Women in Ministry 2

This is a message I preached at Open Door 2005. Open Door is a conference designed to encourage women to identify and exercise their spiritual gifts and to fulfill their ministerial callings. To hear the message, click on the title "Women in Ministry 2."

Women in Ministry 1

This is a message I preached at Open Door 2004. Open Door is a conference designed to encourage women to identify and exercise their spiritual gifts and to fulfill their ministerial callings. To hear the message, click on the title "Women in Ministry 1."

Twitter

I've decided to join the Twitter community. If you're interested, the address is www.twitter.com/danielsegraves.

A Further Response to Calvin Beisner

Some time ago I wrote a response to Calvin Beisner’s explanation of Acts 2:38 as found in his book “Jesus Only” Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998). That response appears on this BlogSpot in the January 2005 archives.

Recently I discovered that Beisner has written a partial response to my comments as they appeared earlier on a web site at http://www.clc.edu/askdr/Archive/Acts238.htm. Although that site is no longer available, the essence of my comments there is incorporated into the article that appears on this BlogSpot. Beisner’s response can be found at http://www.equip.org/articles/does-acts-2-38-teach-baptismal-remission-.

In his article “Does Acts 2:38” teach baptismal remission, Beisner notes Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox insistence that water baptism itself remits sins. By contrast, he points out that Evangelical churches see baptism’s importance as the sign and seal of justification by faith and as the sacrament that initiates one into the visible church, but not as a means of remission of sins. Finally, he says that “[c]ertain cults and even some descendants of Protestantism . . . have embraced the sacerdotal views of Romanism and Orthodoxy and taught that sins cannot be forgiven apart from baptism, though they have insisted that baptism cannot be effective for remission of sins apart from faith.”

Beisner acknowledges that “[o]n the surface, in English, it seems that Peter [in Acts 2:38] meant that the purpose of baptism was to effect the remission of sins.” Then he quotes from two sources published by the United Pentecostal Church International. One of the quotes, from J. L. Hall’s The United Pentecostal Church and the Evangelical Movement (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1990) misidentifies the page number (Beisner’s footnote says it is from page 53; it is from page 33) and by being lifted from its context ignores Hall’s emphasis on the necessity of faith. Beisner presents Hall’s statement as follows: “United Pentecostals recognize that water baptism is ‘for the remission of sins’ (Acts 2:38).” The full statement by Hall adds important perspective:

Although United Pentecostals recognize that water baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), they believe that baptism is effective only by faith in Jesus Christ and by calling upon His name, for there is no salvation without faith and the name of Jesus Christ (Hebrew 11:6; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 10:43; 22:16).

Although he appeals to the rootedness of Evangelical churches in the Protestant Reformation, Beisner does not note Hall’s direct quotes from Martin Luther’s Small Catechism that confirm Luther’s belief that baptism “works forgiveness of sins” (Hall, 32). Nor does he acknowledge Hall’s reference to Luther’s recognition of the validity of the use of the words, “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Hall, 32).

Beisner argues that lexical and grammatical considerations “undermine the value of Acts 2:38 as evidence for the doctrine of baptismal remission and point to another, more likely interpretation.” As it relates to what he calls “the lexical objection,” Beisner notes that the Webster’s New International Dictionary offers eleven possible definitions for the preposition “for.” He asserts that “baptismal remissionists” assume that “for” as used in Acts 2:38 means “in order to obtain the forgiveness of your sins.” He suggests, however, that one could just as well choose the definition that would mean we are baptized because our sins have been forgiven, so that baptism is a sign of the reality.

The discussion of the English language is interesting, but it is relatively pointless as far as understanding the issues here, since the inspired text is in the Greek language. Beisner moves from a consideration of the English translation to a discussion of the Greek text when he writes, “We can make a similar case about the Greek preposition translated for.” Then he notes that eis, translated “for,” has a variety of possible meanings, one of which is “to denote reference to a person or thing for, to, with respect or reference to” (Walter A. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], s.v., eis, 230). Then he says, “If this is the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38—and the option cannot be ruled out—then the verse would indicate that baptism is performed with reference to, that is, as a sign or symbol of forgiveness of sins, not for the purpose of or in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.” Even though Beisner makes this point, it is only under the assumption that baptism is connected with remission of sins in Acts 2:38, a connection Beisner thinks unlikely.

