home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The California Collection
/
TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr
/
his075
/
upc3.lzh
/
UPC3.TXT
Wrap
Text File
|
1991-07-13
|
12KB
|
224 lines
CUL:The "Jesus only" or "Oneness" Pentecostal movement by James Bjornstad
Christian Research Institute Fact Sheet
Written by James Bjornstad and Walter Bjorck; updated and revised by
Ralph E. Spraker, Jr., July 28,1980.
One of the most subtle forms of doctrinal deviation ever to
infiltrate the Christian Church was known as Sabellianism (named after
Sabellius, a Latin theologian of the third century). Sabellius taught
that God was one Person, not three, and that He appeared in "modes" or
"manifestations" -- as the Father, as the Son, or as the Holy Spirit.
For Sabellius, however, the Father alone was truly God, the Son and the
Spirit being repetitions of Himself in other "modes" or
"manifestations." Sabellius was condemned for his views, his modalistic
theology refuted, and the heresy that he spawned was rejected by the
early Christian Church.(1)
REBIRTH OF AN OLD HERESY
In 1913, a new form of Sabellianism or modalism was born during a
"worldwide" Pentecostal camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, just outside Los
Angeles, California. R.E. McAlister, a Canadian evangelist, exhorted
during a baptismal service that the apostles baptized not in the Triune
formula (i.e., in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost),
but in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. John G. Scheppe was so
inspired by this exhortation that he spent the night in prayer. "In the
early hours of the morning he ran through the camp, shouting that the
Lord had shown him the truth on Baptism in the Name of Jesus
Christ."(2) Scheppe's "revelation" became the impetus for McAlister and
Frank Ewart, a Pentecostal pastor at the camp meeting, to discuss
Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 in great detail. After studying these ad
other passages (such as Matthew 17:8; John 10:30; 14:13; Philippians
2:9; Colossians 3:17; etc.), Scheppe and his followers adopted the
modalistic interpretation of the Godhead, which, unlike Sabellius, made
Jesus, instead of the Father, the one God. To them, Jesus was the one
who manifested Himself as the Father, as the Son, or as the Holy
Spirit. Thus, the historic Trinitarian theology was repudiated as
unbiblical.
David A. Reed makes this comment concerning the impact of this
"revelation" in his doctoral dissertation on "Oneness" Pentecostalism:
"The new teaching had caught the fragile Pentecostal movement by
surprise. It was spreading fast. With an openness to 'new truth'
already established by the revival, it was difficult to turn it away
immediately."(3) Thus, the early leaders of this "Jesus Only" movement
(Scheppe, McAlister, Ewart, Glenn A. Cook, and Garfield T. Haywood),
within a short period of time, had enough proselytes and churches to
start new denominations such as the United Pentecostal Church and The
Church of Jesus Christ. The leading apologists for the movement were C.
Haskell Yadon, John Paterson, A. Mclain, and Nathaniel A. Urshan.
ONE PERSON IN THE DEITY?
Nathaniel A. Urshan, a speaker on the "Harvestime" radio program of
the United Pentecostal Church, enunciates the doctrine of the
unipersonality of God in his booklet entitled, "Consider Him," as
follows: "My friend, many of those who do not understand the
interpretation of what we are representing, make a terrible mistake
when they say we deny the Fatherhood of God. They do not understand the
great truths we are trying to resurrect in this hour. I want to tell
you what that great truth is. We do not believe in three separate
personalities in the Godhead, but we believe in three offices which are
filled by one person."
The most serious weakness in the modalistic system of the "Jesus
Only" movement is its failure to recognize the 'subject-object'
relationship among the members of the Godhead. All reality in the realm
of personality is based upon this commonly-accepted fact. For, if there
is no object in a given conversation, then there is no meaningful
dialogue. One is merely talking to oneself!
If Jesus alone is God, and the Father and the Holy Spirit are only
"manifestations" of Jesus, many passages of Scripture are meaningless
and even deceptive. Did Jesus imitate His Father's voice in Matthew
3:17, or the Spirit's command in Acts 13:2? Who said, "Thou art my
(subject) beloved Son (object), in whom I (subject) am well pleased" in
Mark 1:11? Where, might we ask, was the Son when the Father said,
"Listen to Him" (Matthew 17:5 NIV)? Where was the Father when the Son
said, "I (subject) have brought you (object) glory" (John 17:4 NIV)?
The very existence of an "I" - "you" relationship denotes personality;
and the followers of the "Jesus Only" movement must either ignore or
pervert these, and many other passages, to destroy the personal 'Ego'
of the members of the Holy Trinity. Our Lord's great plea upon the
cross, "Father, forgive them," becomes a hollow sham; His resignation
to the Father's will, an illusion -- "Yet not as I will, but as you
will" (Matthew 26:39 NIV); and His final words to His Father on the
cross, "into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46 NIV), a
pathetic fraud, if there is not a genuine Person known as the Father,
distinct from the Person of the Son.
The same can be said of the Person of the Holy Spirit, who exhibits
every attribute of deity and personality, and of whom Jesus said:
"Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I
will send 'Him' to you. When 'He' comes 'He' will convict the
world...But when 'He', the Spirit of truth, comes, 'He' will guide you
into all truth. 'He' will not speak on 'His' own; 'He' will speak only
what 'He' hears, and 'He' will tell you what is yet to come. 'He' will
bring glory to me..." John 16:7-8,13-14, NIV.
