A Response to Ralph Del Colle's "Oneness and Trinity: A Preliminary Proposal For Dialogue with Oneness Pentecostalism" by David K. Bernard, J.D. Pastor, New Life United Pentecostal Church, Austin, TX Associate Editor, Editorial Division, United Pentecostal Church International Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 1996 Given the enormous rift between Oneness and Trinitarian believers, I was pleasantly surprised to read Ralph Del Colle's paper. It is a straightforward, practical proposal for dialogue that would be mutually beneficial. I commend him for not asking either side to compromise but to communicate, to identify what is essential about their respective beliefs, and to find common affirmations. I speak as a committed Oneness believer, a nontrinitarian but not an antitrinitarian. In my response, I will primarily address Trinitarians because until recent years this society was exclusively Trinitarian as a matter of policy and even now is overwhelmingly Trinitarian. I will first explain why Del Colle's proposal is such a refreshing change and then respond to it directly. The Isolation of Oneness Pentecostals From 1916 to the present, the Pentecostal movement has been divided between Trinitarian and Oneness believers. Although Oneness people compose approximately twenty-five percent of all Pentecostals, they have traditionally been ignored and excluded when Trinitarian Pentecostals have interacted with each other or with other Christian groups. Trinitarian Pentecostals have tended to treat Oneness Pentecostals as the crazy aunt upstairs: an embarrassing member of the family whose existence, if discovered, could cause them to lose the acceptance they seek from the larger community, in this case traditional Christianity and particularly the Evangelicals. But Trinitarians must squarely face the existence of Oneness Pentecostals, for they do not seem to be fading into oblivion. If Oneness people are their brothers and sisters, albeit heterodox, then there should be some attempt to develop a level of mutual recognition, respect, and fellowship. Or, if Oneness people are heretics, then surely those closest to them theologically, namely Trinitarian Pentecostals, should seek some effective means to lead them to salvation. Unfortunately, the actions of some Christians reflect neither choice but seem motivated by a fear of Oneness Pentecostal successes or a desire to enhance their own status as heresy 1 hunters. When ignoring Oneness people has not seemed to work, the response has typically been to bash them. For instance, the first book on Oneness Pentecostals by a major Christian publisher denounces Oneness doctrine and practice as "heresy," "extreme," and "dangerous," and concludes that it may be cultic, despite the author's confession that as a teenager he was converted from a lifestyle of sin through the ministry of the United Pentecostal Church.1 A second major Evangelical publisher is producing two series of eight booklets entitled Zondervan Guide to Cults and Religious Movements, and the first one lists the United Pentecostal Church as a cult in the same category as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Science.2 The first booklet of the second series will be entitled "Jesus Only" Churches. The remaining booklets in the series will deal with astrology, neo-pagan movements, Hindubased movements, Scientology, Unitarian Universalism, UFO cults, and Far Eastern movements. Ironically, the projected author of "Jesus Only" Churches stated in an earlier work that "the differences between modalism [which he identified with Oneness] and pure Trinitarians are rather minute'' and that "a great number of Christians in mainline denominations, including Roman Catholicism, hold a modalistic conception of the Trinity , at least unconsciously."3 Before his death, Walter Martin, the founder of Christian Research Institute and the selfstyled Bible Answer Man, attacked the United Pentecostal Church as "the fastest growing of all the cultic structures" and "certainly one of the most dangerous,"4 and his successor, Hank Hanegraaff, has continued the attacks. In the early 1990s, professional cult deprogrammers recommended by the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) kidnapped a United Pentecostal member and held him for four days in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy his faith. The member recently won a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the deprogrammers and CAN, forcing CAN to file for bankruptcy in late 1995. This incident is the most publicized of several cases of harassment or attempted deprogramming inspired by the label of "cult." As the author of several books espousing the Oneness view, I have personally been the object of a number of vituperative attacks, both publicly and privately. When it became known that I had started a church in Austin, Texas, two cult-watching members of a prominent local Baptist church denounced me on Christian radio as a "heretic" and "anti-Christian." When I met them, I related my personal testimony of how at age seven I knelt at a church altar, asked Jesus Christ to forgive me of my sins, and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. I was then baptized with the Holy Spirit and with water. At the time, I did not possess a mature theological 1Gregory Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 9-12, 21-22, 232. 2Alan W. Gomes, Unmasking the Cults (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 25-26. Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1984), 18. 4Newsletter quoted in David K. Bernard, The Oneness View of Jesus Christ (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1992), 141. 