What Beisner does not note in his use of Bauer’s lexicon is that the lexicon connects Acts 2:38 with the definition that “denote[s] purpose in order to”: “eis aphesin hamartiōn for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cf. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38” (Bauer, 229). [Throughout this article I am transliterating the Greek due to problems with posting the Greek font to BlogSpot.]

Beisner is of the opinion that the “plausibility of . . . alternative understandings of for reduces the evidential value of Acts 2:38 for the doctrine of baptismal remission of sins.” The article does not concern itself with the meaning of the identical Greek phrase eis aphesin hamartiōn in Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4, or Luke 3:3 where it is certain that the meaning has to do with effecting the forgiveness of sins. The same phrase appears on the lips of Jesus in Luke 24:47, connecting forgiveness of sins with repentance in a significant anticipation of Peter’s words in Acts 2:38, further indicating the solidarity between repentance and baptism in effecting forgiveness. If the phrase eis aphesin hamartiōn in Acts 2:38 has nothing to do with effecting the forgiveness of sins, this is the only place in the New Testament where it does not. Contrary to Beisner’s opinion, this does not reduce the evidential value of Acts 2:38, nor does it, as Beisner claims, “dispossess the baptismal remissionists of Acts 2:38 as proof of their doctrine.” Instead, the consistent meaning of the phrase everywhere else it is found strengthens the evidential value of Acts 2:38.

But Beisner has another objection to the idea that Acts 2:38 connects baptism and forgiveness. In what he calls “the grammatical objection,” Beisner points out that the verb repent in Peter’s command is a second-person plural, whereas the verb be baptized is third-person singular. Although this is correct, the conclusions drawn are not.

To help his readers get the point of the significance of the second-person plural, Beisner adopts a Southern dialect in his translation, “Y’all repent.” He then points out that in the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins, the word your is second-person plural and offers the translation “for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins.” For Beisner, this means that it is repentance, not baptism, that is connected with the forgiveness of sins. [Since I have commented on this at length in the previous article “A Response to Calvin Beisner’s Explanation of Acts 2:38” which is found in the January 2005 archive of this BlogSpot, I will not deal with it further here, except to point out that his entire argument rests on a textual variant. The word translated “your” (humōn) in the phrase “for the forgiveness of your sins” appears in the critical text but not in the Majority Text. If humōn in this phrase is not the original reading, Beisner’s entire argument as it relates to excluding baptism from any connection to remission of sin collapses.]

Beisner writes:

Imagine the implications of ignoring this switch from second-person plural to third-person singular and back. Since the command be baptized is third-person singular, and the pronoun your in your sins is second-person plural, the sense would be that each one should be baptized for the forgiveness of not only his own sins but also for the sins of all the others there.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that the second-person plural humōn is the original reading, Beisner’s comment begs the question as to what the implication is of making this switch. Using Beisner’s reasoning, the implication would be that all of those present should repent for the forgiveness of the sins of all of those present. This is certainly not Peter’s meaning. Although the ancient Jewish people tended to think in more corporate terms than individualistic cultures, what was done corporately required individual participation. According to Beisner’s perspective, all of those who heard Peter had to repent for the sins of all of those who heard him. Thus, repentance is a group event, whereas baptism is an individual response. That this is Beisner’s understanding is seen in the translations he offers:

In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number in the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular) . . . .” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each of you be baptized . . . .”

Beisner does not note the context of Acts 2:38 in the overall scope of Peter’s message with its rootedness in the book of Joel. [See my paper “This is That: An Examination of Peter’s Use of Joel from the Perspective of Canonical-Compositional Hermeneutics” in the December 2004 archive of this BlogSpot.] Although Joel’s call to repentance was certainly a communal call (see Joel 2:12-13, where plural forms are used), it was a call that required individual participation (see Joel 2:32, where singular forms are used). If Beisner’s reading is followed, would the forgiveness of sins that is effected by communal repentance be invalidated if even one person who heard Peter’s command failed to repent?

