Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pneuma 30 (2008) 229-232
A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response1
William W. Menzies
2087 S. Celebration Ave., Springfi eld, MO, 65809, USA
wwmenzies@mchsi.com
I wish to commend the leaders of the Society for Pentecostal Theology for the careful and thoughtful study of the issues that have divided Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostal believers. The committee that met periodically from 2002-2007 to consider these issues has produced a final report that appears to me to be eminently fair and irenic in tone. Yet, in so doing, it seems that critical theological issues have not been avoided. The affirma- tions in the paper certainly include continuing serious theological differ- ences between the two groups. I salute the participants for the high level of Christian charity and scholarly acumen reflected in the report. Being a life-long member of the Trinitarian Assemblies of God, I acknowl- edge that my identity favors the fi ndings of the Trinitarian component of the discussion. It is apparent to me that with only minor points conceded for some compromise in the Oneness theology statements, there does not, at this point, seem to be much ground for near-term optimism for a theological rec- onciliation between the two camps. Having said this, I think it is important to afirm a commitment to a loving and compassionate relationship between the two groups. Over the years, certainly the SPS has provided a model for respect- ful dialogue and fellowship. It seems that the atmosphere of academic inter- change has proved to be a useful arena for serious discussion. It is noteworthy that both sides agree on critical foundational commitments: 1) a restorationist fervor, to encourage fresh emphasis on the neglected features of apostolic experience and practice in the church; 2) an eschatological fervor respecting the expectation of the second coming of Jesus Christ as a motivation for missions and holy living; 3) a devotion to Scripture over tradition as the stan- dard for Christian faith and living; 4) the goal of unity in the body of Christ.
1
Editor’s Note: This response was commissioned by General Superintendent George Wood of the Assemblies of God.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157007408X346357
1
230
W. W. Menzies / Pneuma 30 (2008) 229-232
(See I.A. History of Our Division: Joint Afirmation.) The one item in the joint afirmation that I have some hesitation about is “A Christocentric pneu- matology with a special focus on the authority and power exercised through the use of Jesus’ name.” I am not sure I understand what is entailed in this statement. In fact, the “Christocentric pneumatology” of Oneness exponents makes me uneasy, since it seems to be integral to a diminished appreciation for the Personhood of the Holy Spirit found in orthodox theological statements.
Following are some of the salient theological issues that I think require at least a brief comment.
1. The meaning of Baptism. (II Baptism).
a. The insistence on the formula for baptism being in the “name of
Jesus only,” appears to me to rest on an unnecessarily narrow read-
ing of Scripture. Beyond this, the dogmatic adherence to this for-
mula, along with other related issues, has been a major cause of
division in the Church.
b. The meaning attached to baptism among Oneness adherents appears
to be in serious disagreement with Trinitarian Pentecostal — and
virtually all other Evangelical believers. To make water baptism an
essential part of the initiation process into the Body of Christ is not
shared by most other Pentecostal believers.
c. The confl ation of water baptism and Spirit baptism is problematic,
as well. Oneness Pentecostals teach that Spirit baptism is a neces-
sary part of initiation into the Body of Christ. Hence, in this “era
of the Spirit,” one must speak in tongues to validate “full salvation.”
This raises serious questions about the crucial issue of salvation in
Christ and the subsequent or separable matter of the empowering
of the Spirit, a view most Pentecostals stoutly afirm.
2. Christology and the Godhead: (Item III in the paper)
a. The Trinitarian Pentecostal statement is concise, laden with Scrip-
tural support, and afirms what is commonly held among all Trini-
tarians since the time of the earliest creeds.
b. The Oneness afirmation expresses the view that the Godhead is
really what early Church Fathers condemned as “Modal Monarchi-
anism.” God, is for our Oneness friends, only One being in one
person, who is manifested in a kind of dispensational fashion. Jesus
is the total embodiment of God, with the pre-incarnate manifesta-
tion being as God the Father. Since the Incarnation, God is mani-
2
W. W. Menzies / Pneuma 30 (2008) 229-232
231
fested as the Son. And, since the initial outpouring of the Spirit,
Jesus is now manifested through His Spirit. It is this latter under-
standing that leads to the notion that in the dispensation of the
Spirit, God (Jesus) is known through Spirit baptism, including the
accompanying sign of speaking in tongues.
