Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portal:Christianity
 Christianity Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] RFC on "Unreliable Source Doc vs. Unreliable Person", "Non-NPOV Editing/Editors" and "Is ancient Modalism germane?"

We sincerely request comments about three issues [ 05:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ]:

[edit] Issue 1 of 3: "Unreliable Source Doc vs. Unreliable Person"

  • We have seen deleted from the article some valid, pertinent historical research, with verifiable sources cited. The claim was made by one editor that a scholar (named Chalfant) who had done historical research and provided quotes along with citations of the sources, was himself an unreliable source. See a defense of that editor's logic here. The rule of Wikipedia is: reliable and verifiable sources (reliable added after correction). Please comment regarding the following...
    • Since the researcher/scholar quoted from reliable, verifiable sources (not spurious documents), and cited same, aren't the cited sources the target of the rule about reliable and verifiable in this case?
      • Any one editor's opinion of another editor's reliability (or any one agenda-based critic's opinion of any other agenda-based researcher's reliability) cannot be the proper implementation of reliable and verifiable ... in this case, surely the rule must mean that 1) the cited source exists, and 2) the quote is really there in the cited source, and 3) the cited source is not spurious (deemed reliable; not a "hoax" document).
      • If the source exists, and the quote is in it, and the source is not contested as spurious by a majority of scholars, then no one can render that source "unreliable" or "unverifiable" simply by finding some agenda-based scholar who is willing to criticize another agenda-based scholar who quotes from it. Think about it.

[edit] Comments (1 of 3): "Unreliable Source Doc vs. Unreliable Person"

(Please, those of you involved in the debates here on the talk page, do not comment here. Rather, give space and time for objective parties to comment in response to the RFC. Thank you.)

[edit] Issue 2 of 3: "Non-NPOV Editing/Editors"

  • Some ardent Trinitarian Wiki editors are confused about NPOV policy:
    • They seem to think that this article must either describe what they think the Bible teaches about God, and/or that it must describe what they think Oneness people believe.
    • Wiki's NPOV concept that the article rightly can and (in this case) apparently should list doctrinal statements (of Oneness Pentecostals) with which some Wiki editors personally disagree, seems to offend some of them deeply and inspire them to vandalize the article so as to suit their liking.
    • The fact that the article is not about truth (as they see it) per se, but rather is about what Oneness Pentecostals teach, seems to be beyond the grasp of some of the ardent Trinitarian Wiki editors vandalizing the article. One in particular to note is: Zaphnathpaaneah. Please note his comments all through the talk page, his style of poor grammar, misspellings, and ardently non-NPOV content. He is not civil, does not respond to pleas for civil dialog, and should be blocked from editing articles about Oneness or its adherents. Others having editing trouble may respond to objective comments.

[edit] Comments (2 of 3): "Non-NPOV Editing/Editors"

(Please, those of you involved in the debates here on the talk page, do not comment here. Rather, give space and time for objective parties to comment in response to the RFC. Thank you.)

[edit] Issue 3 of 3: "Is ancient Modalism germane?"

  • Comparisons of ancient Modalism to modern Oneness: Allowable in the article? Also,
  • Research/information about just what ancient Modalists believed, as well as positions potentially incorrectly attributed to ancient Modalists by their detractors and/or modern opponents of Oneness people: Allowable in the article?
    • One editor supplied this justification for deleting pertinent information about Modalists from the article: "(→History - removed misleading Chalfant nonsense. Like Arnold he's not a reliable source. No one denies that Modalism existed before Azusa.)"
    • Opposing view: Sure, no one denies Modalism existed, but...
      • Some false statements are propagated about just what Modalists actually taught. And,
      • The directness with which Trinitarians have critically alleged that Oneness Pentecostals concocted a new and unbiblical doctrine has prompted two types of responses: 1) historical research to show evidence that Oneness is not new, and 2) biblical evidence to show that it is not unbiblical. Since Wiki NPOV policy indicates that an article about a group should speak about them as well as they would speak of themselves, such content belongs in an article about Oneness Pentecostals.
    • The article is not to prove whether Oneness Pentecostals are wrong or right, incorrect or correct. It is to simply show what they teach/practice, and also whatever reasons they cite for their choices. Whatever is commonly spoken or written by them in their own defense is allowable in the article according to Wiki policy.

[edit] Comments (3 of 3): "Is ancient Modalism germane?"

(Please, those of you involved in the debates here on the talk page, do not comment here. Rather, give space and time for objective parties to comment in response to the RFC. Thank you.)

[edit] A Comment

I agree with a lot of what GWr says below. The central focus of the article is the religion and its beliefs. So, a claim doesn't necessarily need to be 'reliable' by the standards of religious scholarship for it to be covered here-- if the belief is sufficiently prevalent and notable, then we should mention it. Also, it is appropriate to include "Criticism of Oneness Pentecostalism" to summarize the objections scholars and others have to the beliefs of Oneness Pentecostalism.

However, it's critical to make the distinction between sentences like "Oneness Pentecostals believe that X", and actually saying X is true. It's very important to never assert the validity of those beliefs, or to claim (or imply) that those beliefs are "True". If the article starts to MAKE an argument, rather than summarize beliefs, then we have to seriously look at the reliability of those claims and apportion space appropriately-- this is a can of worms we don't want to get into.

Looking over the article, by this standard, there's a lot of work that needs to be done on the article. In general, the current article argues for / tries to justify the beliefs of OP-- often before even explaining those beliefs in the first place. For example, the history section launches straight into a debate about pre-Azusa Street OP before even explaining what Azusa Street is or what the various sides in the debate are.

There's a lot of this sort of thing running around in the article-- and it's somewhat hard to sort out where fact ends and opinion begins. Based just on reading the article, however, here are my thoughts on the specific issues.

It seems like OP is a movement that began in the 1910s, but that some adherent believe the movement is a return to a belief held by early christians. If that's the case, then the way we handle this is to start the "History" section with 1910s, but to elsewhere mention a "belief" that OP has ancient roots. (I'm assuming, of course that this belief is mainstream within OP-- if it's an obscure viewpoint even within OP, then it might not merit mention).

So, my guess is that we SHOULD at some point mention Ancient Modalism and Chalfant (assuming that view is sufficiently prominent within OP). But, we should be crystal clear to attribute these beliefs to OP members, not assert these beliefs are facts (or that they are lies).

