Revision as of 23:53, 1 June 2013

The Oneness doctrine is a non-Trinitarian view of the The Godhead that is a fundamental belief of a number of Pentecostal denominations (see below). Historically, it has been referred to as modalism.

Monarchianism

Monarchianism refers to a movement in the second and third centuries that attempted to safeguard monotheism and the unity (mono-archē = “one source”) of the Godhead. Monarchianism denied any kind of difference in reality of the Son and the Spirit as separate from the Father. The first form of monarchianism was referred to as "patripassianism", which derived from the Greek words patēr (father) and paschō (to suffer). The term refers to an early type of modalism that suggested that the one God (the Father) became incarnate in the form of the Son, was born of a virgin and suffered and died on the cross.

From this, two distinct forms of monarchianism developed:

1. Adoptionist, or dynamic monarchianism, which understood Jesus as merely a prophet filled with the Spirit and thus “adopted” by God; and

2. Modalism (or Sabellianism), which viewed Jesus as one of the modes through which the one God reveals himself to us.^[1]

Oneness/Modalist Theology

The majority of message churches would be considered modalist or oneness in their view of the Godhead.

They believe in the one God, and the complete and full deity of Jesus Christ. Oneness Pentecostals reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals maintain that the Judeo-Christian God is not three separate and distinct Persons, but is exclusively one God without any internal distinctions of persons and site, a belief based in part on a biblical passage found in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."

According to Oneness Pentecostals, God is not a plurality of persons, minds, individuals or a multiplicity of consciousnesses, but does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes, or relationships to man. Oneness statements of faith generally refer to God as "Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in emanation/regeneration" or that God exists in three "manifestations" throughout history. Oneness Christians maintain that there is no fundamental "threeness" to God, and consider it an injustice to speak of God as a "person".

Oneness Pentecostals are often referred to as "Jesus Only." The label arose early on in reference to their insistence on baptizing only in the name of Jesus, but it tends to be used only by the movement's critics today, and is generally disliked by Oneness Pentecostals. "Oneness", "Apostolic" and "Jesus' Name" are adherents' preferred self-designations.^[2]

Adoptionist, or dynamic monarchianism

Lee Vayle took some of the quotes of William Branham and used them to teach an Adoptionist view of the Godhead.

Concerns with the Oneness doctrine

An extreme Oneness t-shirt from fatherjesus.com

Sabellius was the original proponent of modalism.

Calvin saw Sabellius as having a false belief because he:

counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as almost of no importance, arguing that it was not because of any distinction that they were put forward, but that they were diverse attributes of God, of which sort there are very many. If it came to a debate, he was accustomed to confess that he recognized the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Spirit as God; but afterward a way out was found, contending that he had said nothing else than if he had spoken of God as strong, and just, and wise. And so he re-echoed another old song, that the Father is the Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without rank, without distinction.

Sabellius says that Father, Son, and Spirit signify no distinctions in God. Say they are three, and he will scream that you are naming three Gods. Say that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of persons; you will say in one word what Scripture states, and cut short empty talkativeness.^[3]

William Branham and Modalism

William Branham tried to hold himself out as believing something that was between Oneness and the Trinity. As a result, a significant group of his followers, in particular the followers of Lee vayle, believe that God is two and not one. This doctrine is referred to in a derogatory manner by some as the doctrine of the "Twinity".

Notwithstanding his statements to the contrary, many followers of William Branham believed that he fundamentally taught modalism and would therefore be considered adherents to Oneness theology.

William Branham often said statements such as, “God is not one like your finger” (Sermon: Lord, Show us the Father, Sept 7, 1953). This appears to be directed at doctrines he was hearing among the people at the time, even though this is not the current doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church. Websites such as FatherJesus.com are evidence of this extreme Oneness view that Jesus is God the Father. In contrast, William Branham taught that there is a threefold being to God, but God is not three individuals nor so singular that the Son of God is God the Father.

