I had one of those narcissistic moments last week where the idea to Google my own name seemed like a good idea. In doing so I came across an oddly titled link, “Mark Driscoll on the Contextualization of the Gospel”. Mark Driscoll is the lead pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. I know some people who know Pastor Driscoll and I attend the same seminary that he has attended but I couldn’t think of a link between the two of us that would warrant this search result. In curiosity I decided to click on the link to see what it contained.
I did not notice until I did this that the website was called “Apostolic Friends Forum“. It is more or less a “latest gossip”/ideas sounding board for those of the Oneness Pentecostal/Apostolic tradition. If you are unfamiliar with this tradition it espouses several distinctive characteristics: (1) a denial of the historical doctrine of the Trinity in favor of a semi-modalism; (2) an emphasis on Acts 2:38 as a pattern for New Testament salvation; (3) an emphasis on glossolalia/speaking in tongues as the sign that someone has received the presence of the Holy Spirit; (4) a rejection of the baptismal formula found in Matthew 28:19 and The Didache in favor of “in Jesus name” found in the Book of Acts; (5) a hyper-Arminianism/Revivalism that drives members toward “soul-winning” and “revival”; (6) a strict reading of passages such as Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 as applicable “holiness standards” that serve as markers or badges of genuine sanctification.
I was brought to a Oneness Pentecostal church by my mother from ages five to eighteen until I moved away to Stockton, CA, to attend a “Bible College” sponsored by a church there known as Christian Life Center. The school was called Christian Life College. It is while I was here that I moved away from the distinctive doctrines of this sect to a broader understanding of Christianity as it is documented in such creeds as the Apostles Creed, The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Symbol of Chalcedon. Yet I would not go as far as to say that this is because of the faculty of this college. These were my own conclusions based on my own independent research and study.
Over the last several years I had gradually moved into a place where I could be labeled, if I must be labeled, as a evangelical with some Reformed doctrine. This may appear to be useless biography–and if it is I apologize–but there are some statements made on the aforementioned message board that I thought I may as well address in case such question arise in the future. At least this way if this happens I can produce more traffic to my own blog (Smile)!
First, (see here) there was someone named “deltaguitar” who wrote, “I used to read this blog by a guy, Brian Leport, he seemed to change his views alot but maybe that was before he went to Western.” This statement was prompted by another writer who used to attend Western Seminary but who remained a Oneness Pentecostal and did not “fall off” (see here). This person, “deltaguitar”, wanted to note that I may be one of those who has left the movement because of seminary. Let me clarify this: I went to seminary to further my education and I was already in the process of departing the Oneness sect when I arrived. I did not leave because I went to seminary.
Second, (see here) a lady that I know from the church in Napa, CA, that I went to with my mother, who goes by the name “Kings Kid” stated, “…I noticed you brought up Brian Leport and how his views changed of oneness pentecostalism. He used to be very strong but something changed his views when he was attending CLC in Stockton”. Let me clarify: Yes, I did begin changing my views while I was at CLC in Stockton. This was not because of the school though. This was because I had four years to dedicate to studying the Scriptures for myself. I began to notice some inconsistencies between Oneness Pentecostal dogma and the Scriptures themselves. Furthermore, there are some foundational principles that this sect hold that I find terribly inconsistent. An example would be there the Holy Spirit did not and likely could not have helped the early church further develop and expound on the doctrine of the Trinity yet the Holy Spirit was able to help the early church discover the New Testament canon? Why is it that the Protestant canon is acceptable to the Oneness sect while the doctrine of the Trinity, which was unfolded during the same era, is not?!
Also, there were some doctrines that if you follow the logical conclusion of what is stated there are some very bold, terrifying statements. One such doctrine is that of glossolalia as the only sign that someone has received the Holy Spirit accompanied by the teaching that the Spirit must dwell within someone for salvation to occur. Therefore, anyone who has not spoken in tongues is lost. Therefore, most Christians between the first century and the Topeka Bible College and Azusa Street events are lost! Yes, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and so forth.