It is at this point in the article that Beisner refers to my comments:

Some object to this reasoning by pointing out that be baptized is followed by every one of you (hekastos humōn), and that in that phrase you (humōn) is second-person plural. Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the connection is between this you and the forgiveness of your sins?

That ignores the grammar, too. In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (humōn). . . . You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptistheitō).

This is to over read the function of the partitive genitive. As Dana and Mantey point out, in the use of a partitive genitive, “A noun may be defined by indicating in the genitive the whole of which it is a part” (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1955], 79). In another use of the same grammatical structure, Jesus said, “You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?” (Luke 13:15, NIV). The word transliterated “hypocrites” is a masculine plural noun in the vocative case. The words translated “each of you” are the same as those found in Acts 2:38: hekastos humōn. Although individuals are addressed, they are addressed as part of a group.

It may be most helpful to understand this point by looking at the use of a similar grammatical structure earlier in Acts 2: “And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6). In this verse, “everyone” is translated from heis hekastos. Heis is a nominative masculine singular, as is hekastos, both here and in Acts 2:38. But the verb translated “heard” (ēkouon) is a third person plural. Although this is not precisely the same grammatical structure as in Acts 2:38, it demonstrates how singular and plural forms can be used together. It is reading too much into the grammar of Acts 2:38 to separate baptism and its effects from repentance and its effects on the basis of singular and plural forms, just as it would be in Acts 2:6 to say that it could not have been all of those who heard the newly Spirit baptized believers speaking in their own languages because “everyone” is translated from singular forms.

This issue is well addressed by A. B. Caneday:

Peter’s double imperative presents the call of the gospel, requiring all to “repent and be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins.” The fact that there is a shift of persons, from second person plural . . . to third person singular . . . hardly warrants restricting connection of the phrase “for the forgiveness of your sins” . . . to “repent” and not to “let each one be baptized.” Actually, the grammatical switch in person and number may intensify the bond between the two imperatives so that they should be read as joined—“repent and let each one be baptized.” Together they bring about what is expressed in the purpose statement, “for the forgiveness of your sins” (A. B. Caneday, “Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ [eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright; Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2006], 311-12).

As Beisner brings his article to a close, he mentions that he showed his translation of Acts 2:38 to the late Julius Mantey, who approved his translation and signed his name next to it in the margin of Beisner’s Greek New Testament. This is quite interesting in view of Mantey’s comment on Acts 2:38 in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

When one considers in Ac. 2:38 repentance as self-renunciation and baptism as a public expression of self-surrender and self-dedication to Christ, which significance it certainly had in the first century, the expression [eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn humōn] may mean for the purpose of the remission of sins. But if one stresses baptism, without its early Christian import, as a ceremonial means of salvation, he does violence to Christianity as a whole, for one of its striking distinctions from Judaism and Paganism is that it is a religion of salvation by faith while all others teach salvation by works (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 104).

In other words, Mantey recognized the possibility that repentance and baptism could be understood as both connected with the purpose of the remission of sins. His concern was apparently that when baptism was viewed without its early Christian significance as a mere ceremony that resulted in salvation, baptism was no longer a response of faith but a work thought to produce salvation.

Because of his concerns, Mantey suggested what he called an “unusual” meaning for the preposition “for” (eis). His idea was to read eis as “causal” in Acts 2:38. That is, baptism is because of the remission of sins, not for the purpose of remission of sins. (See Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 104.) Caneday comments:

Many have looked to Julius R. Mantey’s theologically controlled explanation of “unto the forgiveness of sins” . . . as authoritative. He admits that the expression may mean “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” but prefers to adopt what he calls an “unusual meaning,” “because of the remission of sins.” This understanding of the preposition eis (“into, unto”) is lexically doubtful. Murray Harris rightly views the causal sense as “unlikely” (Caneday, Believer’s Baptism, 310).