So, the NPOV and tone of hte article could be dramatically improved. The article debates rather than explains. It tries to prove rather then convey. It uses technicaly language that's kinda hard to follow at parts-- for example, it cites bible verse inline in text, but doesn't explain them, making it hard to understand follow. Like the sentence "In 1913, John Schaepe (whose name is often misspelled in a number of sources) claimed to receive a revelation directly from God during a camp meeting revival that the baptismal command posited by Peter in Acts 2:38 - i.e., baptism "in the name of Jesus" - was the fulfillment of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19". I have to do a lot of research before I can understand what the sentence means.

So, lots of problems, lots of work to be done. Let's try hard to succinctly convey the broad strokes of OP-- not have a full detailed debate on it.

--Alecmconroy 07:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• (IAWTC) This article obviously attempts to prove the tenets of Oneness Pentecostalism rather than simply describe its beliefs. I would suggest a complete rewrite.

68.218.106.236 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Maryaminx

[edit] Re: Removal of Non-compliance tag

At 11:26, on 4 September 2006, User Cpreston added the non-compliance tag to the article. That tag calls attention to the Discussion (Talk) page, where details of alleged noncompliance are supposed to be discussed (as per the text caused by the tag he or she chose). Cpreston did not add any details to the Discussion (Talk) page. The only reasons Cpreston gave for adding the tag were in the Edit Summary (not in the Talk page as called for). Cpreston said in the Edit Summary: "(Wikipedia is not to be used as a soap box or pulpit. This article does not comply with wikipedia's standards of NPOV or verifiable content)"

Regarding NPOV: The NPOV issue is already tagged on this article. It is slowly being addressed. It is a rather lengthy article, and it will take some time. Help is appreciated.

Regarding this: "Wikipedia is not to be used as a soap box or pulpit": According to Wiki policy, accurate statements such as "they believe..." and "they teach...", etc, are not "soap boxing" or using Wiki as a "pulpit." If there is content in the article (not the Talk page, but the actual article) that does not use the acceptable language of "they teach..." or "they believe...", then please be specific in pointing it out. Otherwise, one desiring to invent new policy or change existing policy for the Wikipedia system should follow proper procedures.

The tag seems inappropriate unless followed up by specifics in the Talk page. Therefore, the tag is being removed.

DougJoseph 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I was the one who put up the non-compliance tag. You've apparently already cleaned up some of the more blatant NPOV Nice work btw :) I appreciate your effort. It still has a ways to go however.

Regarding verifiability I am referring mainly to the History section. where for example Oneness ministers like Marvin Arnold and others were being cited as sources for the novel idea (original research?) that Oneness Pentecostalism has a continuous unbroken stream throughout history going back to the upper room (according to Arnold even the cathars were Oneness Pentecostals!!). Needless to say this bizarre interpretation is not held by any professional historian. Arnold et al are simply not professional historians but are Oneness ministers who have an obvious interest presenting wishful sectarian thinking as historical fact.

For these reasons I'm removing the citations from the article. They are not reliable sources as defined by wikipedia.

Cpreston 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Cpreston

[edit] NPOV dispute

Clearly, parts of the article are not Neutral POV as Wiki policy calls for. Furthermore, in demonstration of non-NPOV, some of the article is criticism that is either inaccurate or an inadequate description of Oneness belief or both. I will return later to engage interested editors in the discussion. DougJoseph 09:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC).


May I ask why we have allowed an Anti-Oneness person with a questionable background come in and mutilate the Oneness article?

All you have to do is right click on his name and you will be directed to his site wherein he admits he has violated Wikipedia policy in other articles and is quite unapologetic and perhaps even proud of the fact. This "Christian" writer uses curse words on his site and expresses an almost violent racism against non-blacks. In this article he has associated Oneness with Nestorianism which is ridiculous and spouts other theologically incorrect statements. Wikipedia is NOT the place to print personal agendas. This kind of aggressive behavior must be stopped.

Perhaps some young person in elementary school or a student at college is writing an essay and comes upon this inaccurate article and accepts it as truth. If Wikipedia is going to continue to exist then unaware persons Googling the Internet can come upon Wikipedia articles thinking they are true Encyclopedic material. It is therefore our duty to PROVIDE true encyclopedic material, especially when it comes to something as important as this particular subject.

This article is about Oneness and what they believe. It is NOT about the defense of Trinitarianism.

GWr


Wiki policy instructs (paraphrased) that whenever describing a group and their beliefs, the article should describe them as well as they would describe themselves, else it is not NPOV (Neutral Point Of View). Some editing of this article has twisted it away from NPOV.

Case in point: One editor recently changed an articulate description of Oneness doctrine into something less than accurate:

This portion of an accurate sentence: "...Oneness Pentecostals identify Jesus essentially as a manifestation of the Father" was edited to read as simply "...Oneness Pentecostals identify Jesus essentially as the Father."

When articulate Oneness people, including Oneness scholars, speak on this matter, they write or say something along these lines: "Jesus is the human manifestation of the Father" or "Jesus is God manifested in the flesh." Sometimes, less-articulate Oneness people may say or write something less accurate, i.e. a shorthand version of the above, by leaving off the words "in the flesh" or "the manifestation of." However, to ignore what Oneness scholars have written, and to pretend that we are to ignore what is (apparently) the actual intent of less-articulate members, in order to deceive unwary readers regarding just what Oneness people believe, is shoddy research and/or less-than-honest tactics, and would in fact constitute violation of Wiki policy.

The editor who made the above mentioned change (and who has also edited this article extensively) has admitted (here on the discussion page) to being of a viewpoint opposite to the Oneness view, and he or she seems to take it personally whenever anyone believes something other than what he or she believes. It seems likely that his or her efforts to edit this article involve either an inadequate understanding of what Oneness people actually believe (resulting in editing mistakes made out of ignorance) or an unwillingness to allow the Oneness viewpoint to be adequately and accurately described (perhaps out of fear that some viewpoint other than their own might actually appear logical and defensible). In either case, such a person is not in a suitable frame of mind to serve as a good editor.

I am going to edit the one instance in question. The article currently has many other similar problems, perhaps attributable to the same editor, perhaps not.

Vigilance is required on the part of articulate Oneness adherents to assure that the Oneness viewpoint is not inaccurately portrayed here. It is my understanding that Wiki can accommodate objective third-party arbitration to prevent users like the above mentioned from continually violating NPOV policy. We will pursue this.

A Wikipedia article is not a discussion forum. To abide by Wiki policy, what is called for here in this article is an accurate description of Oneness Pentecostals and their viewpoint, along with a fair mention of the opposing viewpoint -- not a twisted, maligned version of Oneness doctrine that would be found nicely acceptable to even the most determined Trinitarians.

