Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine)

Untitled section
Well, I guess I found that list of doctrine! But still, what is left on the Oneness Pentecostalism page is insufficient. . .Spiritanointed 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm wondering if we should add something about "the Standard". Spiritanointed 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out my comments on Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism. Short summary response: I have the remaining 3 sections of doctrine, just haven't had time to input and summarized them yet (a LOT of doctrine remains: the first 2 were about 35% of the total doctrine and took me several weeks just to type in. 65% remains). -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Undid previous two edits. Does not cite sources, contradicts existing cited sources. -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the previous comment, The changes centered around first Emmanuel, which is not the Hebrew for Jesus. The connotation of the title was that the English transliteration for Jesus, Jehoshua/Yehoshua, means Jehovah-Saviour. Emmanuel is an entirely different Hebrew name (also attributed to Jesus), with a different meaning, God with us.

Jehovah is used instead of God alone to make the Oneness doctrinal comparison from Jehovah to Jehovah-Savior (Jesus), as well as calling God by His Old Testament name. God is certainly acceptable, but the topic here is explicitely the name, and this shows the Oneness doctrinal stance that while Jehovah is the name of God, it is also a part of many compound names of God that are Jehovah based (Jehovah-Shalom)from which the name Jesus comes.

The use of "three titles as the singular name of Lord Jesus Christ (Father=Lord, Son=Jesus, and Holy Ghost=Christ). Some Oneness reject the triune Lord Jesus Christ representing the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and baptize in the name of Jesus Christ only. These are called "Jesus Only"." Is not a Oneness doctrine. First, Father isn't Lord exclusively as a direct word to word comparison, nor Holy Ghost to Christ. Second, all Oneness reject the triune, or they are not Oneness. Also, adding Lord everywhere is not necessary, and makes it appear that Lord is part of the name of Jesus. This is not doctrinal either, which is held by known sources to be simply a title, just like Father is.

By the way, Acts0412, I've been following your edit work on Oneness Pentecostalism, and you and others are doing a wonderful job! (Especially weeding out the "additions" of those using it as some kind of platform for whatever agenda they have.) As this article states in the very first paragraph, and in the #1 reference,  I've been sticking very closely to UPCI doctrinal references in this side-article. I'm using David K. Bernards intro essay and doctrinal reference at the front of the Word Aflame Press edition of the Thompson-Chain Reference Bible for the work here (^ A shortened version compiled from “An Overview of Basic Doctrines”, an overview compiled the book ‘’A Handbook of Basic Doctrines’’ by David K. Bernard. Also included are excerpts, as marked, from “Essential Doctrines of the Bible.” “Essential Doctrines of the Bible” and “An Overview of Basic Doctrines”, Thompson Chain-Reference Study Bible, Word Aflame Press, 1999, 1-12, 13-25, respectively).

And so, while I am not so interested in the historical bits on the other article personally, I have a special interest in this article that changes even to something as simple as the application of the name Emmanuel apply to well documented doctrines of Oneness churches. I know there are some differences, and if a change is only to a particular Oneness church, that needs to be documented as well. The doctrine page has never been tagged (afaik) with any problems, personal opinions, or other Wikipedia issues. I hope to see it stay that way by keeping an eye on any uncited changes. I'd hate to see the problems of Oneness Pentecostalism spill over here and this become a "battle ground" of theologies. In fact, that's one reason it was given its own page (and length). This is a strictly informational/fact page. Few edits, all cited sources, little controversy. :)