Beisner’s response to my observations does not settle the issue in favor of his perspective. Instead, it further demonstrates the inadequacy of the idea that Peter connected the forgiveness of sins exclusively with repentance. But if Beisner’s response had indeed proved his point, it would not necessarily have meant that repentance was instrumental in effecting forgiveness, for Beisner is apparently of the opinion that the word “for” (eis) may in Acts 2:38 mean “with reference to, that is, as a sign or symbol of forgiveness of sins, not for the purpose of or in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.” If this were the case, neither baptism nor repentance would have anything to do with forgiveness. Even repentance would be only a sign that our sins had been forgiven prior to repentance.

Copyright © 2009 by Daniel L. Segraves

Revision of Book: God in Flesh

In 2001 I wrote a short book titled God in Flesh: Was Jesus' Flesh Heavenly or Earthly? The book began as a response to three pages of notes taken by students during my days as a Bible college teacher. These students had visited a church where a Bible study was taught claiming that Jesus had "heavenly" flesh and denying any biological connection between the virgin Mary and Jesus. The students took notes during the Bible study and brought them to me for a response.

Now in its fifth printing, I have revised and expanded the book with the addition of my response to the "heavenly" flesh teaching found in a book titled Bible Writers' Theology by Teklemariam Gezahagne. This has approximately doubled the content of the book, which is available at www.pentecostalpublishing.com.

The manifestation of God in human existence is a great miracle. As such, it is a mystery beyond human understanding or explanation. It is the nature of miracles to transcend our comprehension. They cannot be reproduced in a science laboratory. They defy logic. But we are curious creatures.

Throughout church history, the miracle of the Incarnation has been the subject of heated debates. If Jesus is really a human being, how can He be God? As they have wrestled with this question, some have minimized or denied the deity of Christ. Others have minimized or denied his humanity. Many terms have survived these debates to describe the variety of views that have developed: Ebionism, Arianism, Docetism, Apollinarianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, Adoptionism, Cerinthianism, and others. Ideas like these keep cropping up under new names.

The book God in Flesh is in response to the notion that Jesus' flesh was "heavenly" rather than "earthly." Historically, this idea is similar to Monophysitism, the teaching that Jesus had only one nature. It is even more radical, however, for it denies any biological relationship between the virgin Mary and Jesus.

The testimony of Scripture is that Jesus is fully God and fully man. In the Incarnation, God stands in solidarity with humanity. Like all miracles, this is one we must accept by faith.

Matthew 28:19 and Granville Sharp’s Sixth Rule

Does Granville Sharp’s sixth rule require Matthew 28:19 to indicate that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons?

Sharp’s sixth rule says that when nouns of the same case are joined by kai [and] and each noun is preceded by the article [the], the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality than the first noun. Here is the exact wording:

And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles: . . .

As with some of Sharp’s other rules, there is an exception to the sixth rule. It is as follows:

Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeable to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule . . . the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate.

One such exception that is commonly agreed upon, and that is offered by Sharp himself, is John 20:28. In this text, Thomas says to Jesus, “Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou.” A literal translation would be “the [ho] Lord [kurios] of me [mou] and [kai] the [ho] God [theos] of me [mou].” Even though this conforms to Sharp’s sixth rule (two nouns, Lord and God, are joined by “and,” and both are preceded by the article), Sharp rightly determined that this is an exception to the rule. The reason for this is that the context clearly indicates that Thomas was speaking to one person, Jesus, and that he was identifying Jesus as both Lord and God.

The relevant phrase in Matthew 28:19 reads as follows: “eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos.” The literal translation would be “into [eis] the [to] name [onoma] of the [tou] Father [patros] and [kai] of the [tou] Son [huiou] and [kai] of the [tou] Holy [hagiou] Spirit [pneumatos].”

Here there are three nouns (Father, Son, and Spirit [“holy” is an adjective modifying “Spirit”), all joined by “and” and each preceded by the article. The question is whether this text qualifies for Sharp’s exception. Is there anything in the context to indicate that one person is in view rather than three?