DougJoseph 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article's second paragraph was somewhat inaccurate (e.g. confusingly reading as though Modalism, Sabellianism, and Patripassianism were three separate groups or teachings, instead of "doctrinal-name title/handle", and "leader-name title/handle", and "pejorative/accusation-by-detractor title/handle" -- all three referring to the same group), and it was somewhat one-sided (lending to NPOV dispute). It has been edited to correct inaccuracies, enlarged for clarity, and made to sound a little less "anti-Oneness". Also, we have added a new third paragraph atop, to give some important information about the debate at the start of the article (i.e. before launching the reader into the myriad of subtopics). DougJoseph 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Doug Joseph!!! I look forward to seeing an accurate description of Oneness from a NPOV. GWr

PS, The section of the article "In the Name of" is quite lengthy and awkward. I'm sure the same could be said in less words. GWr


I agree that portions of the article are too lengthy, redundant, and somewhat convoluted. Those are simply unavoidable problems whenever multiple writers contribute to such an article, especially one as lengthy as this one. I am working on that, but I could use some help. At present, I have been tackling the NPOV problems and trying to amalgamate related portions. Naturally, because the article had redundancy before reorganization efforts, the redundancy becomes even more glaring afterwards. Honestly, I am tired from long sessions of editing things today, and will try to pick it up later. If you have some specific suggestions for how to compact the wording and leave the needed content yet state it in a more efficient, elegant manner, please have at it. We'll all appreciate it greatly. DougJoseph 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your are doing GREAT! Of course we will all try to work together. I was referring mostly to the "In His name" section. I added some things previously as a counter argument for an inaccurate paragraph written by an obviously biased individual and I am sorry to say I added to the already very awkwardness and length of the paragraph. I will try to clean it up some. So I was more referring to myself then anything you have written. I have no complaints whatsoever concerning DougJoesephs editing and/or writing. An EXCELLENT job! I applaud you. GWr

Plea for a Trinitarian to help with NPOV resolution: If any level-headed Trinitarians are out there who are well-read on Wiki's NPOV policies and resolution procedures, and who would be interesetd in working with me to craft a better, more NPOV article, I would welcome the collaboration. I have invested a lot of time in editing during the last couple of days, toward a more balanced, "more NPOV" article. If someone of the Trinitarian persuasion believes I have not accomplished my goal in the areas where I have edited, I would welcome the feedback and work to make it better. Please, instead of just reverting all the changes, talk to us about it here, and let us work together on it.

In the same way that any Trinitarian should be hesitant about editing the Oneness view on these kinds of articles, I am hesitant to begin editing the portion called "Trinitarian Interpretation" (or some such), because I am not a Trinitarian. However, in just glancing at the section, I see that some errors seem to be present.

For instance, the first sentence reads as (bold emphasis on problematic areas) "A person is a function of a sentinent being, in that a person is type of being that has the higher functions of reason...."

Shouldn't that say sentient? And "is a type of"?

If some kind-hearted, level-headed Trinitarian would come help us edit, we could really use a "sentient" Trinitarian to achieve a good "sentinent/sentiment" (pun fully intended). DougJoseph 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed an entire nonPOV article (by Dulle) that was pasted into this article, perhaps in violation of Dulle's copyrights, and seemingly not in accordance with the way Wiki would prefer that external resources be linked, cited, etc. A link was provided at the top of said article, but the link only leads to a TOC on Dulle's home site, and the exact location of the article in focus cannot be discerned from the TOC. Below is the article. I would welcome any help in figuring out how (where) to link to it externally (DougJoseph 09:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)):

ANOTHER VIEW OF FATHER SON DISTINCTION
by Jason Dulle
[Supposedly from somewhere on http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/#proper]

It is common for Trinitarians to claim that the Oneness view the Father-Son distinction is merely a distinction between Jesus' two natures: His divine nature is the Father, while His human nature is the Son. While I confess that some Oneness believers would unwittingly make such a confession, by no means is this the view of the Oneness movement. Many Oneness theologians would deny such a confession, calling it an error. While there are various ways in which Oneness theologians explain the Father-Son distinction, in general it is agreed that the Father-Son distinction is a distinction between God's two modes of existence. The one divine person has come to exist in two ways (not in two persons) as a result of the incarnation. He continued to exist and function as God, but also began to exist and function as man...simultaneously. What changed is the manner in which the one divine person exists, not the one person Himself. The incarnation did not create another person, it simply changed the one divine person's manner of existence. What we distinguish, then, is the manner in which the one person has come to exist, and the functions of that one person in each manner of existence, not the person Himself.

While the Oneness distinction between the Father and Son is clearly not a distinction between Jesus' two natures, some persist in their assertion that it is because Oneness theology cannot explain the Father-Son distinction without bringing natures into the discussion. This short article is an attempt to answer this objection. I will demonstrate why it is impossible to avoid the issue of "nature" when discussing the Father-Son distinction, and how it is that such talk of natures does not involve bifurcating Jesus.

Just because Oneness theology does not see the Father-Son distinction as a distinction between Christ's two natures does not mean that it precludes us from seeing the Father-Son distinction as a result of God's acquisition of a human nature. It goes without saying that the acquisition of genuine human nature affected God's manner of existence. What made the one uni-personal God the "Son" in Oneness theology is the fact that He united human nature to His divine person, personally existing as man. What we distinguish, then, is not Christ's divine nature from His human nature, but rather God's normal manner of existence as God from His human manner of existence as man (made possible only because of the acquisition of the human nature in the incarnation). The distinction is not one of natures, but rather personal manner of existence--and that manner of existence is only different because of the acquisition of the human nature. What we are pointing out, then, is the cause of the distinction, not the location of the distinction.

It is impossible to speak of the distinction between the Father and Son without speaking of natures. I would ask Trinitarians to speak of God the Son's human manner of existence without speaking of natures. It is impossible, because the incarnation has everything to do with God's assumption of a human nature. The only difference is that in the eyes of Trinitarians the "Son" refers to a distinct and eternally divine person, and thus is not rooted exclusively in the incarnation. To speak of "the Son," then, does not require mention of human nature. Mention of the human nature is only required when speaking of the Son's incarnational mode of existence. Trinitarians do not need the acquisition of a human nature to distinguish the Son from the Father because the Father-Son distinction is not rooted in the incarnation (temporal), but is eternal, between two divine persons. God the Son (the divine person) became the Son of God (man) by uniting human nature to His divine person. Since Oneness believers understand "the Son" to refer specifically to the one uni-personal God's human manner of existence that began at the incarnation (due to His acquisition of a human nature, and not an eternally distinct divine person in the Godhead) when we speak of "Son" it automatically makes reference to the human nature (although not excluding the divine) because according to the Oneness view God would never be Son apart from His union with human nature. The Father-Son relationship did not start until God united human nature to Himself, thereby becoming the Son. In the same way that Trinitarians cannot talk about God the Son's human existence apart from His acquisition of a human nature, Oneness Pentecostals cannot talk about a Son at all apart from YHWH's acquisition of a human nature. In Oneness theology it is God's human nature that makes Him the Son. Without the human nature there would be no Son, because there would be no incarnation, and God would still just be God, not man.

