and love of God to those who
would come to Him.

Now that we've examined the heart of Oneness Pentecostalism's error, we can
now more easily understand some of the other "bitter fruit" that grows out
of this false "gospel."

Part 6: Other problems with Oneness Pentecostalism

As I said before, error begets error. Because of this basic false teaching
in Oneness Pentecostalism, all other areas of spiritual life are affected. I
will conclude this article with a few of the problems that usually exist in
Oneness church groups.

Unbiblical teaching about the Godhead

The modern Oneness movement began at a Pentecostal camp meeting in April
1913 with one man's "revelation" that baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ"
(Acts 2:3 Cool

was the correct fulfillment of Jesus' command to baptize "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19).
It is this basic misunderstanding of baptism that led certain others to
conclude that Jesus Christ is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

To a Oneness Pentecostal, this is a defining issue. They believe that the
Trinitarian view of the Godhead is a pagan invention of the early church
councils of 325 and 381 AD. Because the majority of Christian churches hold
to this view of the Godhead, they feel that all Trinitarian churches are
paganized, tritheistic descendants of the Roman Catholic church.

As was mentioned before, the term "Oneness" comes from a "Modalist" view of
the Godhead; that is, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are
"modes," or "manifestations" of God in various activities. In creation, God
is in the "Father" mode; in the incarnation, God is in the "Son" mode; and
when working in people, God is in the "Holy Spirit" mode. Any relationship
between the Father and the Son is between Jesus' deity and Jesus' humanity
(in other words, when Jesus prays, He's really talking to Himself).
Otherwise, there is no real distinction or relationship between the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because "God is one"; any personal
relationship between these "modes" of God is not real, but only apparent.

This understanding of the Godhead creates a multitude of problems when
interpreting verses like John 14:26, in which Jesus says:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My
name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

In Oneness understanding, the Holy Ghost is really Jesus Himself, and the
Father is really Jesus Himself. In other words, what Jesus really meant was
this:

"But the Comforter, which is me, whom I will send in My name, I shall teach
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have
said unto you."

As you can see, this kind of interpretation completely negates any
distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that Jesus was
obviously trying to express. Here's another example of something Jesus said,
this time taken from 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." (emphasis mine)

If Jesus believed that He was the Father, why would He have confused the
issue by using plural terms like "we" and "our"? If Jesus was trying to
teach the Oneness view of the Godhead, He certainly had a confusing way of
doing it.

As mentioned before, Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Trinitarian view
of God is no less than pagan polytheism. However, the Trinitarian view is
this: There is only one God; The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
Spirit is God; yet, there is a biblically defined distinction between the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as well as a clear personal
relationship between them. This is a fully biblical view, consistent with
the teaching of Jesus. Biblical Trinitarians do not view God as a
"committee" or "counsel" of Gods.

Despite these differences between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians,
there are some points of agreement. Oneness Pentecostals see Jesus as the
incarnate Word of God; so do Trinitarians. Oneness Pentecostals see Jesus as
the only mediator between God and man; so do Trinitarians. Oneness
Pentecostals see Jesus as fully God and fully man; so do Trinitarians.

There is much more to study along these lines, but suffice it to say that
because of an unbiblical view of water baptism, Oneness Pentecostalism has
adopted an unbiblical view of God that makes the teachings of Jesus cryptic
and confusing.

For those who are interested in further study on this topic, it is covered
in much more detail in Gregory Boyd's book, Oneness Pentecostals and the
Trinity, ©1992, Baker Books.

Legalism

(I write this section recognizing that not all Oneness churches are of the
same mind in this area; however, many are, and I will address this issue as
it relates to the UPC in particular.)

The Oneness doctrine is legalistic to the core, beginning with a works-based
teaching of salvation. A person must first repent, then be baptized
correctly, then give evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit by speaking in
"tongues." These steps are necessary to even be considered a true Christian.

Upon finally becoming "truly" born again, the new convert to Oneness
Pentecostalism is quickly instructed in the "standards of holiness," which
have been already been mentioned in this article. Such "standards" are
usually taught under the banner of "separation" from the sinful ways of
modern society. standards of holiness," which have been already been
mentioned in this article. Such "standards" are usually taught under the
banner of "separation" from the sinful ways of modern society.

This is a touchy issue, because for some, such personal restrictions may
truly be strong personal convictions, and we should not encourage or teach
such people to violate their conscience by ignoring their convictions
(Romans 14:1-6).

The problem in such churches is that these "standards" are taught as
black-and-white, biblical issues of morality. In other words, to compromise
these standards is akin to committing a clear moral sin, like stealing or
murder.

In the case that a "standard" is not clearly biblical (like wearing wedding
rings, for example), they must still be followed if the local pastor expects
it. This kind of authoritarianism is similar to the Catholic view that if
the Bible isn't clear, you should just do what the spiritual authority says.