c. In this section, the Trinitarian Pentecostal Team Afirmation (C)
acknowledges the limitation of language that theologians have had
to endure over the centuries for articulating the biblical concept of
the Tri-unity of God. Terms like “nature,” and “persons” are perhaps
not entirely adequate to capture the nuances required by Scripture,
but are generally understood to serve at least as minimally adequate
to express this mystery. What is important is that the tradition of
the early fathers was to anchor theology into polarities that could
not be surrendered, so that God’s “threeness” and “oneness” are
both preserved, to do justice to the teaching of Scripture.
3. Salvation (item IV in the paper).
a. The Joint Afirmation is commendable, “We afirm together that
salvation is by the unmerited grace of God in Jesus Christ and by
the new life of the Holy Spirit.” T at all in the joint-committee
could sign this statement is strategic. However, in the Oneness
Pentecostal Afirmation, it is disappointing to see salvation defi ned
as the confl ation of repentance, saving faith and water baptism and
the baptism in the Holy Spirit are integral aspects of conversion/initia-
tion” (emphasis mine).
b. The Joint Conclusion has a hopeful element in it for a future
possible reconciliation of points of view. The Oneness attempt to
distinguish “salvation” from “full salvation” opens up at least a
marginal opportunity for broadening the circle of salvation.
4. Holiness (Item V):
a. The real issue underlying teaching on Holiness is really the matter
of Christian life style. Although not stated explicitly in the paper, it
is obvious that lurking behind the statements is the Oneness pro-
pensity for demanding of its membership a rather explicit pattern
of behaviors for being in fellowship. The rigidity of conduct (often
including even matters of personal appearance) creates the impres-
sion of a very defi nite sub-culture, with sharply-defi ned borders. To
this observer, this borders on the cultic.
3
232
W. W. Menzies / Pneuma 30 (2008) 229-232
b. It has been unfortunate that through the years, largely because of
earnest and well-meaning exclusivism, Oneness people in many
local settings have engaged in activities that Trinitarian Pentecos-
tals would interpret as proselytism. An adversarial relationship has
frequently made it dificult to develop serious fellowship in many
communities.
c. Having said this, nonetheless, it is important to note the joint dec-
laration that believers are called to be holy, to be separate from the
world, however this may be defi ned.
By way of conclusion, I wish to acknowledge, in spite of my concerns over important points of theology that differentiate Oneness people from Trinitarians, that the Oneness movement, with its constituent denomina- tions, deserves considerable commendation. In spite of living outside the usual boundaries of common Christian fellowship from other believers, the Oneness people have engaged in strenuous evangelism and very successful missionary endeavors. I trust that, indeed, further dialogue will deepen the possibilities of further fellowship between these two wings of the modern Pentecostal movement.
4
Anonymous
this is good – this is very veery good responce Michael Chauncey Robert Dickinson Neil Steven Lawrence Levi Goff Billy Monroe Poff we know for a fact Link Hudson is Trinitarian THOUGH the Bible never says the word Trinity in his latest logical trendsS but he went to baptist VBS or Sunday school which leaves NO doubt as to Trinitarian indoctrination – we cannot be too sure about Jevan Little Jeffrey Snyder Dan Anthony who has been silent now for almost 400 years in this here group
we also do not about Ricky Grimsley who seems to think the SON did not exist in the Trinity until being born as the born-son which leaves him with simple dualism for the first part of human history
Philip Williams seems to claim the Spirit is not a separate entity but the Spirit OF God as if God is not a spirit… another formal dualism
and finally Joseph D. Absher we have RW Deese who says is not orthodox Nelson Banuchi @pete feske Peter Vandever and the other one whose name I keep forgetting but lived with his mother ….
Anonymous
While a Greek word that can be translated into English as “trinity” is not in the Bible, there are to me clear inferences from the Bible that would lead one to conclude that God possesses a triune nature, which is the orthodox understanding of God as far as I know.