I will avoid digressing in a polemic against this sect as of now since I have many friends and family who remain within it that I respect and love. Nevertheless, I have my right to believe as I do. I have my right to choose against the dogmatics that I was handed in favor of what I conclude is more biblical and in line with the historic church.
Third, (see here) one “Pastor Keith” states that he doesn’t think CLC changed my views. He is correct. Nevertheless, “deltaguitar” (see here) does make a statement that contains a half-truth when he says, “I know that many who have gone to CLC changed their minds and though I didn’t go to CLC I happened to get audio from some classes of Dan Seagraves and it changed my life. From that point on I would never be the same.”
The Dan Segraves he mentions is probably, in my opinion, the most biblically faithful, sincere scholar in the Oneness Pentecostal movement. I refuse to speak for Dan here because (1) he can state and defend his own theological views and (2) he always kept his cards close enough to his chest that on issues that would be controversial within that movement that he was notorious for saying things in such a way that you could not pin him down. But it was Dan’s class on ‘Romans and Galatians’ that opened the theoretical Pandora’s box on justification by faith alone. If Oneness Pentecostals criticize Dan for his view it is my opinion that this only shows how tied to tradition they are contrast with Dan’s attempt to reconcile the biblical text with his tradition.
Fourth, it is not “sad” that I changed my viewpoints! At least it is not sad to the many wonderful Christians I have found outside of the sect that I left. The church is alive and well. The poster “Kings Kid” (see here) said that, “I know him and it is sad how he has changed his viewpoints.” Sad? I am anything but sad. I have come to know God in such a way that I would never, ever go back to what I feel like is a tradition that obscures His grace and deity! I know “happiness” doesn’t equal orthodoxy, but in my cause orthodoxy brought along a great deal of happiness!
Fifth, this same “Kings Kid” asked outloud (see here), “I wonder if coming from a very conservative Pentecostal church changed his views a bit”. Yes and no. Yes, I was part of the more uptight, Pharisee-esque side of that movement but there were many churches that were much worse. Worse as in sleeves to the wrist, skirts and pants to the ankles, no DVDs at home because it is wordly entertainment, and even a pastor who refused to let his congregants have a VHS video recorder to tape their family events because once you watched those videos it was “entertainment”. That was until his own children has children and he became a grandfather–suddenly he changed his views!
So no, it was not because the church I attended in Napa, CA, was the worst amongst UPCI churches. It may have even been close to moderate in those circles! But I still found the teaching there unacceptable for the very reason that I did not see it aligning with the Holy Writ!
In all reality writing this post may have been a waste of my time. It has been years since I was associated with Oneness Pentecostals and especially the United Pentecostal Church International. I graduated from Christian Life College in Stockton, CA, in 2005. I had already moved away from many of their teachings by my junior and senior years. Nevertheless, I read that discussion thread (see the whole thing here) and I thought I may as well answer for myself. Again, I have family and friends who are still part of the movement and who are told in essence that I have apostatized. So it is still a very real conflict for me even now.
In recent weeks I have been contacted by two previous acquaintances from Stockton who are still part of that sect. The first one upon learning I now attend Imago Dei here in Portland decided to invite me to his Oneness Pentecostal church here in the city. The other is coming to plant a new church in downtown Portland and once he learned I was living here struck up a conversation with me. If there is still confusion regarding my positions of doctrine let me spell it out here and now:
(1) I affirm that the One God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as outlined in the aforementioned creeds.
(2) I affirm that salvation is ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“out of faith, into faith” or “from faith to faith”): that it is not about “works” or “deeds”, but faith! Sole fide! Yes, those with faith will confess and yes those who faith will repent and yes those who faith will be baptized and yes the Holy Spirit will indwell those with faith. Nevertheless, this does not look like the Oneness sect outlines it.