DougJoseph 09:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I finally made it through the editing all the way to the end of the article, in sincere efforts to make the article more NPOV. Since I am the one who placed the NPOV tag, and then edited accordingly, I am now removing the tag. If anyone feels I failed in my efforts to edit for NPOV, then please let me know here on the talk page, and point out which portion(s) need attention. Thank you. DougJoseph 09:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have done an EXCELLENT job of editing the article!!! You must have spent an enormous amount of time and energy on this project. Quite a task especially when you consider it is nonpaying and volunteer work. Well done!!!! GWr

[edit] Someone edit this...

I suggest that someone create some more paragraphs on this site. As it stands,the casual reader sees only a big block of text that the casual reader is not going to read. Sindreman

I will edit this page, but I need some help. If you would like to colaborate with me please post a message on my discussion page. Boothcat4320 14:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've broken it down a little bit, and done a minor amount of rearranging. Greenlead 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

I added a sentence about "Jesus-Everything" to show how Oneness peoples are able to (just like most other social groups) adjust to and make fun of the criticism of others. Boothcat4320 14:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed someone deleted the "contrast" section where it discusses the holiness strandards. Since it is a contrast between Trinitarians and Oneness believers, shouldn't it stay -sheeheyt


Added "in part" to the first paragraph. It sounded too much like we based our beliefs on only one scripture, rather than having many supporting scriptures. STurner 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Some earlier editor had included a portion that was inaccurate. See below. I caught and removed it, and replaced it with content that was more appropriate, and it also saved on redundancy.

This: In Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16 and Acts 10:48 the Apostle Peter was first to baptize Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. Oneness people believe that these three groups represent, in broad terms, the human race, and that this was Peter's role because he was given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 16:16-19.

Was inaccurate because Peter was not first to baptize Samaritans. They were first baptized by Philip (see Acts 8). Peter's presence was seemingly necessary for the three groups to first be filled with the Holy Ghost, but not for water baptism. I replaced it with this: ...the Apostles baptized/commanded baptism in Jesus name in the Book of Acts (see Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16).

DougJoseph 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Several points in the article seem to be vary UPCI centered and there are other Oneness Pentecostal groups out there such as ALJC etc. Jasoninkid 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] baptizing in the name of the trinity

This phrase and the following verse doesn't make any sense together: "In contrast, there are no biblical examples of the trinitarian formula for baptism anywhere in the Bible (Matthew 28:19)."

This verse is a direct command from Christ to baptize in the name of the trinity. It makes it look like they are saying that you can disobey Christ's command because in Acts they don't mention the trinity in refering to baptism. Verse 20 goes on to say, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;"

Surely they have a better explanation of this passage.

--Victoria h 05:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oneness adherants will tell you that "Name" in Matthew 28:19 is singular, and refers to the name of Jesus. They will also tell you that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter (Simon Barjona), which he used when he stood up on the day of Pentecost and said "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Greenlead 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Are these two conflicting explanations or are they complementary? It's as if the keys of the kingdom are the power to alter the meaning of Christ's words! My concern is that this page is mostly edited by us trinitarians and that it gives mostly caricaures of their arguments.

--Victoria h 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not alteration. Christ said them to refer to his own name on baptizing for us Apostolics the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is just God maifested. It makes a bit more sense than calling them one good in three people. Plus how do you people explain the repeated usage of this formula throughout Acts and various other biblical scripture?

--El_Apostolico 5:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

El_Apostolico -I'm glad you're here. I hope you'll add on to the article. --Victoria h 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree, it was not worded well. I changed it slightly to be much more accurate.

Also, while it is late and I do not have the energy to explain this on the main page, I'll give it a shot here. We do not believe that Jesus commanded that people be baptized in the "name of the trinity". We believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are titles or attributes of God -- as are Son of Man, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Jehovah-Rohi, Jehovah-Jireh, Jehovah-Shalom, Jehovah-Raphi, Jehovah-Tsidkenu, Jehovah-Shammah, Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah-M’Kaddesh, Jehovah-El Elyon, Lion of the tribe of Judah, Lamb, The Word, etc, etc. Even the word "Jehovah" was not truly his Name; it too is a description of who He is (See meaning under Jehovah). "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12, KJV). --STurner 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, concerning Victoria's comment concerning Peter's having the keys to the kingdom: It is unforturnate that so often Oneness Pentecostals simply regurgitate what they have been told without truly understanding it. Peter's having the keys to the kingdom has nothing to do with what he preached; it has to do with the fact that he was the one that preached. It also has to do with the fact that while Philip preached in Samaria, noone received the gift of the Holy Ghost until Peter came along and laid hands on the Samaritans (Acts 8). Also note that Peter was the first to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and see them receive the gift of the Holy Ghost as a result.

I am simply a 25-year-old student of the Bible with only one year of formal theological college instruction. I am also typing this over my lunch break at work. Therefore, I cannot expound fully on this issue at the moment, but I will make my best effort to further research it this evening. I would really like to be able to contribute to this particular article, but the difficult part will be keeping it objective. STurner 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I have documentated the origins of the trinitarian concept and its incorporation into today's modern Bible elsewhere on this page, so I will not repeat myself here - other than to say that early Hebrew texts of the New Testament - specifically the Gospel of Matthew contain no reference to the trinitarian formula of baptism. BAB/4Sept06 18:59


Here is simple wording that sums up Oneness Pentacostalism's baptismal formula view:

Oneness Pentecostals believe that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 ("Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") is the same baptism in Acts 2:38 ("Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."), because Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all titles of the same God, and that the singular "name" in both is Jesus Christ. Oneness Pentecostals point out their belief that this must be true if one considers the bible the infallible word of God, because of Ephesians 4:5 ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism"). Oneness Pentecostals generally believe in using the Acts 2:38 formula because it invokes what they believe is the actual name of God, Jesus Christ. They believe that the name itself carries with it the authority and power of God that the titles themselves do not fully carry. Oneness Pentecostals believe that the formula in Matthew 28:19 was the command, and Acts 2:38 was the obeying of that command most accurately "in the name of" and not "in the titles of".