The word “name” is a singular noun. In the Jewish mind, “name” is virtually synonymous with “person.” In other words, Jesus’ Jewish disciples would have understood Him to mean that they were to baptize believers into the “person” (God Himself) who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Some trinitarian scholars have recognized, based on the grammar of the text, that Matthew 28:19 is about a singular name. For example, J. Oliver Buswell, a Presbyterian theologian, wrote, “The ‘name,’ not ‘names’ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in which we are to be baptized, is to be understood as Jahweh, the name of the Triune God.” F.W. Beare, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies in Trinity College, University of Toronto, in his comments on Matthew 28:19, wrote,

From Acts and the Pauline epistles, we gather that in the earliest days, converts were baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), or of “the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16); “into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3), or “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). . . . The triple formulation . . . is not, properly speaking, “trinitarian”; there is no element of speculation about the divine essence or the relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It reflects the modes in which the divine is manifested in Christian faith.

Marvin R. Vincent wrote, “The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer . . . is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person.”

Sharp’s sixth rule (without the exception) calls for a radical distinction to be made between persons, things, or qualities. This is a grammatical device to indicate that two persons or things or qualities are in no way the same. Although trinitarianism teaches that God exists as three persons, it teaches that God is one being. The doctrine sees the three persons as being distinct, but not separate. In other words, trinitarianism does not call for the kind of radical distinction between the persons that would be required if Sharp’s sixth rule is applicable to Matthew 28:19. Sharp’s sixth rule, logically applied, would require the Father to be one being, the Son another being, and the Holy Spirit a third being. This is not what trinitarianism teaches. It would actually be tritheism.

Those who wish to apply Sharp’s sixth rule, without its exception, to Matthew 28:19 have misunderstood either the rule itself or the doctrine of the trinity. There is no indication in Granville Sharp’s Remarks that Sharp himself applied the rule to Matthew 28:19.

Since, according to the grammar of Matthew 28:19, there is but one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that means there is but one person – one God – who is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The God that we know as the Son is the same God that we know as the Father and the same God that we know as the Holy Spirit. Sharp’s rule does not require a fragmentation of God into three radically distinct persons.

W. D. McBrayer, ed., Granville Sharp’s Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek New Testament (Atlanta: The Original Word, 1995), 25.
Ibid., 28.
J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 123.
F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 545.
Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Volume 1 (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d.), 149-150.

Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Dialogue

During the years 2002-2007, leading Oneness Pentecostal and Trinitarian Pentecostal theologians engaged in a Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal dialogue sponsored by the Society for Pentecostal Studies. The final report that emerged from this dialogue was published in Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, volume 30, number 2 (2008). Copies of the journal can be obtained from www.sps-usa.org.

This edition of Pneuma contains not only the final report; it also includes the following responses: James A. Johnson, the presiding bishop emeritus of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, "A Brief Oneness Pentecostal Response"; Kenneth F. Haney, the general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, "A Brief Oneness Pentecostal Response"; George Wood, the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, "A Brief Trinitarian Pentecostal Response"; William W. Menzies, "A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response"; Daniel L. Segraves, "A Oneness Pentecostal Response"; Richard Shaka, "A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response"; Daniel Ramirez, "A Historian's Response"; Ralph Del Colle, "A Catholic Response"; and David Reed, "An Anglican Response."

Since I am one of the contributers, I am able to post my response here. I encourage all who are interested to read all of the articles, including Frank D. Macchia's editorial, in Pneuma.

A Oneness Pentecostal Response

Daniel L. Segraves

Introduction

Our Lord must be pleased that Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals are talking after nearly a century of virtual separation. Surely the silence of those with a common heritage, a common experience in Holy Spirit baptism, and a common sense of the eschatological significance of that experience has not pleased Him. Our differences are significant and enduring, but, as indicated in several sections of the Final Report, there is much that we share. This is cause for celebration. In 1916, we focused on those things that separated us. In 2008, we still acknowledge our distinctives, but we are seeking to understand each other even in our disagreements. Willingness to discuss Scripture in a thoughtful and respectful way is a sign of spiritual health. Nothing is to be gained by heated rhetoric. As Paul pointed out, we should be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave us (Eph 4:32).