Again, thanks for the great work. Please don't take my edits as anything personal. I have found it a great pleasure to see your other edits! -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 06:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am acts0412 and Pastor Reckart: thanks for the compliment. As for Lord Jesus Christ and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: this has been an issue in the Oneness ranks since at least 1922 that I am personally aware of. My research continues to find an abundance of web sites that claim Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Lord Jesus Christ, the three names of the titles of the trinity. I have found this on many UPC web sites, PAW web sites, ALJC web sites and so forth. Having been ordained in the Church of Jesus Christ founded by Ben Hawthorne and and joined by Mark Lawson, I was instructed why some chose Lord Jesus Christ as the name of their group and why the Church of Jesus Christ used only the Acts 2:38 name. It is because there is an abundance of historical ignorance that this contrast is not well known or the arguments over the three in one name of the trinity as Andrew Urshan and William Hall (Remarkable Biblical Discovery) called it. Yes, it makes those who use Lord Jesus Christ to appear to use a trinitarian formula, but this is something that has needed addressed now for over 80 years. Now, Lord Jesus Christ has become a baptismal tradition and few know how it even got started with John Sheppe and came down to us. And when they say it fulfills Matthew 28:19 and they no longer need Acts 2:38 except to support the new three-in-one name, they cannot correctly say they baptize according to Acts 2:38. I added this to the page because it is a part of Oneness history and doctrine. I beleive it should remain and if Oneness want to distance themselves from this trinitarian invention they should simply go back to Acts 2:38 "in the name of Jesus Christ", since even you admit Lord is a title like Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If we come to the unity of the faith we will all return to Acts 2:38 since we now have evidence the triune formual was added in the second century. Acts0412 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Oneness vs Trinity
The Oneness vs Trinity article solely discusses the oneness doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism. It is quite obviously a subset of this article. As "Oneness vs Trinity" is not an appropriate title (it's not a court case), I considered simply renaming it Oneness (Oneness Pentecostalism), but a merge here, which is needed, makes the name change unnecessary. Neelix (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Acts0412 Pastor Reckart Response
Oneness deserve their own page to present the Apostolic doctrine, faith, practice, conduct, and order, we hold. While we may differ on some issues, a general statement and some historical facts should present to a seeker who we really are. I am opposed to making this page a place of debate between Oneness and Trinitarians. I have grown weary editing out trinitarian falsehoods already that are placed in the page. If there is a need, which I do not see at the present, this page should remain informational. And if trinitarians or others do not like what they read they can go make their own page. If we change this page to a debate forum there will be no real place someone seeking the truth about Oneness Pentecostalism can find it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acts0412 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This page's purpose?
What is the purpose of this page? The second sentence of the opening paragraph begins, "These doctrines are UPCI specific," (emphasis added). Furthermore, a "Note to Editors" has been written to offer guidance to editors: "This section isn’t very editable. The 'elements' are predefined in official doctrine.  Language used conforms to same as sources as much as possible.  This article is/was under watch for Neutrality violations.  So, watch for edits here that edit or remove parts of quotes from cited sources as well as taking 'liberty' with personal views/edits." 2 points:
 * If this is about UPCI doctrine why is it entitle OP (doctrine)?
 * Should this be:
 * a)merged with either the OP or Oneness vs Trinity articles, or
 * b)remain but substantially changed. Ltwin (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been wondering about this very question myself. While I set out initially to rework and convert this article from outline form to prose, I am wondering if it would be better served by merging the content of this article into the Oneness Pentecostalism article itself--especially if we're looking at trying to get OP to "Good Article" status. It seems to me that this might be the best course of action, eliminating the need for this article altogether, and making things easier for our readers (everything in one article, rather than two--or even three, if one wanted to eventually bring the Oneness vs Trinity stuff into the OP article, too--but that's another subject altogether! One thing at a time!). Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah this probably should be merged, as long as it doesn't make the OP article too long. Ltwin (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got a preliminary "rough draft" saved, and am presently working on polishing and further revising it. I'll let you know when I'm done with it.  I don't think it'll be too long, and it will eliminate the need for a separate article on Oneness doctrine--while improving THIS article immensely, in my opinion at least.  Take a look when I finish, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OKAY. I've gotten a preliminary, mostly-polished draft finished on the Oneness Pentecostalism page. It's not 100% perfect, but it's pretty close (at least for the moment!). Take a look, and tell me what you think! I'm going to put a short message on the article discussion page explaining what I did, and why. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Article rework
I tried to provide a "Wikified" lead for this article, and also tried to edit it stylisticly to eliminate redundancy (parts of it were repeated three separate times!), break up longer sentences into shorter ones, and make it a bit more comprehensible to the "average" reader--especially non-Oneness readers. Whether I have succeeded is anyone's guess, so if anyone sees things that need changing in my revision, please go ahead! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest, though this doesn't have to happen instantly it can be worked out over time, is the conversion from a list format to more prose. Ltwin (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * An excellent idea, and my ultimate desire/intention. I will see what I can do on this in the next few days, God-willing! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible deletion of article; merging with "Oneness Pentecostalism"
I've taken the liberty of merging the contents of this article into the Oneness Pentecostalism article, after converting them from the outline form presented in this article into prose form for that one (but retaining all the copious and valuable references used in this article). I am thinking that with this merger (if it stands!), there is no longer any need for this separate article, as everything here has now been stated in the main "Oneness Pentecostalism" article. Thoughts, anyone? - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I didn't see this when I looked on here. But yes I agree, this article is redundant now. Ltwin (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)