(3) I affirm that Jesus Christ is the object of our faith. I affirm that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, full God and fully man, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is the incarnate Son of God, the Messiah, the Lord of all.
(4) I affirm that those who are being saved will exhibit the “fruits of the Spirit” as the Apostle listed in Gal. 5:22-23. I do not affirm that the work of the Holy Spirit results in exterior legalistic signs of sanctification. Therefore, I reject the doctrine of “standards” that the UPCI and similar movements place upon their people.
Finally, let me say two things: (1) I do not think that Oneness Pentecostals are heretical but heterodox. As long as Jesus Christ is the object of one’s faith, and Jesus is confessed to be God and man, there is sufficient truth involved for salvation. (2) There is something that I do see as sad. That is the dozens of friends of mine who over the years have bounced between attending Oneness assemblies and attempting to live by the strict rules only to discover that they cannot live up to those rules and therefore they go and live like the worst of pagans. Once this life is shown to be empty they want to return to Christianity but they have been told that all of those Christian churches that are not a part of the Oneness movement are false church and that there is no salvation outside of the Oneness movement. Therefore, these people go back to the Oneness assembly only to find that again, there is no way to live up to those regulations. This leads to an endless cycle of leaving and coming, leaving and coming, when in all reality there are plenty of churches all around them extending an open hand and the love of Christ, but they do not trust these churches because it has been ingrained into their minds that these churches are second tier.
Therefore the only thing I find sad is the sectarianism of the oneness movement. I disagree in doctrine but for those within the oneness movement I want to remind you that your own forbearers–men like A. Urshan and C.J. Haney–thought that God was doing something special for their movement but that God had not forsaken other churches. They would have never said other Christians are hell-bound. So yes, I disagree with you doctrinally, but even more so I disagree with your sectarian attitude toward other Christians. I think that this may be one of the first things that future ministers of that movement–some of whom I consider dear friends–must rethink. But who cares, that is just my opinion.
See also: “Why I Left Oneness Pentecostalism“
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian I sorry. If I offened you in anyway. But I kind of have to play both sides of the fence and I might have used to the wrong wording when I said sad. But there are so many judgemental people on aff. I think that the upci takes Deu22:5 out of contexted and some of the other scriptures they use for holiness out of contexted.
arm5,
I am not offended. I just think you are incorrect in what you stated. I understand that it is part of the ethos of the Oneness sect to consider other Christians as inferior if not in “revelation” then “status”. Also, I am well aware that the critiques of the movement that I placed here do not represent every individual in the movement. Hence, I was quick to speak in a positive matter about Dr. Dan Segraves and affirm my love and friendship for family and friends within that movement with which I disagree.
Here it is in all simplicity: I know that the Oneness Pentecostal friends of mine consider my thinking incorrect. If they are willing to remain friends while accepting that I think the same thing about them then civility is preserved. If they draw a line in the sand saying “with us or against us” then I must accept “against” by default.
I might be incorrect and I’m sorry. To be honest I think most of the stanards are traditons and the old timers are afraid to let go of them.
Sure, there is a movement within that movement to rethink some of the “golden calf” doctrines. This is especially true of the younger ministers. I have confidence that these younger ministers will make better choices than their forebearers did in manners related to doctrine and their relationship with the rest of the Christian church.
Nevertheless, there will always be problems for the UPCI, AA, PAW, and other Oneness organizations as long as the distinctive dogmatics of the movement are upheld. Is it possible to see glossolalia as salvific while reunited with Lutherans, Presbyterians, and even free-church evangelicals? Unlikely. Is it possible to reject the Trinity and reunite? It will be very difficult for both side to cross the line simply because the doctrine of the Trinity is a precious doctrine fought for by the earliest Christian fathers against some horrid heresies. To give up ground on such a matter for the inclusion of Oneness Pentecostals may be as hard for the rest of the church as it is for OPs who believe their semi-modalism is the best explanation of Christ’s relationship to the Father.