Are risks involved in this conversation? No doubt. But some risks are worth taking. Whatever these risks may be, however, they were recognized and minimized by the goal of the dialogue, which was to gain “a clearer understanding of their positions and not the winning over of one side to the other or the adoption of a compromise position.” If we cannot talk, we cannot communicate. If we don’t communicate, there is little opportunity for old wounds to heal and healthy relationships to develop. Although no compromise is reflected in the Final Report, signs of mutual respect are evident. One such sign is seen in the joint conclusion on the baptismal formula: “Neither side compromised the respective teaching of their churches on baptism but agreed to the importance of continued discussion of the significance, mode, and formula of water baptism.” Another is seen in the joint conclusion to the discussion of Christology and the Godhead: “. . . both sides agreed that God’s nature requires additional discussion between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals.” We are separated by many years and substantial emotional distance, to say nothing of our understanding of key biblical texts. But we have started something good that must continue until we both know we have completed our task.

Comments and Recommendations
The chief purpose of the dialogue was “to allow for a clearer understanding of Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostal perspectives, including the variations possible within them, as well as both the commonalities and differences between them.” As this purpose statement indicates, it is important to note that there are variations among both Oneness and Trinitarian perspectives. The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) cannot and does not claim to speak for all Oneness Pentecostals, and it is recognized that there are various perspectives within the UPCI. This is acknowledged in the second paragraph of the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI: “We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.” The merging conference of the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated (PCI) and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ (PAJC) in 1945 placed supreme value on the unity of the Spirit, abstaining from contention over divergent understanding. Oneness theology is not monolithic; neither is Trinitarian theology. As discussion continues, it will be important to maintain the attitude of mutual respect demonstrated in the opening dialogue while broadening the scope to include representation of various streams of thought. It is anticipated in the Final Report that it “would function as a launching pad for further discussion by a number of persons, from various contexts.” As this project proceeds and enlarges, we must maintain the purpose and goal of the original dialogue.

From the Oneness perspective, a significant achievement of the dialogue was the dispelling of “the idea that the Oneness/Trinitarian division had to do with a ‘new revelation’ by the Oneness intentionally proposed as an insight beyond the teaching of Scripture.” The misguided claim that Oneness Pentecostals embrace extra-biblical revelation has long served to caricature the Oneness perspective and to hinder communication with Trinitarians. As indicated in the Preamble to the Articles of Faith of the UPCI, “The Bible is the only God-given authority which man possesses; therefore, all doctrine, faith, hope, and all instruction for the church must be based upon, and harmonize with, the Bible.”

Since the purpose of baptism has been a point of disagreement, it is encouraging from the Oneness view to see that the Trinitarian team affirmed that the relationship between baptism and salvation “requires further study and discussion among Trinitarian Pentecostals” especially “in light of specific passages which appear to make a direct link between baptism and salvation . . . .” As it relates to the meaning of baptism, the Oneness team affirmed that the “complete experience of forgiveness/remission of sins comes through repentance and water baptism together. Repentance deals with a person’s sinful lifestyle, opening the door to a personal relationship with God, while baptism deals with the record and consequences of sin.” The UPCI understands Acts 2:38 to indicate that water baptism is an essential part of the experience of full salvation.

One point of tension between Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals has been the claim by some on the Oneness side that Trinitarians believe in three gods. On the other hand, some on the Trinitarian side have asserted that the Oneness view is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism reborn. The Trinitarian team affirms, “We as Trinitarian Pentecostals wish to stress that we believe in One God and not in three gods. According to Trinitarian dogma, ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ are not three ‘separate’ or in any way ‘divisible’ persons but rather three distinct but inseparable persons of one divine nature.” Dialogue will be enhanced and the Golden Rule will be obeyed if both Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals refrain from claiming that others believe something they deny. It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do. On the other hand, Oneness Pentecostals do not embrace the sequential modalism of Sabellianism, and Trinitarian Pentecostals should acknowledge this.

The Trinitarian team affirms that the words “nature” and “person,” while helpful, are fallible attempts to understand the unity and relational life of the Godhead. Indeed, it is acknowledged that there are “Trinitarian theologians who would question the use of this language to describe the life of the one God who is eternally distinct as ‘Father, Son, and Spirit,’ especially in the light of the fact that ‘persons’ in ancient Trinitarian writings did not carry the same meaning that it does today (as referring to separate and individual consciousnesses).” This affirmation is a hopeful sign for further dialogue; a great deal of the debate centers around the use of the word “person.” In their criticism of Trinitarian theology, many Oneness Pentecostals have understood the word “person” in the modern sense. They suspect that some Trinitarians who – like many Oneness Pentecostals – are not schooled in the intricate and subtle nuances of ancient Greek and Latin theologians, also understand the word in the modern sense. When the word “person” is read this way, it is difficult to see how the idea of three “persons” in the Godhead avoids tritheism. Alister E. McGrath’s simplified answer to the question, “How can God be three persons and one person at the same time?” may be helpful.