3E. 2 understanding, but believed there was one God and Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh to die for my sins. According to their previous exposition of salvation by grace through faith, I was saved at that time and could never lose my salvation. I added one further detail to my testimony, however: the sign on the church door said "United Pentecostal" instead of "Baptist." At this, the two men refused to acknowledge that I had any legitimate experience with God but compared my testimony to that of Latter-Day Saints who receive a "warm feeling" when they read the Book of Mormon. In this context, it will be interesting to see how Trinitarian Pentecostals will respond to Del Colle's proposal. In the years after 1916 several prominent Oneness Pentecostals, including Andrew Urshan and Howard Goss, sought for ways to reopen dialogue with Trinitarian Pentecostals, but to no avail. In recent years the United Pentecostal Church has made official overtures for dialogue with the Assemblies of God, but to this point there has been no positive response. It is ironic that Trinitarian Pentecostals remain eager to have dialogue with Roman Catholics but not with Oneness Pentecostals, who are much closer in belief and experience on a practical level, and that a Roman Catholic would be the one to encourage dialogue between these two branches of Pentecostalism. Oneness Pentecostals do not seek the approval of Trinitarians, nor would they necessarily wish to participate in various ecumenical activities. They would, I believe, be interested in dialogue and would appreciate a respectful, fair treatment of their historical and present significance to the Pentecostal movement and to Christianity generally. Obstructions to Dialogue Theologically, three factors have blocked such dialogue: (1) the doctrine of Oneness, ever since the adoption of an explicitly Trinitarian statement of faith by the Assemblies of God in 1916, (2) the apostolic soteriology of Oneness Pentecostals, and (3) the conservative holiness practices espoused by most Oneness Pentecostals in contrast to most Trinitarian Pentecostals today. Del Colle rightly notes that the latter two can be handled within the framework of historic Christian discussions of initiation and lifestyle that are not unique to Pentecostals. With regard to the first point, we must remember that the Assemblies of God was founded on the basis that there would be no creed but the Bible, that the Oneness movement began about the same time as the formation of the Assemblies of God, and that many early Pentecostal leaders embraced the Oneness doctrine, including workers under Charles Parham and at the Azusa Street Mission. The Oneness people in 1916 argued for continued fellowship, but were voted out. 3 On the second point, it is true that Oneness Pentecostals believe they have a more complete understanding of "the Bible standard of full salvation,"5 but from the beginning they have acknowledged the genuine spiritual experiences of other Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals. Like the earliest Trinitarian Pentecostals, including Charles Parham, they spoke of a progressive experience of salvation as people walked in the light of the gospel. When forced to make an exclusive choice, however, as in 1916, Oneness believers have overwhelmingly concluded that their message and experience indeed align most closely to the pattern of the New Testament church. Over the years, they have had little doubt that they should exhort everyone to obey the apostolic teaching and practice regardless of whose fellowship they may lose. As the apostle Paul confessed, "After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers" (Acts 24:14).6 On a personal level, however, it is easy for Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals to find much common ground and to feel a kindred spirit. Worship, prayer, and preaching can be points of identity. When I have attended various Evangelical functions, I have observed Trinitarian Pentecostals muting their distinctive beliefs and worship styles, even when they composed a majority, in order to attain the least common denominator required for ecumenism. Yet when I have had the liberty to interact with them on a personal level or in Pentecostal-style worship, it seems that we Pentecostals have more in common with each other than with Evangelicals generally or with people in mainline denominations. There is a oneness of experience. As an example, at a symposium in the 1980s sponsored by the Apologetic Research Coalition, a cult-watching organization, the founder, Keith Tolbert, roundly denounced Oneness Pentecostals as heretics, cultists, legalists, and believers in extrabiblical revelation. J. L. Hall and I were asked to respond. One of Tolbert's former professors, whom he identified as his mentor, was the moderator. An Assemblies of God minister, he introduced us warmly as "Brother Hall" and "Brother Bernard" from "our sister organization." Third, the potential for fellowship on the grass-roots level is made increasingly difficult by the changing lifestyle of Trinitarian Pentecostals. In this regard, it must be acknowledged that, whether right or wrong, for good or ill, it is the Trinitarians, by and large, who have changed, while the Oneness believers have consciously sought to maintain the holiness lifestyle that Pentecostals embraced from the beginning. The oneness of experience that I alluded to previously becomes problematic and the feeling of camaraderie diminishes when Trinitarian Pentecostals begin smoking, drinking socially, and wearing heavy ornamentation.7 5Fundamental Doctrine, Articles of Faith, United Pentecostal Church International. Oneness believers note that Paul referred to Old Testament monotheism with the promise of the Messiah who would be "God with us," not to Trinitarianism. 7The International Pentecostal Holiness Church recently abandoned its historic stand on these matters. 