I do not believe that Jesus could be His own father. I believe that Jesus had a Father, and that was God. But God dwelled and tabernacled in this body called Jesus, and He was Emmanuel: God with us. And there's no other God besides this God. He is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost... Father: the Lord, Son: Jesus, Holy Ghost: Logos, Spirit of God. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Lord Jesus Christ; that's Him. And in Him dwelled the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. (William Branham, Sermon: Q&A, June 28, 1959)

Unitarianism verses Oneness

There are many who confuse the terms unitarian and Oneness. This is because both essentially believe that God can only exist as a single "unit," or monad. He cannot be divided into separate parts, or a plurality of "persons" and still exist as a whole deity. Although unitarians and Oneness are similar in the belief that there is not a plurality of persons in the Godhead, unitarians believe that Jesus was only a moral authority whereas the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ is essential to Oneness doctrine.

In Oneness theology there is an existential distinction, where God in the incarnation comes to exist in Christ in complete human existence and continues to exist as God eternally as Spirit ("Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" - Template:Bibleverse).

Organizations

There are many Oneness Pentecostal organizations. Here are a few of the larger ones:

International

Oneness Pentecostal groups with headquarters in other countries include the United Pentecostal Church of Colombia, an indigenous church and the largest non-Catholic church in the country; the United Pentecostal Church of Australia; the Apostolic Church of the Faith in Christ Jesus, with headquarters in Mexico; the Oneness Pentecostal movement in the former U.S.S.R.; and the True Jesus Church], an indigenous church founded by Chinese Christians on the mainland but whose headquarters is now in Taiwan. At times they have affirmed to be the only true church. There are many smaller organizations (approximately 130 worldwide), independent churches, and charismatic fellowships that are Oneness in doctrine.

In existence is also the Apostolic World Christian Fellowship which has been trying to unite all Oneness Pentecostal denominations in existence through a loose fellowship. There are some Oneness denominations that have refused to join -- for example the United Pentecostal Church.

References

↑ Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, 80 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999).
↑ Dr. David K. Bernard, Unmasking Prejudice, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research
↑ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volumes 1 & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, 125 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).

"The Pentecostals", by Walter J. Hollenweger, Professor of Mission at the University of Birmingham

External links

This information is based on material from Wikipedia. As a result, this article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License which governs this website as well.

[1] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, 80 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999).

[2] Dr. David K. Bernard, Unmasking Prejudice, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research