I think there can be civility. I have experienced it. I do not know where this will lead, but it may be the best we can hope for thus far.
I actually have even questioned the use of tongues.
Does your pastor know this?
That could get excommunicated!
Please I don’t run to Bro.Brown on everything. And I definitely don’t share my viewpoints because of that very reason I’ve also started studying through I Cor 14 about the gifts. I know that everytime that Paul states a question in that passagre of scripture it is answered in the negative.
I apologize for underestimating your exegetical awareness! I think any pastor who has a congregation that seeks to understand the Scriptures through personal study has a good thing!
But honestly a lot of pentecostals will just take their pastors word on certain scriptures without really studying out the passage.
I agree. There is a severe case of biblically illiteracy in many of those churches. It leads to a form of pastor-idolatry leading many pastors to become “mini-popes” speaking ex catherdra over their small kingdom.
That is so true. I’ve heard it said rules without relationship creates rebellion and that is what is happening within the upci.
Brian,
Although these are your thought, I share them as well. I’m just not the scholar, so I wouldn’t be able to articulate it in such a fashion. Well said, pal.
Beto,
Thank you! I do what I can when I can wear I can if I can. 🙂
shabba dabba!
Brian, it’s interesting to hear about the beliefs of some of the founders (CJ Haney and A. Urshan) of the Oneness movement. I do trust that you’ve received this information from reliable sources, and it would be helpful to know of any resources or documentation that might support your statement. I say this because I believe it would serve as a great reminder to those in the Oneness movement that our lineage stems from those whom are now all too often condemned in our ranks. What you’ve pointed out in calling the Oneness movement a sect and discussing it’s behavior as such, is very accurate, unfortunate as it may be. While I still consider myself a part of this movement, I recognize as you do that the church fits within a historical context. If this context is removed, and replaced ONLY with a pastor’s best interpretation of King James’ english (as is the case with many churches), we’re left impoverished and orphaned. On the other hand, it is such a liberating and enriching experience to understand that we are not alone, and that the body of Christ is so much greater than the last hundred years since the Azusa Street revival. While all Christian denominations (except maybe the Unitarian Universalists) will always have disagreements regarding scriptural interpretation and even some key doctrinal questions, the message of salvation through faith in Christ whether spoken by an evangelical college student or an old presbyterian minister, should still be reason for celebration and not segregation. Paul goes as far as to command us to rejoice when the gospel is preached for money, or self-promotion! So how can we, who are supposed to “have the truth,” condemn those who preach it alongside us, and with sincerity? It boggles my mind. While I’m sure there are some areas in which we don’t see eye-to-eye, I appreciate your honesty and I hope that this free exchange of ideas can continue to lead us all to greater understanding of who Christ is, and why His sacrifice is so relevant for our world.
Il Viaggiatore,
I was able to get my hands on article while in Stockton, CA. Those articles were given to me by a professor teaching at the college at that time who wanted to remind all the students that the roots of the movement were built on such views. I do not have access to those documents anymore, nor do I know how to get my hands on those documents. But if you e-mail me directly (I can see the e-mail of this poster so I will know that it is you who e-mailed me) I may give you a couple of leads for people who may be able to help you.
I was shown that the CLC by-laws, written by C.J. Haney, contained words that said something to the extent that if it is taught that non-OP Christians are going to “hell” that the school must be shut down and restarted as another institution because that was not C.J. Haney’s position. I think his son, K. Haney, remained close to his father. N. Haney on the other hand has departed far from his forefathers!
I do not know very many of the faculty at CLC anymore. Almost all of those who were there when I was there have since departed (again, likely due to N. Haney). Darryl Rash may still be there and he may be someone to talk to about this subject, but I do not know his personal views on that matter.
Yes, denominationalism has at times been a very bad thing but at other times it has been wonderful because it shows unity within diversity. There are core teachings that keep Christianity together across a broad spectrum. On the other hand, there are times when what links us is very thin!
