User talk:Connor1551

Oneness Pentecostal Page
Thanks for adding to the page. I have only worked on the first 3 paragraphs, but intend on making it a much more robust page. While I agree with what you added in the first 3 paragraphs as technically correct I had planned on putting that in the Doctrine section.

If you want to see bad, go back to a week ago. I also have not touched the history as I am first Generation Pentecost and have no history with it at all.

What is important that we work as diligently as possible to document the Oneness Pentecostal in voice of what OP people and churches would say about themselves.

Please help out and remember we must be as concise and accurate as possible.

DevonSprings (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to welcome you on editing the article! Like DevonSprings I am also Pentecostal(2nd generation), however of the trinitarian side of the river. Yes I would encourage you to look back at the article's history to see how far its actually come. For my part, I have not added anything to the article unless in an attempt to try to clarify what was already in the article. I have deleted much from the article and added things per the suggestion of DevonSprings which are on the talkpage. My main goal is to make an article on par with other Christian movement articles on wikipedia. I gather that you know about the history of the movement, and I am delighted because the current information is unsourced and to some readers may be confusing. This is the section that I am most concerned about. But anyway welcome and I look forward to working with you. Ltwin (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the thought
Well given your note Connor I like the thought of trying to convey OP in the light of what they believe. For example today's OP page describes it from UPCI beliefs. But I wandered into this by mistake a few weeks ago, and was blown away by how bad it was.

Ltwin and I have been working together to clean it up grammer wise and structure wise, and I have been contributing to the doctrine. A few weeks ago it was written as an Anti-Trinitarian piece.

However I think that a page titled the Oneness of God should be the page that describes the Doctrine of Oneness. And that Oneness Pentecostal should be a page that describe the beliefs of OP' people.

Not all Oneness people are Pentecostal in nature.

Likewise "Baptism in Jesus Name" as a belief, blessing or a requirement if debated. UPCI doctrine strictly speaking says that People are saved by grace, and the 3 part action of the believer is Repentance, Baptism, and Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

One of my goals was to have the Theology section for those who choose to read it be fairly deep, and those who chose to skim it get a good idea that Oneness people actually have a pretty good statement of Doctrine.

There is a page Oneness vs. Trinity, and it really should be renamed into Oneness and Trinity Doctrine compared. Oneness and Trinity people seem to want to argue about the Godhead and with ltwin and I have agreed to work in harmony to have a really good quality article.

DevonSprings (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the title of the Oneness vs. Trinity should be changed too. I think I should be able to do that. But a more important question might be is this page necessary? Ltwin (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that ONLY secular mainstream authors publishing through secular mainstream publishing companies be cited in the articles. Agciorg (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

consensus
We need to discuss these issues on the talk page. Consensus needs to be reached. Ltwin (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Well it was quite a day over at the OP. Anyway I wanted to tell you that I hope you aren't getting a feeling that ppl are trying to sabotage this article and that we are all trying to do the best we can. Bye. Ltwin (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)