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi so does this mean argument from silence ?
Anonymous
Troy Day I don’t think so. First, there are places where Jesus being God is fairly explicit or clear inferences, e.g., John 10:30; Mark 2:7,10; and also in some places where we read of the Holy Spirit, e.g., Acts 5:3,4.
No?
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi out of these Philip Williams is making the argument Father YES JEsus YES but Spiti NO – spirit is the spirit of GOD who is a spirit
Anonymous
Troy Day I don’t know what his arguments entail, so I can do nothing but just disagree.
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi start with references in NT to the resurrected Jesus being the Holy Spirit.
Anonymous
Philip Williams “the resurrected Jesus being the Holy Spirit”?
I’m sorry, I don’t get what you mean. Are you saying Jesus is the Holy Spirit?
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi the Scriptures tell us that the resurrected and ascended Jesus is the promised Holy Spirit given to believers.
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi there is no such difference of course in the NT text
Anonymous
Philip Williams Where does it say that? I’ve never read anything like that.
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi several places. Here are two:
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 3:17-18
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi Here is another:
“So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.”
1 Corinthians 15:45
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi some more:
“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” John 14:20, 23
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi BTW none of these say what Philip Williams says 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day just what do they say?
Anonymous
Philip Williams 2 Corinthians 3:17-18. Some questions:
– Who is Paul referencing by “Lord”?
– If “Lord” is Christ, where do we read the Spirit is not God? (v.3 suggests otherwise; also 1 Corinthians 6:11).
– If “Lord” refers to God, where do we read the Spirit is not Jesus Christ?
– Could “Lord” refer to both Christ and God in union? (see v.4: “through Christ toward God; see Matthew 1:18; 3:16; Luke 4:1,14)
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi whenever the disciples mention Lord, they refer to Jesus. Of course, God is in the resurrected Jesus.
The Spirit is the presence of God in the earth and for those in the Spirit, the Spirit is Jesus.
When Jesus on earth was in the Spirit, God was in Christ.
Anonymous
Philip Williams You sound trinitarian to me.
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi actually the difference is slight. But solves the issues that unfortunately beset the Trinitarian creed.
Anonymous
Philip Williams there is NO any such difference. All dualists sound Trinitarian cause they are in the middle of non-existing dualism as replacement to monotheism. The dualistic heresy was exposed in the Early Church
Anonymous
Troy Day not dualist. That was Gnosticism.
It’s Binitarian
Father/Son (Messiah)
Anonymous
Philip Williams What issues beset the Trinitarian creed?
Anonymous
Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two persons, personas, or aspects in one substance/Divinity (or God). Classically, binitarianism is understood as a form of dulism or Ditheism. I had a student back in the late 70s (during a real short temp @ Yale) who wrote on the The Significance of the Rabbinic Reports about Binitarianism, Ditheism and Dualism for the History of Early Christianity and Judaism. it is worth reading to see the dualistic origins of Ditheism way BEFORE it was ever known by its western Binitarians. It also proved Radical Unitarianism and Binitarianism came about in the same liberal theology stream. Heiser quoted this dissertation quarter of a century later but his Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh was motivated by this dualistic belief to state they knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form.
BUT the BIBLE was explicit in the sense of a violation of monotheism since there was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for a second Yahweh. These speculations- that’s what they were, were considered unorthodox. In response, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D. Shortly the early church followed to reject Binitarianism, Ditheism and any other form of Dualism
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi the Muslims and cults know them well. 3=1, a Nicene creation, 3 Gods
Also, issues from Scripture: ‘My Father is greater than I.”
Still, Trinity affirms the Deity of Jesus! It’s great merit.
Anonymous
Philip Williams // Nicene creation, 3 Gods//
Not sure that’s correct. The Nicene Creed did not create or suggest 3 Gods.
Not sure what you mean by your reference to Muslims and cults, both gorups, which would deny any union of God whether it be three or two.
Anonymous
Philip Williams not sure how that connects to your Ditheism either…
Anonymous
Philip Williams Nicene of 325 regarding the Holy Spirit simply mentions, “We believe in… the Holy Spirit.”