Brian, this was a really interesting read! This is something that I have dealt with over the last few years since leaving CLC. I’m resigned now, to the fact that I will never receive actual understanding from my family regarding my doctrinal changes. Sometimes it has been a challenge to not just throw out all of Christianity, due to my frustration with the UPC. Fortunately, I have been able to meet Christians who have encouraged me to come to an understanding of God for myself. This has done wonders to alleviate any remaining cognitive dissonance I had from abandoning the UPC’s Oneness ideology. How amazing is it, to see the love that Christ exhibited alive in many of the groups I once was taught to think of as wrong.
With that said, I love the blog! It is a great way to clear my head when I am supposed to be studying.
Josh,
As I stated in the post there is one thing that I find absolutely disheartening: people going between Oneness Pentecostalism and no-faith and then back again and then back the other way. I remember a good friend of mine from high school visited the church I was attending in San Francisco when I lived there. She had a brother who is one of my best friends who had joined me at that church. She visited and she loved it and she thought our pastor (Jeff) was an amazing person. She felt very welcomed.
She had been living a bit of a rough life over the last several years that was anything but Christian. Yet she was able to say that as much as she liked our church she could not return because “we we’re saved”. I was infuriated! If that was not a prototypical case-and-point brainwashing of a human then I do not know what else is. She is probably back to being a ping-pong ball between hedonism and Oneness Pentecostalism. Meanwhile Jesus is no where to be found in the entire discussion. It is only legalism or hedonism for her.
Its so tragic how many people suffer from the exact same issues due to legalism. Where do you go when everyone else is going to hell? If you can’t keep the rules, or speak in tongues everyday then something must be wrong with you. I wish there was some resource that focused simply on restoring people who have been hurt by legalism back to Christianity. It seems that many of the people that I know who have struggled in this area almost always give up. I am certainly one of the lucky ones.
I am sure there is a resource out there somewhere. That would be a good thing to look up.
Hi Brian,
May I ask what you mean by semi-Modalism? I haven’t heard that term before. Do you mean it in the sense that within Oneness, F, S, HS are simultaneous modes (though not eternal)? Thus, while insisting on a theoretical monism, OP’s don’t actually carry it out in practice? Hence, it is “semi-Modalism”?
Thanks.
Jonathan,
It is not accurate to directly equate Oneness and Modalistic perspectives on God because Oneness theologians do not see God as moving from Father, to Son, to Holy Spirit. God exists as Father, Son, ans Holy Spirit at once. But it is like Modalism in that God, a monoid being, plays all three “roles”, per se. And two or more roles (Jesus’ baptism) can occur at the same time. Does this clarify?
I don’t think it would be inaccurate to equate Oneness with modalism. It is modalism, just not the Sabellian type. I think of the Oneness understanding of God in terms of ‘simultaneous modalism.’
Hi Brian,
Yes, I see why you used the term “semi-Modalism” now (i.e., not the classical Sabellian form of modalism with successive expressions of the monad). Dunno, as one monad stands behind the three (simultaneous) roles maybe we should best describe it as a “variant form of modalism”? “Semi-modalism” suggests it is “sort of, or almost” a monad. Anyway, the terminology is secondary, but as I hadn’t heard that term before, I thought I’d ask! Seems we both have the same idea in mind, just using a different term to describe it.
Funnily enough, I have a very similar story to you. I grew up in a Oneness church in Northern Ireland (not UPC) – one of those which Gordon Magee founded before he emigrated to the US. My family were part of the establishment. Again, like you, I went to university to read Biblical Studies. For me, the seeds of doubt grew when I was listening to sermons week in and week out and began to realize how the biblical texts were being taken out of context or misinterpreted. Hearing dodgy exegesis in church was compounded by all the bible reading I was then doing – large chunks (whole books in a sitting to determine overall context) rather than just passages/verses or one chapter at a time. Further, the profs were all Trinitarian. While in a Bible course the Trinity was never discussed, knowing that these intelligent and learned men were all Trinitarians made me wonder. If Oneness is so obvious, why don’t these people believe it?
