Oneness doctrine

[Jake Huether]

I need some historical evidence that it is TRUE.

Not that I believe that it's true... But there's a person in my group at work who believes in this, and it'd be nice to be able to point out that there is no historical evidence of it's existance and/or apostolic roots.

I've done several searches and have only come up with Christian sites that refute it, but none that substantiate it.

It would seem that if God wanted us to be Baptized in Jesus' name (i.e. I baptise you in the name of Jesus) then there should have been some very explicit teachings by the Apostles (which the Bible apparently doesn't provide), or at the very least some early Church writings on the matter. But the only early Church writings we have on it are calling it a heresy! Not to mention the Didache which teaches the Trinity formula.

Anyway... If someone could attempt to prove it's true, this would be of great help. And also pray for me. I really want to tell this person the error in his belief system, but I don't want to go without God's blessing. This is a matter of life and death of the soul as it pertains to being Baptised or not! I suppose if he really was duped into this belief, then his desire to be Baptised correctly would suffice. But nonetheless, the Truth must be spoken.

God bless.

[StColette]

The Gospel of Matthew teaches us to Baptize in the name of the Trinity

Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

If they are using the example of:

Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 10:48, "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."

Acts 19:5, "And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Now we know that Christ doesn't contradict Himself, what He says in one place such as the Gospel of Matthew, He means it, the same with in Acts. The Bible does not contradict itself.

The reason that they are saying "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is to show that the disciples are baptizing these people through or in the authority of Christ.

If you look at Acts 4:7-10, I believe are the right numbers, you will see that Peter tells them by whose power or name has he done this and he answers within those verse " by the name of Jesus Christ" In other words, In the name of Jesus Christ, Peter was able to do these things, by Christ's authority and power.

[Sojourner]

I read an article about this long ago ... if I remember right, author and inspirational speaker T.D. Jakes (of "Woman Thou Art Loosed" fame) is a oneness pentecostal. I've only heard "Oneness" in relation to "Pentecostal"; I'm not aware of its affiliation with any other group. You might want to check out the [url="http://www.upci.org/"]United Pentecostal Church[/url] site;
[url="http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp"]HERE[/url] is a site that outlines the church's beliefs on the Godhead.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='StColette' date='Nov 8 2004, 02:42 PM'] The Gospel of Matthew teaches us to Baptize in the name of the Trinity

Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

If they are using the example of:

Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 10:48, "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."

Acts 19:5, "And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Now we know that Christ doesn't contradict Himself, what He says in one place such as the Gospel of Matthew, He means it, the same with in Acts. The Bible does not contradict itself.

The reason that they are saying "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is to show that the disciples are baptizing these people through or in the authority of Christ.

If you look at Acts 4:7-10, I believe are the right numbers, you will see that Peter tells them by whose power or name has he done this and he answers within those verse " by the name of Jesus Christ" In other words, In the name of Jesus Christ, Peter was able to do these things, by Christ's authority and power. [/quote]
StColette,

Thanks for the response. But I really want to have a convincing argument[b] for[/b] the doctrine...

I've read all there is to know about why it isn't correct. But I don't want to slam that in his face. I'd prefere to say that I did a search and found nothing supporting it, rather than saying I did a search and found a buch of stuff trashing it.



Sojourner, you are correct. It is a Pentacostal thing. It's a revival of an ancient heresy. But I want to understand how they clame that the Catholic Church went off the track and the Oneness doctrine somehow is "on the track". That's why I was hoping that there was some sort of attempt at an historical tracing of the Oneness doctrine that might prove that where ever the Catholic Church "disconnected" we might find this doctrine continued.

If I can show that there is now historical trace of this doctrine, no continued lineage, then it will be easier to convince this person that it is false.

Thanks again for the responses.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Nov 8 2004, 05:27 PM'] StColette,

Thanks for the response. But I really want to have a convincing argument[b] for[/b] the doctrine...

I've read all there is to know about why it isn't correct. But I don't want to slam that in his face. I'd prefere to say that I did a search and found nothing supporting it, rather than saying I did a search and found a buch of stuff trashing it.



Sojourner, you are correct. It is a Pentacostal thing. It's a revival of an ancient heresy. But I want to understand how they clame that the Catholic Church went off the track and the Oneness doctrine somehow is "on the track". That's why I was hoping that there was some sort of attempt at an historical tracing of the Oneness doctrine that might prove that where ever the Catholic Church "disconnected" we might find this doctrine continued.

If I can show that there is now historical trace of this doctrine, no continued lineage, then it will be easier to convince this person that it is false.

Thanks again for the responses. [/quote]
Jake,

[url="http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html"]HERE[/url] is a brief history of modalism, which I believe is the technical term for "oneness". In doing further research, you'll likely find more information by looking up modalism.

[God Conquers]

The link that Sojourner posted in the earlier post links to a site which has a defense of the doctrine on it.

Just go to the.... well... [url="http://www.upci.org/doctrine/baptism.asp"] HERE!!!![/url]

Peace Jake.

[Jake Huether]

Cool. Thanks guys.

[vianney316]

I'm sure you could find the argument on various United Pentacostal websites. The argument is briefly as follows:

1) Jesus gave the command to baptize in the "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The word "name" is in the singular and refers to Jesus. (Thus the connection with their denial of the Trinity.)

2) The Apostles understood this and began baptizing in the name of Jesus and not of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here they will quote the verses from Acts already listed.

3) So if the Acts of the Apostles have people being baptized in Jesus name, then that's what we must do. To use the Trinitarian formula is to completely misunderstand Jesus' meaning and to baptize invalidly.

United Pentacostals don't believe in the Trinity so for them, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit would express a "heretical" belief in the Trinity.

You said you already read why they are wrong, so I will leave it at that. Hope this helps.

Edited November 28, 2004 by vianney316

[Norseman82]

This heresy has historically been called Sabellianism. If you do a web search on it (or forms of that name) you might also find more information.