Yes, it's slightly long, but it's complete, NPOV (all beliefs, not asserted truths/facts) and fully in line with Oneness Pentecostalism, being that I am one and you can confirm this statement with any published works of the UPCI. Ministers (pastors, evangelists, teachers, etc) in the UPCI publish on an almost continual basis from their own publishing house. If you can't find sources, you aren't looking very hard. For history, look for Talmadge L. French's book, Our God is One (excellent resource for Oneness Pentecostalism specific history in the 1900's), and for doctrine and theology, look for any of the books by David K. Bernard, who himself conducted a taped debate on Oneness vs. Trinitarianism (Bernard v. Cook). Another good debate is McGee v. Toddy.

But you know, it would help more if editors actually took belief statements and ran them by someone within the faith they are writing about who actually "get it". IE - I shouldn't be editting Hindu articles without consulting a living Hindu source. BTW: I'm sure many Oneness Pentecostals would find it almost humorous that non-Oneness, even anti-Oneness, were trying to describe Oneness. It would be on par with telling them that the completely blind are accurately describing colors to each other (no offence intended), an analogy not lost on the biblical writers themselves. It's as simple as asking for a belief statement... really. ;) --DeWayne Lehman 13:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oneness vs. Unitarian

This section is highly confusing, as the very article on Unitarianism categories the UPs as "Evangelical Unitarians". The definition being contrasted with here is obviously a much more narrow one. Some clarification would be good. Alai 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Merge

Hello. I am very fluent in Oneness Pentecostal doctrine. (I am a Christian pastor and a Oneness adherent.) There is a good Wiki article at "Jesus-Name doctrine" that really should be the article for this title too. A merge of the two is requested. Of the two titles, the other ("Jesus-Name doctrine") should (when searched for) refer viewers to a single, merged article under this title, as "Oneness Pentecostal" is a better fit for the title of a merged version of the two existing articles.

DougJoseph 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for removal of names

The "People magazine" style of naming of "superstars", etc, surely has its place, but an encyclopedia is not that place. Can we simplify to just describe the teachings/beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals without bias (i.e. the doctrinal position) and perhaps discuss its theological significance without the list of so-called superstars?  :-)

DougJoseph 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to the removal. In speaking to many Trinitarians, these people are given the status of superstars. Telling them(even pastors of Trinitarians who are supposed to be Shepherds of our flock) is difficult. The Pastors shrug their shoulders, even though these "superstars" have a different view of the Godhead. In effect, it is the person raising objections who is viewed as a heretic, not the "superstars."

User:Sheeheyt 07:10, 24 Feb 2006

I OBJECT TO THE REMOVAL OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED NAMES. Trinitarian Pentecostals do not hesitate to make mention of (even flaunt) "superstars" that are among or have brushed shoulders with their ranks. There are those that erroneously think Oneness Pentecostalism is some small backyard operation that is fleetingly making its small wave in an ocean of various cults and spurious denominations when in fact Oneness Pentecostalism has affected many celebrities, politicians, and a broad spectrum of people of reknown all over the world and has also had a tremendous impact on various cultures here and abroad. If something is fact it is fact and people have the right to have access to that information. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia of information and not a place to exploit our humility. If something is true then it is true and if it is something the public may find informative or interesting then it should be information that is available to them. We lose historical information at an alarming rate simply because of failure to document it. GWr



I have added the brief mention of the Presley baptism and as soon as I contact my source I will add the name of the man who baptized him, when, and where as well as any other verifiable documentation. GWr


A certain Bishop Rex Dyson in Tennessee baptized Presley before his rise to fame. The Bishop went home to be with the Lord a couple of years ago at the age of 102 years old. GWr

[edit] Doctrinal text

I removed the following text explaining the doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism from Oneness, which did not seem the right place. Maybe someone who is interested can salvage usable parts, making them NPOV and replacing things like "we" by a third-person form. Lambiam 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm mounting that effort right now.

After writing extensively that this article is in desperate need of revision for errors misstating the doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism, I have spoken to several of my brothers, a pastor, and two fellow brothers currently submitting for their ministerial licenses with the UPCI. After those discussions, one of my brothers and I will be working on a rewrite of the doctrinal and history sections of OP, and will have the article reviewed first by our pastor, then posted, and then reviewed by experts on doctrine of the UPCI for changes that may be necessary (but certainly will not wait as that may be a longer process to affirm specific wording).

While I certainly respect those who have an encyclopedic researchers view of ensuring the NPOV and accuracy of facts specifically to the use of cited sources, this article needs something that it has yet to fully get, and that is an actual doctrinal explanation by OP people. No offence, but trinitarian explanations are biased using trinitarian language and a viewpoint that looks from the outside-in, not from the inside-in, which a true representation of a topic requires. (This is not to say that an opposition view shouldn't be stated as well.) In other words, let us freely express what we believe, and not have someone else tell us what we believe.

Currently I'm building a library of texts to cite from including but not limited to: French, Hanby, Weisser, Ewart, Reeves, Campbell, Magee, Treece, Manuwal, Tuttle, Dugas, Urshan, Hall, and Bernard. I just recently attended the Steadfast 2006 UPCI conference in Indianapolis which is a yearly event dedicated to examining our doctrine, and obtained many texts officially sanctioned by the UPCI. From this basis, proper doctrinal stances can be cited with recognized authors. While the UPCI (and many Pentecostals, trinitarian or Oneness) deny ever officially sanctioning any man made creeds (which is part of the reason even trinitarians left the AoG, not just Oneness), our hope is to offer at least an encyclopedic article worthy of scholarly research.

As we research, we will be sure to leave extensive notes on the talk page explaining our sources and reasoning. Also, with new writing, the structure of the article may be polished up as well (very "thrown together" because of lack of actual OP sources and content). I would like to remind all that view the changes that will be made... this isn't a debate article, but a scholarly one, reviewing exactly what OP followers profess to believe, not whether we are right or wrong. If there is debate, let it be over the facts X where "OP followers believe X". And let all debate be on cited factual resources, not personal opinion. As Wikipedia says, "content must be verifiable", and we have the actual texts on hand and the full UPCI library and press to back them up. Someone made the comment below that the article relies too heavily on Bernard. Have no fear, we have a mountain of literature available to cite. We plan to create a very broad based article not relying on any single scholar or theologian.