The multiple references of the Holy Spirit in Scriptures in a
subject-object relationship to the Persons of the Father and the Son
(John 14:16,26) are positive proof that the Holy Spirit is a Person
distinct from the Persons of the Father and the Son. Furthermore,
Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4), and that He
is no phantom, "mode," or "manifestation" of Jesus Christ, as the
"Jesus Only" or "Oneness" Pentecostal movement maintains.
THE THREE PERSONS
Therefore, it is untenable to maintain the Christology of the "Jesus
Only" movement when the testimony of the Scriptures is so clear. There
is, according to the Scriptures, a Person (or 'Ego') who is called "the
Father" and who is designated as God (John 5:17-24). There is also a
Person ('Ego') who is called "the Son" and who is designated as God
(John 1:1,14). There is a Person ('Ego') who is called "the Holy
Spirit" and who is designated as God (Acts 5:3-4). All three Persons
are coexistent, and, in the unity of the Deity, are termed "one God" (I
Timothy 2:5). Furthermore, when we compare the word translated "one"
from the Hebrew (Deuteronomy 6:4) with other instances of its usage
(e.g., Genesis 2:24; 34:16; Numbers 13:23), we find that the composite
unity, not absolute unity, is intended. The term "one" can then mean
either composite or absolute unity. Thus, it is no proof text at all
for the "Jesus Only" adherents.
The argument that John 10:30 identifies Jesus as the only Person of
the Deity by virtue of His "oneness" with the Father, is exploded by
the simple fact that the word translated "one" from the Greek ('en') in
this passage is neuter, not masculine, and refers to one in 'essence'
or 'nature,' not one in person.(4) Therefore, within the one 'essence'
or 'nature' there exists three 'Persons' of the Deity, each of whom is
designated a Person (i.e., 'Ego').
Additional verses which underscore plurality of Persons in the Deity
('Trinity') can be found in Genesis 1:26; 3:22; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16-17;
and Zechariah 12:10.
WHICH BAPTISMAL FORMULA?
In the closing words of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus gives the
following command to His disciples: "Therefore go and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit...." Matthew 28:19 NIV. However, in the early
part of Acts we read: "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be
forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'." Acts 2:38
NIV.
The "Jesus Only" movement interprets this apparent discrepancy to
support their non-Trinitarian position. They believe the Matthaean
pronouncement sets forth the three names of the Christ who is thereby
designated the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, they
contend that the proper baptismal formula is to be found in such
accounts as Acts 2:38.
Granted, such passages as Acts 2:38 do give a description of how the
Lord's disciples fulfilled His command. However, what of the Lord's
command itself? Had we ourselves been in Jesus' presence at His
ascension, what words would we have heard? Clearly, the words of
Matthew 28:19. How, then, can this apparent discrepancy be handled?
Some have suggested that the Triune formula of the Matthaean account
should be applied to the "disciples of all nations" (i.e., Gentiles);
whereas the Acts 2:38 formula should be applied to Jewish converts.
However, this view does not harmonize with the accounts of Samaritans
(Acts 8:16) and Gentiles (Acts 10:48) being "baptized in the name of
Jesus." Furthermore, Matthew's gospel is considered by most scholars to
be primarily addressed to a Jewish audience.
THE TRIUNE FORMULA
A very plausible answer is that when the narrative in Acts indicates
a baptism "in the name of Jesus," it is tantamount to saying, "by the
authority of Jesus Christ" (see Acts 3:6 and 16:18 where Jesus'
authority, "in the name of Jesus," is invoked for healing and
exorcism). It is not the formula which accomplishes these things, since
in Acts 19:13, the invoking of "in the name of Jesus" by the Jewish
exorcists meant nothing because those who invoked it did not have the
authority of Jesus Christ. In other words, baptism was enjoined and
carried out under the divine command of the Son. The words employed in
the actual rite came from the Matthaean pronouncement.
Church history also sheds light upon this problem. A first century
document, the 'Didache," states that only those who have been baptized
"in the name of Jesus" may partake of the Eucharist.(5) However, this
was not meant to be a baptismal formula, for in the section on baptism
it states, "Thus shall you baptize...in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit."(6)
Furthermore, Luke records an incident which seems to indicate the
use of the Triune formula. In Acts 19:2, certain disciples of John
state that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Immediately, the
Apostle Paul asked them, "Then what baptism did you receive?" (Acts
19:3 NIV) since the baptismal formula of the Matthaean pronouncement
would have made them aware of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, it is apparent that we are instructed to use the Triune
formula in baptism by the authority of Jesus Christ's pronouncement in
Matthew 28:18-19. Peter, understanding this, commanded baptism on the
day of Pentecost by the authority (or in the name) of Jesus (Acts
2:38), precisely as Christ had commanded. The baptismal formula
was\not\in the 'name' of Jesus\only.\ It was by His authority, or
literally, "in the name of Jesus."
NOTES
1. Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church," Vol.II, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp.580-583.
2. David A. Reed, "Origins and Development of the Theology of
'Oneness' Pentecostalism in the United States," (Ann Arbor, Mich,:
University Microfilms International, 1980), p.99.
3. Ibid., p.108.
4. A.T. Robertson, "Word Pictures in the New Testament," Vol.V,
(Nashville: Broadman, 1932), pp.186-187.
5. "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles," The 'Ante-Nicene
Fathers,' ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Vol.VII, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p.380.
6. Ibid., p.379.