Praise the Lord! I'm new to the site and had a couple questions for oneness pentecostals if you guys could help me out.

I've been going to an Apostolic church (non-UPCI) for about 2 years. However, they do not believe in oneness but rather the trinity but baptize in Jesus' name.

1) Is this pretty much unheard of? (a church being trinitarian but baptizing in Jesus' name.)

2) I'm a little confused about the doctrine of oneness.

- do you believe that the Son and the Father right now could have a conversation? (ie: are they seperate persons? No matter the doctrine of the Trinity. i'm just wondering if you all believe that Jesus (the Son) and God the Father can have a conversatoin right now.)

thanks!

I am former Oneness Pentecostal, even so years ago I encountered an entire Pentecostal ministerial association whose Churches (in Oregon to Washington States) baptized in Jesus name, but who taught and believed in the Trinity. At one time "Peoples Church" in Tacoma Washington, was the largest Pentecostal Church in the State... they baptized converts in Jesus name... but believed in the Trinity.

Way back in the early days of the Pentecostal Movement, after the formation of the Assemblies of God, a group of AOG preachers started preaching baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ... and they made a good deal of headway persuading many AOG Churches and getting members re-baptized. However, there were stanch Trinitarians ministers within the AOG who resisted this re-baptism movement within their ranks. And they defended the traditional Trinitarian mode of baptism... this resulted in the Jesus Name advocates refocusing their arguments on the doctrine of the Trinity... and thus was born Oneness Pentecostalism.

Thus it is not surprising to me, given the genesis of Pentecostalism and its baptismal and Christological debates, that there are Churches that accepted baptism in Jesus name, but rejected the Oneness doctrine itself.

I'm a little confused about the doctrine of oneness.  do you believe that the Son and the Father right now could have a conversation? (ie: are they seperate persons? No matter the doctrine of the Trinity. i'm just wondering if you all believe that Jesus (the Son) and God the Father can have a conversatoin right

Oneness Pentecostals attempt to explain the apparent relationship depicted in Scripture between God the Father and Jesus Christ with their take on the doctrine of the Duel Nature of Christ.

The duel nature doctrine is a standard Trinitarian belief that Jesus Christ was both God and Man - at the same time. What that means is this - they believe that Jesus (i.e. God the Son) was manifested in the flesh. And thus He was a Man and yet His Personality was that of God the Son.

But Oneness Pentecostals believe that God is one Person (albeit some reject the word Person) and thus in their view, Jesus Christ was both a Man and God at the same time. Thus when Jesus spoke to God in prayer... etc... it was His Human Nature praying. Thus there was enough of a separation between His Human side and His Divine side for them to think and converse with one another.

For me, this was one of many reasons why I gave up Oneness Pentecostalism and became a traditional Trinitarian. It makes no sense to me to claim that Jesus Christ is God the Father when Jesus prayed to the Father and called Him His God and His Father in heaven.

~ Theophilus

"there is no evidence [in early church history] for the use of the triune name." Want to bet?

Besides Matt 28:19… there is the Didache which contains a section on baptism. Church Historians date the contents of the Didache, which they say is a composite work, at between 50A.D. and 150 A.D.

“And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.”

“Do not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist meal except the ones who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. For the Lord said concerning this: "do not give that which is holy to the dogs."

According to my studies in Church History, the common method of Christian baptism throughout the Apostolic Church was in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even so, we do have mention of baptism using the Trinitarian method (as early as the late early second centuries) albeit the most common method was again in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then something happened within Christianity that caused the Bishops of the Church to mandate baptism using the word of Matthew 28:19.

What happened was the Christological controversies… namely the huge debate and schism between the Arians and the Trinitarians. Moreover, there were the Gnostic Sects that began dying out in the third centuries, and many former Gnostics wanted to join the Historic Church. So what do you do with a bunch of former heretics who had all been baptized in Jesus name years ago, who now want to join the Historic Church?

Their solution was to mandate baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… thereby helping all these former heretics adopt the teachings of the Historic Church. Thus, in as much as the Apostolic Church evolved into Trinitarian Christianity by the third century, it took them a century or so to reorganized their sacraments and liturgies to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity and this included baptism.

But to claim that there is no evidence dating back to the apostolic Church for baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… is to contradict the Lord Jesus Christ and to overlook the Didache.

The question that needs to be asked is this – Did the Bishops of the 3rd century have the authority to change baptism from Jesus name to the Trinitarian affirmation? If you ask them, they believed absolutely that they had authority, as a Council of Bishops representing the 5 Holy Sees (i.e. Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Rome, with many other ancient Churches) to bind on earth and in heaven. And thus it has been to this day.