Nicene Creed of 381, regarding the Holy Spirit, reads, in part, “who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.”
Although nothing is really stated regarding the HolySpirit except that they believed in Him, it seems to me that they, nevertheless, regarded Him as one with Christ and God, especially since it was only 56 years later, I would assume due to controversy about the Spirit, that He was added and added in such a way as to render Him equal and one with God and Christ: “together is worshiped and glorified.”
To glorify a person apart from God and Christ is idolatry. No?
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi agree that Holy Spirit is divine presence in Creation. But does anyone In Bible pray to the Holy Spirit as say, Benny Hinn does?
Yes, it was Augustine who added equality.
Anonymous
Philip Williams So, are you sugesting the Holy Spirit is actually another God? Are you denying monotheism?
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi no, the Holy Spirit is the actual presence of the Father and Son in Creation. Hence, very holy.
Anonymous
Philip Williams so not a person not a thing just a pres.
Anonymous
Troy Day are the Father and Son persons?
Anonymous
Briefly, how would you argue to support your position from the Bible?
Anonymous
Philip Williams is the Holy Spirit the third person in the Trinity ?
Anonymous
Nelson Banuchi for starters I wouldnt argue my position on the Trinity Briefly; but I could Briefly tell ya Philip Williams position is one pure dualistic heresy
Anonymous
Just curious. What exactly is a “Trinitarian”? Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
Anonymous
Bishop Bernie L Wade great Q for Dan Anthony n Jevan Little
Anonymous
There is no such unity to be had. Modalism (Oneness) is a heresy that fundamentally denies essential Gospel truths. No peace with heretics.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams can you share exactly what “Oneness” is?
Anonymous
Bishop Bernie L Wade The Father is the Son, is the Holy Spirit, in a nut shell.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams How can you put GOD in a nut shell
Anonymous
Troy Day ok, I’m saying that the gist of what the modalists believe.
Anonymous
Bishop Bernie L Wade Oneness stands for showing the interconnected, interdependent, and one-in-one only. It is implied that Christ was before the establishment of the Universe. As they are one-in-one always means that they can work together as well as alone. However, no one can see the Father in Heaven means that He is in the Spirit only. Although three personalities came to earth once, two have gone to eradicate Sodom & Comoro. God has sent His second personality to crucify Jesus for our sins in this sinful world in order to save us. If three came for crucifixion, satan will enjoy and kill 3 personalities on the same site. As such, God sent His Word (Christ) to this world, and after finishing His mission followed by His resurrection, God & Jesus sent their Holy Spirit to this world. Nut Shell implied the Universe of God.
Anonymous
Rasiah Thomas https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/proofs-of-a-divine-trinity/
Anonymous
Troy Day Thanks a lot.
Anonymous
Also, I ponder, was Jesus the incarnation of the son or the incarnation of the Father?
Anonymous
Bishop Bernie L Wade that depends if you believe he was the ETERNAL Son
Anonymous
NO Philip Williams it was not Augustine who added equality This is just what the pope wants you to think The perichoresis was introduced even earlier than Athanasius https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/a-christian-is-the-one-who-accepts-the-trinity/
Anonymous
Troy Day A Trinitarian is one who accepts the Trinity.
A Christian is one who accepts Christ.
Anonymous
Philip Williams this is your twist on things HOWEVER the early Christian church as expressed in the statement here vocally pronounced every Sunday the following key confession fron the Athanasian Creed
A Christian is the one who accepts The Trinity.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit are 3 Persons in the ONE God Head.
NOT 3 gods – ONE GOD (Athanasian Creed) https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/proofs-of-a-divine-trinity/
Anonymous
Troy Day but, i am a anteNicene Christian like Paul and Silas.
Anonymous
Philip Williams The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine, and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. even by Paul and Silas. Polycarp (70-155/160)
“O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever” (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040)
Anonymous
Troy Day yeah, first by the Donatist.
She shouted, “I am the Holy Ghost.”
Anonymous
https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/proofs-of-a-divine-trinity/