Of course the Bible teaches submission to spiritual authorities, like
pastors (Hebrews 13:7). However, pastors are only to teach biblical
doctrine, not personal convictions (1 Timothy 6:3-5). Christians are only to
follow their spiritual leaders insofar as they are following Christ Himself
(1 Corinthians 11:1).

The problem with these "standards" is that none of them are internal issues
of true holiness; they are all in the area of external appearance. Oneness
Pentecostals are constantly taught to appear holy and separated from the
world. When external issues are emphasized, it may well be because the true
internal holiness is lacking. The Pharisees were classic examples of this
problem, and Jesus was in clear opposition to the practice of "external
holiness" (Matthew 23:25-2 Cool

.

In short, Oneness Pentecostalism begins and ends with a constant obstacle
course of rules. Those who can't keep up this game of appearances will often
drop out of the movement, bringing accusations of "backsliding" from those
in the church. It is easy for such a "backslider" to become more hardened to
biblical Christianity, which offers a true cleansing, and a love for real
holiness, which is manifested in the true "fruit of the Spirit" (Galatians
5:22-23).

Hyper-experientialism
In Oneness Pentecostalism, the first real "spiritual" experience one has is
that of "speaking in tongues." This is usually the result of the unbiblical
practice of "seeking" or "tarrying", which was mentioned before, and can
include any number of postures and activities. "seeking" or "tarrying",
which was mentioned before, and can include any number of postures and
activities.

Once a person gets "supernatural" results from this "seeking" procedure, he
or she will notice that when they continue this process, they can re-live
that original ecstatic "rush" of "finding God." Believing that these
mystical experiences are the equivalent of getting in "the presence of God,"
such a person begins on a long journey of seeking "more" of God through
"deeper" experiences.

These "deeper" experiences may be practiced at church, at home, or anywhere
that's convenient. As this practice is perfected, such a person may have
some very bizarre things happen to them. In their mind, they may "see
visions," "hear God," "receive a prophecy," etc. On the outside, they may
have physical reactions such as being "slain in the Spirit," laughing,
crying, weeping, shouting, convulsing, etc.

These type of hyper-experientialism is not encouraged or taught anywhere in
the Bible, but it has been practiced for centuries in primitive occult
religions. Unfortunately, they are also practiced regularly in many
Pentecostal (both Oneness and Trinitarian) and Charismatic churches.

Of course, there are legitimate, God-given, supernatural experiences, along
with legitimate forms of Christian worship that include the raising of
hands, clapping, shouting, and dancing. The distinction is this: Legitimate
Christian worship experience is characterized by self-control, which is a
sign of the Holy Spirit's work (Galatians 5:23); hyper-experientialism is
characterized by a lack of self-control, which is a sign of Satan's work (1
Corinthians 7:5).

In short, because the Oneness view of spirituality is experience-based,
rather than truth-based, it tends quite easily toward an unbiblical
hyper-experientialism.

Spiritual elitism

Oneness Pentecostals see themselves as the only ones who teach the "full
truth of God." Other Christians, who may have been truly transformed by the
Spirit of God, and love and serve the God of the Bible, are seen as "on the
way" to the full truth, but not quite there.

One who believes the gospel according to Oneness Pentecostalism has no
choice but to see themselves as more right, more holy, and more spiritual
than everyone else. That is pure elitism; after all, they are the "only
church" who preaches the "Apostolic doctrine" of "the first church."

The reason I know this is that I used to believe this myself; I
fellowshipped exclusively with other "Apostolics" for long enough to know
that they really do believe that they are the only ones who really "live by
the Bible."

It was only when I admitted that I could be wrong that my elitist mentality
began to break. When I stopped studying the Bible in order to support what I
believed, and started studying it in order to learn what to believe, I
realized how wrong I was.

God is the only good One (Matthew 19:17), and we are all sinners, all
equally far from God and no better than anyone else (Romans 3:9). It is
fully by His grace that we can have eternal life or understand any spiritual
truth.

Even now, my flesh wants to think that I am smarter, more knowledgeable, and
more spiritual than others. The truth is that I am innately no better than
anyone else, whether they would be a Oneness Pentecostal, a Baptist, an
atheist, a Catholic, or a Muslim; on the other hand, they are also no better
than I am.

It is only when we realize we are the lowest that God brings us to a higher
place (Matthew 5:3, 23:12; James 4:10).

Conclusion

It is my hope and prayer that this information will serve to expose the
basic problems and dangers of Oneness Pentecostalism.

If you are not involved with this movement, I hope you will use this
information to avoid its pitfalls, and to warn someone who may be
considering getting involved with it.

If you are now involved with Oneness Pentecostalism, I hope that this
information will be a catalyst for your own deeper study. Find out if what
you believe is really biblical, and if perhaps you might have been mistaken
in some of your beliefs.

The real truth of Christianity is greater and more powerful than any
counterfeit, no matter how "right" it may now seem. I pray that you will
discover that for yourself.

Mike Bugal · Guest

"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:g5moja$ai1$1@news.utelfla.com...