Obviously, our personal opinions can even differ within OP, and we are determined to exclude such in our writing. Our plan, thus far, is to stick to quoted textual references as much as possible, with plain NPOV explinations as needed, and leaving out personal belief statements where-ever possible. We'll leave opinion to those who's opinions are published and already recognized by the subject in question. In this way, we feel that there should be no scholarly argument against our planned rewriting efforts. --DeWayne Lehman 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While Trinitarian theology states God is One Being in three persons, Oneness theology states that He is One Being in One Person, thereby maintaining complete unity within the Godhead.


Then there is no GODHEAD. The whole thing is useless redundant words with no real meaning behind him. The "godhead" in your view is just a word discussing meaningless manifestations that pretend to have a relationship (this is my son whom I am well pleased, the manifestation says, and father why have you forsaken me, the manifestation says to itself, or to nobody). It's pointless. The Trinity is a word that acknowledges the REAL Relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There can be NO relationship if there is no IDENTITY. You cannot have an identity from mere manifestations, because manifestations have no will, have no capacity to act of themselves. Yet in the Bible that's what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are described DOING in relation to each other AS WELL as in their relationship to humanity. That's just how it is. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The understanding of Oneness is exempified in Peter's understanding of Christ's commission in Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa

--- Above line cut off, but not by me... anyways... Zaphnathpaaneah, by Godhead, it is a reference to Colossians 2:9. This is not an article on the Gospel according to Zaphanathpaaneah. Maybe the article on Trinitarianism is more than welcome to your theological insights and edits. This is not a pulpit. We are not here to be ministered to. This is an article about Oneness Pentecostalism, not whether you agree or disagree with it. The same is true for all other religious movements you disagree with, including Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddism, or Shinto. That's just how it is.

To the point of my post... this line needs cleaned up: "they teach that God exists simultaneously both as the human man Jesus (the Son of God), and as God the Father (invisible, transcendent, Spirit)" This is incorrect. The flesh of Jesus is taught as the "Son of man" by Oneness Pentacostals. Adding to that, that God existed simultaneously as Son of man and Son of God (the flesh and the indwelling God, who yes, is also the Father, taught by Oneness according to such references as Isaiah 9:6). Also, should point out the difference regarding "incarnation" that Oneness teaches. Whoever wrote this line has no Oneness background. --DeWayne Lehman 13:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Another line, "It means to accuse Oneness people of either claiming or believing that God the Father suffered and died on the cross instead of Jesus, the Son of God. However, Oneness people believe that the man Christ Jesus, the human manifestation of God, died on the cross, not God the Father.", should say Son of man, which captures the actual belief meant to be stated that the flesh died, not God. Oneness cites references like Mark 8:31 ('And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.'), as well as Mark 9:12, Luke 9:22, Luke 24:7, John 3:14, and importantly John 12:34 ('The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?'), which Oneness uses to clearly argue against the claim that they are Patripassianism. Again, I'll state clearly, the article must make concrete distiction that Oneness holds between Son of man and Son of God, because they themselves hold this distinction between them, being one flesh begotten of God, and one God indwelt by the incarnation of God. --DeWayne Lehman 14:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

QUESTIONS?

  • At what point does this turn into a doctrinal paper for Mr. Bernard to go on and on with the only sources for it being his own books, and nothing else? Blah, blah, blah!

To the above question, read Talmadge L. French, any of the papers written by Paul Mooney, or any of the thousands of papers, books, and presentations done by hundreds of living or past Oneness scholars. David K. Bernard just happens to be a very prolific writer, and is distinguished within the Oneness movement as an excellent scholar and debater. --DeWayne Lehman 13:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinitarians and Oneness should seek respectful dialog

I'm curious what this section is about that ends with:

"It would be prudent for each to realize that, on both sides, from individual to individual, there is a vast degree of variation in biblical knowledge, intellect/intelligence, wisdom, etc., and to avoid labeling or falsely accusing others. Instead, each should seek to judiciously discover what a given individual actually (inwardly) believes, and then dialog from there, in a non-confrontational way that seeks to avoid personal attack."

I was unaware that an encyclopedia took on the role of moderator between two groups, especially telling two religious groups how they should approach their own faith and who they should dialog with. Wikipedia is not the United Nations, not a psychologist to search out our personal feelings, nor a dictator to the subjects it covers on what they should or should not be doing. I find phrases such as "variation of intellect" highly offensive in nature, regardless of who they refer to. Also, this declares some right and wrong, not fact. For instance, "Some Oneness Pentecostals have insisted on declaring the inward views/beliefs of Trinitarians (on their behalf), in claiming they are secretly or subconsciously following a tri-theistic belief." Pardon me, Wikipedia, I was raised Roman Catholic, born again Apostolic Pentecostal. I'm well aware of the beliefs on both sides, but thank you for preaching to me about my morality of labelling others. Oneness and Trinitarian are no more reconcilable than Oneness and Unitarianism. There are no grounds of compromise. Section needs removed for attempting to influence the very subject it writes on. Very un-ecyclopedia-like. Does not belong here. --DeWayne Lehman 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


BTW, removed a portion at the end of the baptismal section titled "True Monotheism". This seems to be Unitarianism under a different name, which already is covered. This title has no reference in Wikipedia, has nothing to do with baptismal formulas of Oneness, proselytizes, has no NPOV, and looks like original work. Removed without request, as this should be very obvious to anybody.