In light of the better exegetical method I was learning, I began to think through all of the Oneness proof-texts and I came to believe that they didn’t mean what I had thought they did. By the end of my first year of uni, I’d come to the conclusion that OP didn’t work biblically; e.g., baptism/prayer which you mentioned above, just cry out for personal distinctions etc. But, it took me another couple of years of working on Patristics before I became a convinced Trinitarian. (The Nestorian-esque problems also became apparent – I read one of your recent posts on that too).
I’ve ended up spending a lot of time on this stuff – just finished a MTh on NT, specially focusing on Jewish monotheism & NT Christology. So, I feel your pain on all the family/friends stuff (to avoid upset, it’s just not mentioned now), but like you, I don’t regret my spiritual and intellectual journey either. You are not alone 😉
Sorry John, your comment must have come through while I was typing. “simulataneous modalism” is another option! 😀
JohnDave,
That is a good point. I am forgetting all the “modalisms” available! It has been several years since I studied that subject.
Jonathan,
I am currently working on my ThM (which I assume is similar to an MTh). Where did you go to do your studies?
Hi Brian,
Yeah, MTh is the British designation. I studied at the Queen’s University of Belfast (www.qub.ac.uk) for my degree. It was a secular course – my Hebrew prof was even an atheist, which was fun. The Biblical Studies department was then closed, so I went to one of the theological colleges for the masters (Union Theological College http://www.union.ac.uk). What about you, what’s your field? I’m googling Western now…
At Western Seminary the ThM does not have an official designation, but rather it is something that is more or less an agreement with you and your advisor as to which direction you will focus your studies. The areas of focus are Old Testament, New Testament, Historical Theology, and Systematic Theology.
At this juncture I am leaning toward NT, but I intend on dabbling in Patristics. Overall I think Pauline theology will be my primary area of focus.
The UK and US systems are a bit different anyway. I had to apply for the NT department for the masters. I did work on Pauline Christology, but wrote my thesis on Johannine Christology, so I guess that’s what I’ll end up doing for PhD – after I get a year’s break!
I find myself becoming more and more interested in Pauline Pneumatology. This likely has something to do with the Pentecostal background. Left me with questions that I need to answer.
Jonathan, no problem, it sounds like we’re all on the same page and saying pretty much the same thing. 🙂
Brian, I admire your humility.
Yeah, I understand that. That’s why I’ve ended up continuing further with monotheism/christology. Is there a particular element of pneumatology? Or just the whole vast subject?
As I begin to narrow it down I am thinking alot about two things: (1) Paul’s understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit as regards salvation, especially from the Old to New Covenants. (2) Paul’s understanding of the Holy Spirit in relation to Second Temple Judaism. I am not sure what is there for question 2, but I haven’t seen a lot available on it as of yet.
Interesting stuff. The personalization of the Spirit and its salvific work in early Christianity is a fascinating topic, so do let me know what you come up with. You have my email address through the comments.
Of course, and if you have any leads please let me know!
Do you have a blog by chance?
Hi Brian,
I don’t have a blog, I would end up spending too much time on it – so safer not to! This isn’t really my field, so I assume you have already read any of the standard stuff I have, e.g.:
Directly relevant would be Dunn’s chapter on the Spirit in his “Christology in the Making”, esp. pp.129-148 [NB: Dunn’s monistic assumptions and manner of framing the discussion in those terms]; and you’d probably also get material (depending on what you include) from his “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”, “Jesus and the Spirit”, and some of the essays in “The Christ & The Spirit: Vol 2 Pneumatology”.
Also, Fee, “God’s Empowering Presence”; his essays on ‘Rom 8:9-11’ (in Jesus of Nazareth, eds. Green/Turner), and; ‘Paul and the Trinity’ (The Trinity, eds. Davis/Kendall/O’Collins).