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .

The Final Report points out that “the language of ‘persons’ is not sacred in Trinitarian theology.” Although there are no doubt many Trinitarian theologians who would disagree with this statement, it may provide a way forward in ongoing discussions. The question asked by the Trinitarian team concerning A. D. Urshan’s 1919 acknowledgement that there is “a mysterious, inexplicable, incomprehensible three-ness” in the “plurality of God’s mysterious Being” must be explored more fully.

In a joint affirmation, both teams “recognized that ‘Spirit baptism’ is essential to the Christian life broadly conceived, involving the entire span of one’s conformity to Christ . . . .” The issue that is still of concern as it relates to salvation “has to do with the role of speaking in tongues in conversion/initiation.” The Oneness team affirmed “that repentance, water baptism, and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are integral aspects of conversion/initiation; and that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.” As David Bernard points out, “The early Pentecostals typically used ‘conversion’ to describe the time they turned from sin and joined a Christian church, which often occurred long before they received the Holy Spirit.” In practice, some pastors in the UPCI continue to refer to repentance as conversion, although they refer to repentance, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as full salvation, regeneration, or the new birth.

The joint conclusion on salvation includes a discussion of the significance of the term “full salvation” as found in the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI. It was affirmed by the Oneness team “that salvation is a process which begins with a profession of faith and repentance and that the fullness of salvation includes both water baptism in Jesus’ name and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues. Thus, they acknowledged that many people have entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ based on faith and repentance but should continue their experience to receive everything that God has commanded and provided. . . . They held that most Oneness Pentecostals do not make a strong separation between ‘salvation’ and the ‘full salvation’ but affirm the apostolic proclamation in Acts 2:38 as the New Testament message of salvation.”

A Look to the Future

Those who participated in the five-year study leading up to this Final Report are to be commended for their willingness to invest themselves in this effort. For much of the twentieth century, it seemed impossible that such an event could ever take place. This is of historic significance, it provides the possibility of the healing of wounded relationships—both personally and organizationally, and there is the potential for increased understanding not only of opposing points of view but also of Scripture. The road ahead is long, possibly filled with unforeseen obstacles, and no one knows where it will end. But it is a road worth taking, for it is always right for good and sincere people to sit together before their open Bibles, searching them as did the Bereans, asking God to guide them in their study by his Holy Spirit. I think it would be appropriate to conclude this response with words I have written elsewhere.

On a practical level, the adherents of Oneness theology face the challenge of thoroughly investigating the historic doctrine of the Trinity so as to accurately understand and represent its views rather than succumbing to popular misconceptions and misrepresentations. Only by making the effort to understand a perspective with which they do not agree can they have meaningful interaction with those who hold an opposing view.

On the other hand, it is to be hoped that those who embrace Trinitarian theology will reciprocate by carefully examining the claims of mainstream Oneness theology, even as it continues to develop, rather than focusing on abandoned extremes to justify a quick dismissal of legitimacy.

If Trinitarian and Oneness theologians can refrain from drawing caricatures of opposing viewpoints, seeking understanding and doing theology in a spirit of godly reverence and mutual respect, they may discover diminishing differences and increasing agreement on essential points. Although the two views will doubtless never coalesce, God would be honored by a decrease in heated rhetoric and an increase in prayerful and thoughtful interaction.

Notes

For some reason, I could not transfer the article's footnotes to this post. Most of the direct quotes are from the Final Report referenced above. The quote from Alister E. McGrath can be found in his Understanding the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 130-131. The quote from my work is located in Stanley M. Burgess, ed., Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), 344-345.

"A Oneness Pentecostal Response" copyright 2008 by Pneuma