Also, will be reviewing usage of terms I already covered with the actual church to confirm needed changes in terminology, and will make changes as necessary. This article really does need a full rewrite to format it better. It's NPOV is still comprimised by not clearly seperating opposing views, but rather, sprinking them about to counter at every point. For instance, the Trinity keeps all opposing views in its own section, for the most part. This article has become itself a debate format. Not only lacks NPOV, but is confusing to the reader. Being fair to opposition does not mean giving it every other line to debate each belief, but to summarize main opposition points, and link to the opposition docotrine. It's "Oneness Pentecostal", not "Oneness Pentecostal v. All Trinitarians" (meaning this is for information about the topic, not to debate the topic so that the reader chooses one or the other. Will be looking over certain facts, and citing them better as well, specifically in history (few sources actually cited, not a good thing). Also, article needs statistics. Cannot tell from article if this is a small movement, specific to a country/region, specific to a nationality, is it growing/shrinking, etc. One would not know from this article, for instance, that it is stronger in Africa than in the US. Also, one cannot tell how much of the Pentocostal movement is Oneness and how much is Trinitarian. The article needs better form, more facts, more citations, correct terminology, etc., etc. I'll add what I can, confirm as much as possible with the official church, but this thing really needs a good rewrite. --DeWayne Lehman 15:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Further needed changes (notes for myself and others) - Clarification of "standards" and why this is a big issue especially within the church, and its history (no article on OP is complete without covering standards). Needs comparison to other church organizations (Catholics have a pope, but who runs OP? Needs that clarified). Does not seem to emphasize the relationship of OP to the Evangelical movement, nor of emphasis on missionary work. That also ties in to some oddities found in OP not found in other religions. For instance, article does not go into the fact that there is an extremely high minister to member ratio not found in other churches (and why that is, which is of course, the OP's emphasis on evangelising the word and encouragement of entering the ministry in various forms... highest regard appears to be on becoming a missionary.) Also, history does not include the facts of the general Pentecostal movement. Does include some negative terms, but does not include the fact that the Pentecostal movement in general has been known as the "Holy Rollers" (don't find that offense myself, but is a common term many outside do know and associate with), and that this is associated with the type of praise seen within the churches.

Also, highly overlooked here, is the OP's belief that they can, through the power of the Holy Spirit, heal with the laying of hands, speak in tongues (mentioned, but not explained in how this is a crucial aspect of OP), prophesy, etc (OP accepts and practices commonly amoung churches generally, not in isolated churches, gifts of the Spirit), and that this is a practice amoung many Pentecostals, not just Oneness. One would not know from reading this article, for instance, that if you walk into an OP church, tell them you have cancer (or are handicapped in some other way), that they will call you up to the alter and the pastor along with many other members of the church will lay hands on you and pray for healing in the name of Jesus. This seperates OP from many other Christian religions, such as Roman Catholicism. It also helps explain the "Jesus Name" aspect of OP, which goes far beyond baptism. Catholics have their Sacraments (and entire pages devoted to each), OP has their gifts of the Spirit in their services. This needs at least brief explination.

So, there is a LOT missing here that is considered "crucial" doctorine of OP that is not covered. Has to be done in a NPOV, and cannot cover everything, but the article seems to go into much Oneness detail, but no Pentecostal detail. Again, this article is FAR from being complete, taking something like Oneness and making it a debate article vs. Oneness, even at the expense of completely ignoring every other aspect of the topic. It would be like the topic of Evolution talking about nothing but Dinosaurs. --DeWayne Lehman 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Another terminology edit, OP in the majority of circumstances would not use the term "God the Father" to refer to the Father. That term is trinitarian in origin, probably to prevent conflict in their doctrine with Isaiah 9:6, I can only guess. --DeWayne Lehman 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of above statement, as a brother pointed out to me. "God the Father" in "origin" as relating to the article - OP would not say Jesus was the flesh Son of God and Deity God the Father... correct would be Jesus was flesh (Son of man, full emphasis on the humanity of Jesus) and the flesh was indwelt by God incarnate (Son of God, flesh and God together, with most emphasis on the Deity). In OP doctrine, the term "Son" in any use always includes recognition of the humanity. (IE - The Son is begotten, not eternally begotten... God is not begotten, but eternal. The Son died and was resurrected... God cannot die.) The reason OP would not say God the Father in this context which would imply a "persona" of God. If asked by a Trinitarian as to who indwelt the Son, an OP would most likely respond, "the fullness of the Godhead bodily", not "God the Father", which they would say is equally true, but which they may feel the meaning would be misunderstood by their listener.

But no, I was not speaking historically (it's certainly in the Bible, and accepted fully by OP). Usually, saying God the Father, in a discussion on Oneness clarifies elsewhere that there is not biblical reference to "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit". (This relates also to an explination of the OP refutation that they believe "the Son is the Father", that instead the Father dwells in the Son, the Son always referring to a relationship to His humanity.)

Working on a Definitions Table of terms as to how OP define terms. Includes Son, Son of man, Son of God, Lamb of God, Holy Spirit/Ghost, and God the Father (usually referred to by OP simply as "the Father").

Also, adding to terms to add for slang: bible thumpers (thanks Bro. Richard). Will note if these terms are applied to other Christian groups (still researching much info).

BTW, GWr, replied to my own talk page to you (not sure if I can post to your talk page, didn't see one...) --DeWayne Lehman 13:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it's been a while since I've posted, been a bit busy lately. I've added some history and more sources. I also changed some of the language in one sentence that wasn't cited nor had a neutral basis (could actually be seen by either proponents or opponents as favoring one over another).

Also, I removed the "dialog" section. Nobody objected here to it for months, and it obviously has zero encyclopedic value, isn't neutral, and takes up far too much real estate on the issue anyways. If someone wants to talk about Trinity v. Oneness dialog, I'll even help them get sources on debates and/or discussions that have actually taken place in a historical context. But again, let's not "preach" to visitors, either for or against this entry.

I will be adding more as I have time. I've been gathering more information sources, including official doctrine statements to be used in the intro summary. Yes, Bernard authored my main source. Sorry for those who don't like him being used so much, but the Word Aflame publishers (UPC) chose him as the author of their doctrinal intro to their in-house published bibles. I will cite other sources as necessary, but when it comes to "official" statements on doctrine, the sources are going to be far more limited than the historical ones. Besides, the doctrinal explanation text I have is the most precise, accurate, and brief explanation I've yet seen short of Col. 2:9, and I'll likely use word for word quotations on a couple key topics (to reword, I'd have to actually expand the text). Also, I plan to include a fuller doctrinal section. I may break it down into a chart, or something other that is short, sweet, to the point, and hits all the "major" areas that makes Oneness Pentecostalism what it is. For scriptural references that OP's cite, I'm actually thinking of just tagging each "doctrine" point with a reference, and include related scriptures most often cited in support. This will keep the main text from being cluttered, and help preserve neutrality. We want people to know the OP position and why they think what they think... what we don't want to create is a pamphlet or debate on scripture. So, placing in references seems like the best choice. For instance:

Doctrinal Point X - Jesus is Jehovah (ref name="jesus.jehovah")Jeremiah 23:5-6, John 8:58, Acts 9:5, etc.(/ref)

Short, sweet, uncluttered, to the point. Considering that I have here, oh, about 75 doctrinal points in 5 categories, making a chart out of them, either table or bullet points with all extra text in references would be a really good idea. ;) --DeWayne Lehman 05:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrine

  • I've begun the doctrine section in earnest now, and I'm creating a break point in the discussion specifically for doctrine. I will be adding it either directly before or directly after the History section. Right now, I have a very long list of doctrine. I'm attempting to convert as much as possible to prose format. It will mirror the 5 subsections found in my source: God; Salvation; Miracles and Gifts of the Spirit; Holiness and Christian Living; Resurrection, Judgment, and Eternity. I will be creating one subsection at a time, because each section may take up to a week to complete. The section on God is nearly finished and will be up sometime today, I hope. --DeWayne Lehman 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I added the section on God and went ahead and did the section on Salvation. However, the section on Salvation does not include the Scriptural references, but I'll add them later. They are not significant to the article at this point, except to note official doctrinal stances as defined by Oneness Pentecostals. (They are for reference only, not for proving or disproving the stances stated... so I'm not all that worried at this moment that they be included. Whereas, the sections themselves are more informational to the general public, who may not have a scholarly appreciation for such references yet.) I'll add them as I get time, but the bulk of the work is done.

    I did expand the text as best I could in prose form, using the definition format. It organizes better, because a list is far too rigid for this type of information, and if I made everything a header, the Content navigator would become cluttered. I have 3 more sections to add, but I won't get to them today.

    Yes, it is going to significantly add to the length of the article, but, and this is just my opinion, is higher quality content than the article previously had. My judgment of the quality: Does it simply and fully explain the topic in a subjective manner? I think the answer to that is yes. I think too much of this article was fluff and debate. Now, at least, someone viewing this page can read this and say, "Oh, so 'that' is who they are and what they believe." Honestly, when I first found this page, even I couldn't tell what it said OP was.

    Whether or not they are right or whether others agree is not the job of the article. On the contrary, I think this article, with the help of others, is rising up to the level of quality of the Trinitarian articles. It just needs more TLC. We'll see if things can continue to improve over the months to come. --DeWayne Lehman 13:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned up some of the intro, removing incorrect term usage like referring to Son of God as the man-only. also added more general information to the overview. This article still needs better organization. I tried putting the navigation at the top, and making the Overview a sub-section, but it looked quite horrible. I'll see if I can come up with a better article organization flow plan sometime over the next week. Also, I'll work on getting more works cited, especially for the information I just added (just noticed that its not mentioned anywhere, and are highly noticable elements of OP worship not mentioned elsewhere... everyone spent far too much time on the whole Oneness issue, I suppose). --DeWayne Lehman 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Ah, that's better. Moved the Content menu to float right at the top, put Christianity menu under it. This killed the dead space beside the TOC, brought the content menu closer to the top. The article is almost readable now. ;) --DeWayne Lehman 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

As the WP convention is for articles to be at noun phrase titles, and as Oneness Pentecostalism (currently a redirect) is already the bold title in the text, it would seem logical to move it to that title. Unless I'm missing some reason not to... Alai 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree completely. This would be in keeping with how Pentecostal and Pentecostalism are handled. A good example of usage. A "Oneness Pentecostal" describes me. "Oneness Pentecostalism" describes my doctrine/theology. I take it most visitors want to learn about the -ism, not the person its describing. This would more correctly align with other page references to the -ism like Apostolic. I'm not sure the bold text matters as much, because Pentecostalism actually uses Pentecostal as its bold text. But I agree that the name change would be appropriate. --DeWayne Lehman 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me add one note to that... The article is still tagged for NPOV and style issues, which I also agree with. If moving the page would remove easy access to the history of the article and history of the talk page, might be better to schedule the move after the article can conform to the two objects it has against it first. Unless a move will transfer all that data, that is. --DeWayne Lehman 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, I didn't realize it was also a reference for the adherents; I'd have assumed they'd simply be "Oneness Pentecostalists". But in any case, as you say, the article appears to be about the -ism, or the churches for whom "Oneness Pentecostal" would be name fragment and/or descriptive adjective. The move will cause no change or problems at all with the history, etc. I'll go ahead and do so now. The bold text isn't crucial, but it's preferable it corresponds to the article title, unless it's stylistically awkward to do so. (Since in this case, the bold title corresponds to the naming conventions, and the article title doesn't, the fix seems pretty clear.) Alai 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag removal deadline

I'm setting a self imposed deadline for removal of the NPOV dispute tags. I plan on their removal by the end of next month at the latest, and on related articles I'm also cleaning up ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus-Name_doctrine#Will_Update ). These tags have been on FAR too long, and considerable work is being added to correct mistakes that I am finding. If there remain objections, now's the time to state what they are, so they can be fixed. End of March, tags are coming off, whether I (or others) are done with our planned edits or not without any objections, and sooner if I get my planned edits completed (and I'm racing for even the end of THIS month). --DeWayne Lehman 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chop Suey

BTW, one of my planned edits is to chop out a couple parts of the article into sub-articles, maybe by category (reading Wikipedia guidelines for best way to do this). Articles are to be around 35K, this article is twice that, 70K. It's LONG, and my planned edits are going to make it even longer, so I'm seriously looking at spawning individual sections out (possible the doctrine section I'm still working on). Also, it will help with NPOV issues to specific sections that can be dealt with on another page much easier than the document as a whole. I also plan on moving much of the Oneness v. Trinitarian elsewhere. I think it is the focal point of much of the NPOV issues, and I personally am not prepared at this point, to try fixing them. I think it can be done, but I'm not sure how much of what exists now can be salvaged. I think it has a place in the article, but I think a short summary and link to separate sub article page would be better. That, I am willing to do at this time until I can work through every section and get to it for cleanup as well. Besides, Trinity v. Oneness is truely an article in itself, with a vast amount of history and sources for debate. At least half of my sources are Oneness v. Trinity dialog pieces, and I hadn't even planned on using them here (they belong elsewhere, imo). So that's my plan. Divide, correct, and conquer. 35K at a time if need be. --DeWayne Lehman 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good plan the doctrine part is long and could be by its self replaced by a brief synopsizes. Speeching of brief the overview is about 3x longer than I normally see, most of it can be redistributed into history or doctrine or other pleases which should in itself help with the NPOV. As long as we are redistributing more subheadings are needed and bullied points should replace bold text in the Doctrine section the points are not subsub category but facets of the sub category. Jasoninkid 09:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming the Article

Most Oneness Pentecostals refer to themselves as Apostolics. So let's rename the article to Apostolic or Apostolicism and have Oneness Pentecostalism redirected to the newly named page. --El_Apostolico 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/n/e/Talk%7EOneness_Pentecostalism_cd45.html"