How to Answer the Oneness Pentecostal Movement

Acts verse by verse study, Chapter 2, Part 5.

In this video, we will explain the significance of the 20th century Oneness/Apostolic Pentecostal movement, which teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus and speaking in tongues is required for salvation. And we will contrast their particular teachings with the balance of the scriptures from the New Testament.

From the International Fellowship, March 28th, 2022.

Bible study led by Charles Burks.

[corinnacourteau]

Thank you so much
Great teaching
Coming from non denominational
Relocated to a small town and started going to apostolic fellowship
( told broke away from UPC )
In over a year no doctrine obviously spoke to oneness or Jesus only but at the Bible study
I came out of it spun about with lots of question
So hard to find any answers till I found the word oneness
I spent days getting informed to present to my parents
We have a problem
Now we have all looked at this information
And come to the conclusion we have a serious doctrine issue and have left
Now we will go together as a family to say goodbye
We love the people but certainly can not abide with these conflicts or bring others in to this gospel error in good conscience
Thank you so much I am going to follow and listen to preaching
On other subjects

[revbray]

This was well done. Full of useful information. Thank you.

[KeepinItInContext]

Great vid! As an ex-UPCI minister knowing their history (and not their revisionist history they provide), the formation of oneness theology and their soteriology and comparing it to church history and the context of scriptures, is the only way to truly break free from such doctrinal error.

Love to have you on my channel to do a discussion on Oneness theology if you would be interested.

[robertnieten]

Always enjoy an in depth approach to the scriptures in order to determine their true meaning.
Just a couple points I would like to make for now. First a question #1, What is the reason that so many believers ignore the fact that biblical experts time and time again and stated with proof that Matt 28:19 was altered in order to replace " in my name" with in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ? The only answer I can come to is there is a powerful spirit of deception over many people concerning this verse in order to support the trinity doctrine.
Think about it. If believers accepted the truth that the verse had been altered the trinity doctrine would collapse. If true this would expose the fact that not only is more clearly seeing who Jesus is, is being distorted but the spoken name of Jesus Christ carries more spiritual powerful and has ramifications powerful forces don't want seekers and believers to realize.
Question #2. Whether a believer believes that baptism should be done in the triune names or in the name of Jesus Christ, whose name or names the authority for the baptism comes from must be stated.
If water baptism is to be according to Matt.28:19s altered version then all of the apostles including Paul disobeyed Jesus.
Lastly, according to the biblical Law of repetition the Word numerous times repeats an occurrence or something said three times in order to draw our attention to an important spiritual truth.
There are three times and three times only in the book of Acts that records believers recieved the Holy Spirit and what occured immediately upon them recieving, Acts ch.2, 10, and ch.19. In each instance the first thing that happened was that they spoke on tongues. Now the question remains whether or not God sees those three instances as proof that every believer as the result of recieving the Holy Spirit should expect to speak in tongues as spiritual confirmation of that ?

[billymimnaugh]

The apostles thought baptizing in Jesus name was so important that those baptized under John were re-baptized in Jesus name .

[RT-gvus]

Just a few comments:
At 14:02 you state that David K Bernard was raised in Baton Rouge LA. He stated in a radio debate that he had with James White that he was actually raised in Korea. I think his parents were missionaries. Just FYI.
At 29:56 you do an analysis of the Greek word EIS in Acts 2.38 and Matt 3.11. This analysis is excellent. Both passages deal with the context of baptism. I spent almost 40 years in the Oneness movement and am well versed in their doctrine. Overall you presented their position fairly and accurately and sucessfully revealed some of the weaknesses of their position regarding the doctrine of salvation.
Also, you mentioned Daniel 7. That is a problem passage for them and is seldom ever read over their pulpits which is strange considering that many scholars consider it to be the heavenly view of the event that occurred in Acts 1:8-10 which is a passage that is often quoted from their pulpits.

[dgreenja]

Legalism seems to be a works-only kind of salvation, which the bible condemns, but salvation by faith only, which is what the NT presents, doesn't infer a salvation without works. NT salvation is neither faithless nor workless. The faith-only salvation in the NT, is faith which includes obedience, which obedience requires works. One verse of scripture says “not of works lest any man should boast”, but believers are “his workmanship, created unto good works. So whereas on one hand works can't save, yet on the other hand one can't be saved without works.