[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volumes 1 & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, 125 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 :''Sabellius says that Father, Son, and Spirit signify no distinctions in God. Say they are three, and he will scream that you are naming three Gods. Say that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of persons; you will say in one word what Scripture states, and cut short empty talkativeness.<ref> John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volumes 1 & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, 125 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).</ref>
-SABELLIANISM. A name given to two very different forms of doctrine, which, however, agreed in this that they denied any real distinction of Persons in God. The Catholic Church teaches that there are three divine Persons really distinct from each other, and yet one God. The Sabellians confessed with Catholics the numerical unity of God, but denied the mystery of the Trinity by explaining away the real distinction of the Persons.
-(1) The earliest form of the heresy was Patripassianism. Praxeas, who came from Asia Minor to Rome under Pope Eleutherus (175–189), Noetus of Smyrna, who was excommunicated in his own province about 230, Epigonus and Cleomenes, who transplanted the doctrine of Noetus to Rome, all held that God the Father of all is the only God and that this one God became man, suffered and died. Thus Praxeas held “that the Father came down into a virgin, that He himself was born of her, that He himself suffered: finally, that he himself is Jesus Christ” (Tertull. “Adv. Prax.” 1, and so 28, 29, 30). Pressed to explain how it was that Father and Son could be said on this theory to exist at all after the Incarnation, Praxeas replied that Christ so far as He was flesh was Son, and so far as He was spirit or God was the Father (ib. 27). The tenets of Noetus were precisely the same (Hippolytus, “C. Noet.” ed. Lagarde, “Philosoph.” ix. 7–10). And such also was the original doctrine of Sabellius,a Libyan, who came to Rome under Zephyrinus, was banished from the Roman Church by Callistus, and took refuge in the Libyan Pentapolis. The testimonies as to the original teaching of Sabellins are too early and express to be set aside. “He” (Sabellius) “blasphemes,” says Dionysius, bishop of Rome, in the middle of the third century, “saying that the Son himself is the Father, and vice versâ.” (The Epistle of Dionysius is contained in Athanas. “De Decret. Nicen. Syn.” and edited by Routh, “Rell. Sacr.” vol. iii. p. 373 seq.) Novatian, another author, nearly contemporaneous, speaks of Sabellius as one “who calls Christ the Father” (Novat. “De Trin.” c. 12). The Macrostich, a Semiarian creed of the Eusebians (apud Athanas. “De Synod.” 26), refers to those whom the Latins call the Patripassians and we the Sabellians. So also Athanasius, iii. 36; and Cardinal Newman (“Oxford Translation of St. Athanas.” p. 529) quotes on the same side Euseb. “Eccl. Theol.” i. p. 91; Basil. Ep. 210, 5; Rufin, “In Symb.” 5; August. “Hær.” 41; Theodor. “Hær. Fab.” ii. 9.)
-(2) The doctrine of the Sabellians, and perhaps of Sabellius himself, underwent a complete transformation, and resolved the mystery of the Trinity into three manifestations of God to man. It was difficult for Sabellianism, in its original form, to assume even the appearance of conformity to the traditional teaching, embodied in the form of baptism, on the Holy Ghost. A very early author, Dionysius of Alexandria (apud Euseb. “H. E.” vii. 6) reproaches the Sabellians with this very thing, “that they had no idea of the Holy Ghost” (ἀναισθησίαν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.) It was conceivable that the Father should have been incarnate in Christ, but there was no room for such an incarnation, and therefore on Sabellian principles for a real existence of the third Person in the Trinity. Hence Sabellius, or at least the Sabellians, came to hold that the same Person is the Holy Ghost so far as He manifests Himself in the Christian Church, and by parity of reasoning Son so far as He appeared in Christ. The same Person or Hypostasis (so Theodor. “Hær. Fab.” ii. 9, reports the doctrine of Sabellius) was Father when He gave the law, Son when He became flesh in Christ, Holy Ghost when He descended on the Apostles, being “one person with three names” (ἓν τριώνυμον πρόσωπον.) He compared the three πρόσωπα or characters of God (Epiphan. “Hær.” 62, 1) to the spherical form, light and heat of the one sun. Such late authorites are not decisive for the supposition that Sabellius himself held this view, but undoubtedly the Sabellians did. Patripassianism was thus avoided altogether; but on the other hand the Incarnation, no less than the Trinity, was in effect deuied, for the manifestation of God in Christ could differ in degree only, and not in kind, from his union with other holy men. This Sabellian doctrine, which takes πρόσωπον or persona in its original meaning of mask, character, &c., has been maintained by many Protestant divines—e.g. by Archbishop Whately in his “Logic.” It is of course completely incompatible with Catholic belief, and is contrary, e.g., to the first chapter of St. John’s Gospel
-(3) Closely akin to the later Sabellianism is the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra. He was a strenuous defender of the Nicene definition against the Arians, and this and the obscurity of his doctrine account for the fact that he was defended by Pope Julius, the Synod of Sardica, and Athanasius himself (Athanas. “Apol. c. Arian.” 23, 32; “Ep. ad Monach. et Hist. Arian.” 6.) He made the Λόγος a mere attribute of God like the reason of man, manifesting itself in the creation, in the incarnation, and in the sanctification of Christians. (Theodor. “Hær. Fab.” ii. 10). In Christ the Word dwelt with extraordinary power, to retire from him at the consummation of all things, when the manhood of Christ would no longer reign. (Euseb. “Adv. Marcell.” ii. 2–4; “Eccl. Theol.” iii. 8–17.)
-William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, Sixth Edition, With Additions, 730-31 (New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co., 1887).
 =William Branham and Modalism=