Finally, Turner, “Power from on High” has a lot of material on the Spirit generally and specifically in Luke-Acts.
Probably nothing you haven’t already considered, but you never know 😉
Forgot to mention the Feshschrift for Dunn: “The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins”, eds. Stanton/Longenecker/Barton, has a few essays that might be useful.
Good list. I hadn’t thought of all of Dunn’s works that you mentioned, nor Turner’s work. Thanks!
Love this post. Tradition has left a bitter taste in my mouth. Just left a UPC church in Mississippi about 3 months ago. It has practically torn apart my marriage of 9 years, with my two small children caught in between. Standards were always an issue for me even though I was told “it’s the least important”. Well standards become very important to me when it interfere with a ministry. I was told I could not be part of a choir if I didn’t adhere to the “standards”. That is the sad part. I was ready in my heart, but the church said I was not. Anyway, I began searching the scripture, and I came across Romans. I found most answers I was looking for. I was armed and ready. I took my scripture about how we are “saved by faith alone” to my husband but guess what…obviously all of Paul’s epistles were written for the believer…so basically Paul’s episitles only count for those with a oneness doctrine. That was the icing on the cake for me. Anyway, I am hanging on to my marriage by a thread, and I am not giving up on God. I am searching for a church now. I really think I’m just a non denominational kind of girl. I just wish people would search the scripture. Pastors are still human which means what? They have a possibllity to fail us. We have to be responsible for our own salvation. We will be without excuse. God bless you and your efforts.
Brandie,
Thank you for your comment. I am sorry to hear about the current state of your marriage. I will be praying that God preserves it as well as opens the eyes of your husband to see what our faith teaches us is really important (and marriage is one of those things, even if “standards” were true).
I agree, it is a silly argument to discount Romans because it is “for believers”. So is Galatians and it corrects any idea that we can somehow begin by the Spirit and finish by our own human effort (which is partially what this whole idea of “standards” conveys, at least implicitly).
Don’t be against tradition; Christianity is a tradition. Be against wrong traditions! 🙂 I do hope you find a good church.
Hi Brian,
I have a follow-up question for you about OP and your subsequent trinitarianism. Presumably you were baptised in the OP tradition which used “in the name of Jesus”? If so, given that most (all?) ‘orthodox’ churches would consider baptism without the triune formula invalid (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306frs.asp), did you get rebaptised? As someone recently pointed out to me, it’s not just that “in the name of Jesus” was used for my baptism, but that it was used explicitly in and as an anti-trinitarian alternative; a denial of the Triune God.
Jonathan
@Jonathan,
As I understand it there appears to have been two early traditions of baptism. One that evoked the ‘name of Jesus’ (Lukan; maybe Pauline with “in Christ” statement; maybe James) and one who evoked ‘the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ (e.g. Matthian; Didache). As I see it those early Christians would have understood baptism in Jesus name to be baptism into the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Equally, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is baptism into the God who we know only because of Jesus Christ. Therefore, since my baptism occurred when I was about eleven year old, and I was baptized because I was taught it was the proper response to the God revealed in Jesus, I have never felt obligated to be rebaptized, especially since my baptism wasn’t particularly anti-Trinitarian (even if those doing the baptism were anti-Trinitarian).
I think either baptismal “formula” is legitimate as long as one knows that it is the God who was revealed through Christ is the God who they are being baptized into and participating in fellowship. While I find Oneness theology to fall short I do not think this issue is salvific by any means.
Hi Brian,
Yes, I would have said almost exactly the same as this until I was challenged to think about it yesterday. Actually, we seem to have very, very similar views about this whole issue of OP and the Trinity. Funnily enough, I was also baptised when I was eleven 🙂
Yet, what makes me a bit fidgety about this is that the formula (for lack of a better expression) “in the name of Jesus” was not being used in the same way for us in our baptisms as it was in the early church; for us, it was being deliberately invoked to incorporate an anti-trinitarian stance. As children we may not have recognised that, but that doesn’t escape that dodgy theology was involved (after all, infants are baptized without their explicit theological appreciation of the meaning). It’s this additional element and considerable distinction which separates our baptisms in the name of Jesus from the early use of the formula that has got me thinking.