On the question of tongues, it appears to me from the book of Acts, that it was a sign when one receives the Holy Spirit. Tongues was a sign to Peter in Acts 10, that Cornelius and his household were filled with the Holy Spirit, and not only believing and confessing. Paul in Acts 9 became a believer when he met the Lord on the Damascus Road, yet he was not filled with the Holy Spirit until after Ananias met him, acdording to what Ananias told him in Acts 9. In Acts 8 the Samaritans received the words of God, yet their being recipients of the Holy Spirit, was not automatic where as you believe then simultaneously you receive without an initial sign. While they became believers, it was not automatically accepted that they received the Holy Spirit. Now how was it known that the Samaritans didn't receive the Holy Spirit at the moment they believed on Jesus? I believe the answer to that is implicit, that it is because they didn't speak with tongues at the moment of believing. Now when Peter and John laid their hands on them for them they received the Holy Spirit. How was it known that they received the Holy Spirit? The account doesn't mention tongues as the sign, but I believe it is clearly inferenced. It is not likely that Peter and John came and laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit without an accompanying sign of tongues, otherwise they would have accepted that they received the Holy Spirit the very moment they believed.

On the question of baptism, in Acts 22:16 Saul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Before I comment on the part which mentions “calling on the name of the Lord”, Saul was already a believer before Ananias met him, yet his sins were yet to be remitted. It is clear that faith and believing in Jesus in itself without baptism, doesn't bring remission of sins. There is a time difference between the time he became a believer and the time he was baptized. Now with “calling on the name of the Lord” based on my understanding of the greek, is really in the past tense, where the correct rendering is “having called on the name of the Lord”. So the calling on the name of the Lord, was on the part of Saul, but it began before Ananias met him. So while in at least some English versions it presents it as though it is future, it was in fact the past.

The “in the name of Jesus Christ”, doesn't only mean in his authority. NAME means both a literal name and authority.
The NT doesn't mention anything about Jesus telling them what to say over a believer at baptism, but neither did the NT say anything about Jesus telling them what to say over anyone who needs healing or a miracle. Jesus said that in his name shall they cast out devils. Jesus never told them what to say, but they knew that Jesus was inferencing that his name should be invoked, because in Acts the name was invoked over someone possessed with devils. Peter said “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk”. Jesus never explicitly command a verbatim use of his name, but it is implicitly commanded. The same principle applies in water baptism, where the name is to be invoked.
Of all baptism in the name of Jesus means, is only the authority, then that being understood, why would Peter make an emphasis on the name Jesus in his message? Why did Luke bother to make an emphasis of the name in Acts 8, 10, and 19, if it simply only means the authority? Why was the name of Jesus linked only to the second baptism in Acts 19:1-5, and not with the first baptism which is the baptism of John? Both baptisms are in the authority of Jesus, but only the latter is done in the name of Jesus. The similarity with the two, is the authority, but the disimilarity with the two, is the literal name which applies only to the rebaptism of these Jews.

Water baptism is not as a result of one's sins forgiven before, because Saul repented of his sins before those sins were remitted or washed away when he was baptized.

The above is my humble belief. Thanks for taking the time to read.

[juaninglis]

A couple thoughts on the matter.
I believe it’s a bad argument to say because the oneness doctrine leads to legalism then it’s a false doctrine. The argument needs to be able to be applied universally to be true. So, by that argument I could say the doctrine of the trinity is false because it leads to legalism. I’ve met legalism in only trinity believing Christians.

The whole argument on both sides misses the main question. What is baptism? In Hebrews 6:2 the doctrine of baptisms (washings) is listed as a foundational and elementary teaching concerning Jesus Christ. Romans 6 addresses the subject of baptism. He teaches why we should be water baptized and then Spirit baptized. The subject of baptism and why continues through the middle of Romans 8. Until baptism is more than a symbol of an already completed inward work, people will not understand why Jesus commanded to baptize disciples.

[corelreef]

A person cannot possibly know what a church believes based off of a few YouTube videos. True revelation comes from the God. Sadly it’s not found on YouTube. I encourage everyone to go to an apostolic/pentecostal church to truly see what they believe and preach. Ask the pastor for a Bible study and find out what the Bible really says.