So for me it’s not an issue of which method is right or wrong, or which method is Biblical. Both methods are found in Scripture, and both are right. The question is, which method are we to follow today? And based upon what I know about the authority of Christ delegated to His Apostles and then to His Bishops – I am convinced that baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit – for the forgiveness of sins is the method Christians are to follow.

I was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ back in 1975, I was rebaptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in 2001, when I asked to be rebaptized as a means of affirming my faith in the Trinity.

~ Theophilus

Onegod1:

There are what today we would call "mistakes" in the Didache. Also, it is NOT Scripture. It was not written until AFTER the church was already backsliding and does also contain references to Jesus name water baptism.

Spoken like a true Mormon, Jehovah's Witness or Muslim devotee... not that you are any of those things, but this is an area of belief you share with them. And yes, guilt by association works for me in this particular case.

One of the problems I had with the Oneness explanation of documents like the Didache and the Apostolic Fathers is that they simply dismiss them as apostate... or backslidden. I would like you to read the Way of Life and the Way of Death, as given in the opening chapters of the Didache and tell me that they were “backslidden.”

No Trinitarian claims that the Didache is Scripture. Not even the Nicene Fathers included it in their canon of Scriptures. But it is a window into the beliefs and practices of the early Church, ion a day far closer to the Apostles of Christ than anyone today. And thus when it comes to the issue of Baptism, it shows that the Churches of Asia Minor, the stomping grounds of St. Paul and Peter, that they were baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as early as the late first to early second century. There were still prophets and apostles working those Churches in the days this work was written.

Modern Trinitarians who argue against baptism in Jesus name, for the most part, do not know what they are talking about, and the same thing can be said about Modalists. Both formulas were used in the early Church, and then something happened that caused the early Catholic Church to stop using Jesus name and baptize according to Matt 28:19. The first thing that happened was when Gnostic Christianity started falling apart in the mid second century. And the early Church determined to rebaptize them according to Matt 28:19 because they had already been baptized in Jesus name, which was the practice of the Gnostics. The second thing that happened was the Christological debates that gave rise to the Nicene Council and the Creed. Once the Bishops confirmed the doctrine of the Trinity through out the ancient Church, there was no way they were going back to baptize in Jesus name anymore.

Personally, I do not have anything against Baptism in Jesus name. I would use it myself. But when it comes to it being an issue used against the doctrine of the Trinity, I definitely side with baptizing according to Matt 28:19.

~ Theophilus

It's like what C.F. Parham said near the beginning of the Apostolic Faith Movement (now the Modern Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement) early in the 20th Century: "Why would we baptize converts in the Trine(sic) formula, seeing how the Father and the Holy Ghost did not die and atone for our sins?" And this was said years before the Godhead and water baptism became issues in the fledgling infant Pentecostal Movement.

I am familiar with early Pentecostal history. I knew the Werner family in Puyallup & Tacoma Washington, as well as the Yadon family, some of whom were founding members of both the Assembly of God Churches and the United Pentecostal Churches in that area. But Parham was a member of the KKK, so I am not that interested in anything he had to say. Even so, his was a good question and one that does not have a direct biblical answer.

In the NT, baptism is into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. And as a Trinitarian I agree that neither God the Father nor the Holy Spirit died for our sins to redeem us to God. But frankly, I do not understand why a Modalist would bring up an argument like that – in asmuch as they believe that Jesus died for our sins, and that He is God the Father and the Holy Spirit. One could argue that if the Person in Jesus (i.e. God) died for our sins, than so did the Father and the Holy Spirit. But then, I understand how Modalists divide the Person of Christ into a Body with God in Him, and thus only His body died on the Cross.

With respect to baptism in the name of the Trinity, and baptism into the death of Christ, Jesus is among the Persons of God, and He died for our sins. So the notion that baptism is into the death of Christ is not an issue for me, believing in Matt 28:19 as I do, because Christ died for my sins, and we are baptized into His name when we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

One of the main reason why Jews and Muslims have such a big problem with accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and with Christianity in general is the belief most of Christianity's adherents have in more than one God.

I understand how Jews and Muslims, like Modalists, balk at the notion of believing in three gods. The fact that we do not say or believe in three gods does not seem to matter to them. But its been my expereince that Modalism is just as offenssive to Jews and Muslims if not more so. The notion that a Man is the only true God and the creator of all things, is a lot to swallow, no matter what the Law the Prophets say.

When talking to Jews and Muslims, I do not lead with the doctrine of the Trinity, I lead with the Gospel and Word of God, that way there is less chance of them stumbling over doctrines they are predespozed to reject.

Frankly I do not know how anybody can read the NT and come away with a modalistic concept of God. Undenialbly there is only One God revealed in Scripture. But then a closer look reveals that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are also called God. From there how you throw out the whole NT and ignore all the distinctions and conversations between God, the Father Son and Holy Spirit – I just do not get it. Never did when I used to be a Oneness Pentecostal.

~ Theophilus