As you put it, either formula is legitimate when it is the God revealed in Christ to whom we direct our actions. But is the Oneness “God” and the Triune “God” the same entity to whom those actions are directed, i.e., the contrast between a modalistic and a tripersonal God? Can we get away with saying that the OP God is a theologically muddled/confused understanding of the revelation of the Triune God so that we can rely on God’s grace towards our human fallibility – that the Triune God will view these muddles as not placing Oneness adherents beyond the pale?
I recall you saying that OP is herterodox rather than heretical, would the historic church agree with and permit that distinction in the case of OP? E.g., in classical Sabellian modalism it incorporates monotheism and a belief in the full deity of Jesus – both of which are affirmed by OP and the reason you gave for it being herterodox and not heretical. I wonder if this is at the heart of the problem and my current musings. Heterodox might allow for our baptisms to be considered valid (if theologically muddled), but if heretical, would it not follow that our baptisms would also be invalid? E.g., would you require rebaptism of a former Mormon/JW ?
Sorry for dragging you into this, mostly thinking aloud – which is why sometimes it might be better to keep my mouth shut and not blabber in the wee hours of the night 😉
Jonathan
PS excuse all the dodgy spelling/typing – sleep deprivation and all that 😛
Jonathan,
As I see it there are many Oneness Pentecostals who are basically Modalist/Sabellians as well as Nestorians. There are others who sound almost Trinitarian yet refuse to use the word “persons”. This second group seems closer to orthodoxy than the first although many eventually make the misstep of equating the Holy Spirit with the “Father in action” or the Logos with the “thought of God” because “person” is a word that they won’t use that we find vital. This is why I label the movement, as a whole, heterodox, because it does not seem that from one to another there is a clear understanding of what makes “them” different from “us”. Therefore, I think for most the situation is different that say JWs or Mormons (who deny essential, salvific categories about God) but maybe not for all.
And while I agree that the Acts 2:38 baptism was used by many Oneness Pentecostals as anti-Trinitarian I do not think that one has to have a clear understanding of the nature of God upon baptism for faith to be legitimate nor do I think that the baptizer must necessarily be theologically astute for the baptized to have had a valid baptism.
No worries about the questions. I appreciate them.
Thanks for helping me think these things through, it’s good to have someone who’s been through the same journey to bounce some thoughts off.
In the light of your answer, I suppose my last concern stems from the other problem of moving from an OP system into a more orthodox church system and that is how strong and structured an ecclesiology we adopt, e.g., any baptism administered outside the Orthodox church would not be accepted by them. So, I suppose all of us outside their structures are more flexible about the authority to baptise in the first place. As I already tacitly accept “lay” baptism outside of the older established churches (RC, Orthodox, Anglican etc), then by extension this allays my worries about being baptised by a non-trinitarian. Moroever, I am in profound agreement with you about the non-necessity of the one baptizing to be theologically astute.
I guess in the final analysis the validity of my baptism depends on the underlying issue of whether I was saved in a OP church or did I only become a Christian in actuality once I gained an understanding of the Trinity and left the OP church behind. The answer must surely be that I was a Christian indwelt by and living in the Spirit but was simply theologically muddled. Ah well, thanks for putting up with me, I think that’s the questions worked through now 🙂
Jonathan
Also, I think part of the work of the Spirit is to move us into further truth (as it is stated in the Gospel of John). Therefore, while we cannot explain why the Oneness movement as a whole clings to doctrines that have been rejected by the church for a very, very long time we can be thankful as individuals that the Spirit has brought us this far.
Yep, in a word 😉