[maryhelencampos]

I go to a Trinitarian AOG church with Pentecostal roots that’s now considered non-denominational and still operates in the gifts of Holy Spirit and loves The LORD… Some have been baptized as :::In The Name of The Father and His Son Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost…There’s been other Trinitarians using that formula…No problem/just dialoguing

[mebonweb]

I think it’s unwise to deny that the pattern of the book of Acts church found in the scriptures is not a pattern for the church today. The Apostles baptized in Jesus Name. Believers received the holy Spirit and tongues and prophesying accompanied that phenomenon. Why would we not want to conform to that God inspired pattern today?

[samuellundin]

Do you want to have a conversation with someone who started out Trinitarian and became Oneness?

[sherrycutter]

We should never call anyone unclean because of a formula, God's children are His children.I have been in both places and I have seen Him in there faces and life styles, I think we hurt the body of Christ, His children by these arguments, not to mention what it says to the outside world

[robertnieten]

If we are saved by faith alone why repent ? Repentance is an act of obedience essential in order to be saved.

[davidortega]

If you were born in 1775 and your family was into the Baptist church and you felt a call to the ministry some Baptist churches did baptized in Jesus name I'm sure God gave the holy ghost to them that believe there was Bibles in America

[discipleinlight]

No Oneness Pentecostals teach you are saved by being baptized....alone. Its pretty uniform among them that one must....
1. Believe
2. Repent
3. Be baptized
4. Receive the Holy Ghost

If the gospel was ever preached, it was preached by the Apostles at Pentecost.

[loishenley]

When the church started in acts. It said to baptize in the name of Jesus for remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. There are the father, son, Holy Spirit, but one body. God sent his spirit to Mary, Jesus was born, ascended to the father, he is god in bodily form. This man speaking is so wrong. Read the word yourself. There is one god . ! Read for yourself. I pray your eyes be opened.

[DavidRiddle-ng]

The teachng of baptism being works is not accurate. While it is 100% an action a person in there body performs, it is obediance more than anything. Jesus said "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved". The salvation is not from baptism, but rather the following of Jesus instruction. This topic is very much like Jews adding laws from the seat of Moses. In the sense that a definition of work is being applied to obediance. We have a sabith mode on appiances because of things continually being redefined. Plainly put baptism is obediance.

Israel was batized under the cload and in the red sea. There are types and shadows from the old to give application to the new. Rom 6:3 you mentioned stated that we were buried What is the "Therefore"? They were baptized into Christ. How? In the same way Jesus was covered by the grave, we are covered in water when our old inner fleshly desire is dead. Our elective repentance kills that old man and then we bury him. Paul states just as Christ was This is why we rise into the newness of life from the water.

When it comes to being spirit filled. Peter said this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joal. What did Joal say? Thus says the Lord in the last days i will pour out my spirit upon all flesh. Then Peter states that this promise is unto you and your children and all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God has called. So the argument can be made that if the spirit was poured out this symbolized the start of the last days. If tongues has stopped, are the last days over? The church seeks the experiance that the bible talks about and the example it gives. If the outpouring is not for today, how can we have the story of the failed attempt at tongues over seas. They thought that tongues was going to allow them to teach others without having to learn the language. While they failed they were convinced because it is real. But the tongues came to edify the person. There heart desired a work for God, to reach the lost. But God was letting them know they were on the right path by their edification.

Regarding the walk and holy living with dress and so forth, the Bible says without holyness no man shall see the Lord. We are called to holy living. Proverbs even teaches not to get drunk. It's not works, it's obediance. We believe the word and through our faith we follow it. Or should we continue in sin that grace may abound? You cant look at holiness living as an attempt at works. This view and the smooth speech of living how one wants because salvation cannot be lost is a tradition of man, and leaves the call from the word of God for holiness living to have no effect.

[maryhelencampos]

We are all One in Christ Jesus regardless of Godhead beliefs/ Some of our Jewish Messianic Brethren Believers refers to the Godhead as a Compound Unity❤ According to the book of Revelation The True Apostolic Church The Ecclesia the called out assembly ::: Revelation Reads:::The True Church of the Living GOD are those whose Robes are WASH in the Blood of The Lamb❤Not Religious Institutions Organizations or Denominations … Yeshua Jesus is Head of The Church ❤ It’s all about Calvary’s Cross of Christ Jesus Yeshua/It is Finished The Price is Paid in Full… The Spotless Sinless Official Sacrifice ❤He is Risen !

[leatharay]

Could it be the Jews that needed to recognize Jesus…..Ethiopian wasn’t he a Jew