6 4 Analysis of the Issues As I read Del Colle's paper I asked myself two questions: (1) What is essential about the Oneness doctrine of God? (2) Do Trinitarians deny any of these essentials? The answer to the first question must include (1) the true deity of Jesus Christ, (2) the true humanity of Jesus Christ, and (3) the indivisibility of God's essence. Oneness believers find unbiblical and abhorrent anything that would subordinate the deity of Jesus Christ, jeopardize the atoning work of Jesus Christ by diminishing His humanity, or open the Godhead to plural centers of consciousness. Of course, in principle Trinitarians affirm each of the foregoing points, yet many statements of Trinitarians are problematic to Oneness believers. For instance, the language of Tertullian, Origen, and even the Cappadocians seems to place Jesus in a subordinate role. Oneness critic Walter Martin held the kenotic theory that Jesus voluntarily surrendered the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence in the Incarnation. The doctrine of the eternal Son is also problematic to Oneness believers. In many cases it seems that Trinitarians attribute distinctly human actions to an eternal Son, thus minimizing the authenticity and uniqueness of the Incarnation. When some Trinitarians use the prayers of Christ to prove that the Father and the Son are eternally distinct persons, we have a twofold problem. First, if an eternal Son seeks assistance from the Father, does this not imply subordinationism? Second, if prayer is a characteristic of an eternal Son rather than of Christ in His humanity, then the Incarnation does not seem to mean anything; it adds nothing that was not already inherent in the nature of God. Oneness believers reject any notion that we will see three distinct divine beings in heaven or that we need to divide our prayer and praise time with multiple persons. Further, how can the social and family models of the Trinity square with Old Testament monotheism and avoid the prophetic condemnation of polytheism? Knowledgeable Trinitarians sometimes protest that Oneness criticisms, such as the accusation of tritheism, are based on a misunderstanding of orthodox Trinitarianism. Indeed, such is often the case on a popular level, but it is a mistake to compare popular Oneness with academic Trinitarianism. Instead, if we compare popular Oneness with popular Trinitarianism, we find that Oneness perceptions and criticisms are often right on target. In many cases, it would be helpful for Trinitarians to return to their own classical formulations for assistance. For instance, in opposition to Oneness, even knowledgeable Trinitarians often point to the will of the Son and the will of the Father to prove that the two wills require two persons. After all, they say, a "nature" cannot have a will; only a person can have a will. But what of the Council of Constantinople in 680, which declared that Christ has two natures and two wills but is only one person? Classical Trinitarianism holds that Christ's distinct 5 will as expressed in the Garden of Gethsemane relates to His humanity, not to a second will belonging to the eternal Son. In other words, classical Trinitarians hold that the eternal Trinity has only one will. Here we see a convergence of Oneness explanations with classical Trinitarianism in opposition to popular Trinitarianism today. Just as Del Colle thinks that Trinitarianism is foundational to Christian faith and experience, so Oneness believers think that the Oneness understanding of God is foundational.8 As several Oneness writers have implied or affirmed, however, this does not mean that a theological apprehension of Oneness is required.9 But it means that when a person genuinely repents and is baptized with the Holy Spirit, he understands practically, if not theologically, that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh. He calls upon Jesus to forgive him, which only God can do, and he relies upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, he does not receive three spirits, but one. He does not feel the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinctly or individually, but he has a unified, integrated experience with one God through His Spirit, based on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Answering the question of whether Trinitarianism denies any of the tenets essential to Oneness is made more difficult because there are so many types of Trinitarians. In practice, Trinitarians, particularly Trinitarian Pentecostals, welcome the fellowship of all who pay lip service to the doctrine, from tritheists to modalists. For instance, it would be hard to find statements more explicitly tritheistic that those of Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Jimmy Swaggart (in his Assemblies of God days), and Benny Hinn. On the other hand, statements of many prominent Trinitarians sound essentially the same as Oneness, except perhaps for some traditional verbiage that has been redefined modalistically. If I were to label myself a Trinitarian and then proceed to define "the Trinity" as I now define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without making an issue of it, I would probably be accepted without question in most Trinitarian settings. People who come into Oneness churches from Trinitarian churches commonly react in one of two ways when they hear an exposition of Oneness: (1) "You have stated what I always believed." (2) "The Trinity has always been confusing to me (or a mystery); now I understand." Few undergo an intense intellectual struggle in which they change from explicit, knowledgeably held Trinitarian tenets to Oneness theology. In 1995, the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) made a modest but significant amendment to its Articles of Faith to articulate its position more clearly. It changed the following language dating back to the 1930s: "This one true God manifested Himself in the Old Testament in divers ways; in the Son while He walked among men; as the Holy Spirit after 8See Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Mark 12:29-31. Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism 1986 (Hazelwood, MO: United Pentecostal Church International, 1986), 38-39, 122, 153, 190. 9See 6 the ascension." The new wording says, "Before the Incarnation, this one true God manifested Himself in divers ways. In the Incarnation, He manifests Himself in the Son, who walked among men. As He works in the lives of believers, He manifests Himself as the Holy Spirit." The purpose was not to change any belief but to clarify the UPCI's historic position and to avoid any misunderstanding that the UPCI believes in sequential modalism. Now we must ask, What do Trinitarians think is essential about their doctrine? And in what ways, if any, does Oneness teaching deny these essentials? In practice, it appears that what Trinitarians guard most is terminology. Since the "orthodox" terminology of Trinitarianism is not scriptural, however, surely the terminology itself cannot be essential. In many cases, it seems that the defenders of Trinitarianism simply want to protect the appearance of orthodoxy, or acceptance within Christendom as a whole, more than a particular way of understanding God. Del Colle states that "awareness, appreciation and adoration of the triune God" is "necessary for the renewal of faith, church and mission" (page 2). As I read the paper, my impression is that he focuses on the necessity of the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. But this is precisely what Oneness theology affirms and even emphasizes. Readers of Oneness literature and observers at Oneness worship services will find at least as much mention of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as among Evangelicals. The Oneness definition of these three terms focuses on God's work of salvation in our lives: as Father He created us and begot the Son, in the Son He has provided the means of redemption, and as the Holy Spirit He works in our lives to regenerate, renew, and empower us. When we consider the Incarnation, Atonement, and work of salvation in individual lives, it appears that the Oneness doctrine upholds the same essentials as Trinitarianism. What concerns Trinitarians is that in Oneness thinking this economic "Trinity" does not translate into an ontological Trinity. As Del Colle expressed, the classic argument is that in His eternal essence God must be what He appears to be in the economy of salvation. But Oneness adherents respond that this is a philosophical argument, not a scriptural one. God's work as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was made necessary by His plan of salvation for humanity but does not exhibit or require an essential threeness. After all, God has revealed Himself to us in flesh, and the only way we truly know Him is through the man Christ Jesus, but no one supposes that humanity is intrinsic to God's essence. Traditionally, Trinitarians have vehemently rejected all nontrinitarian doctrines, such as Arianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarianism, because they devalue the deity of Christ. When Trinitarian heresy hunters encounter Oneness teaching, they react against it in the same way because they have decided to evaluate all doctrines according to predetermined categories. But these categories are not sufficient to evaluate Oneness, for if the Oneness doctrine does 7 anything, it exalts the deity of Christ and His atoning sacrifice. A fresh approach is needed, and Del Colle helps show the way. Trinitarians Pentecostals must particularly ask, Are Oneness believers saved? If so, is it possible that they are saved while believing in heresy or while denying an essential tenet of Christianity? If they are not saved, how can they receive the Holy Spirit and exercise spiritual gifts? Walter Martin, who believed in supernatural spiritual gifts for today, tried to dodge this issue by labeling Oneness experiences as "counterfeit," but this explanation is not plausible and calls into question all Pentecostal experiences. Throughout this century, many people have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, spoken in tongues, and exercised spiritual gifts in Trinitarian churches; subsequently embraced the Oneness message; and then continued to exercise these spiritual gifts as before. Considering the two men who initiated the call to form the Assemblies of God, if Howard Goss (who became a Oneness believer) was a counterfeit, what about E. N. Bell (a Trinitarian who briefly embraced Oneness and then returned to Trinitarianism, serving as general chairman of the Assemblies of God both before and after his "deviation")? If Oneness experiences with God are genuine, then Trinitarians must ponder the application of Romans 14:4: "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand" (NKJV). In conclusion, let me offer my thoughts on Del Colle's eight affirmations and his proposed statement of faith (pages 39-44). I accept all of them, with the following reservations. Regarding (ii), I would argue that Christ's intercession related only to "the days of his flesh" (Hebrews 5:7) and to the present availability of His atoning sacrifice. I do not envision Him kneeling in heaven for nineteen hundred years, praying to another deity on behalf our sins. He offered one sacrifice for sins for all time (Hebrews 10:12). His atoning work is complete; the benefits are still being applied. Regarding (vii), I see the "Trinitarian" titles of God as related to God's work of salvation, not to His essence. The confession offered at the end of the paper is acceptable, but for that matter so is the so-called Apostles' Creed, if interpreted as originally written (c. 200) and not through the lenses of fourth-century Trinitarianism. One could even argue that the original creed of the Council of Nicea (325) is acceptable to Oneness Pentecostals, with the possible exception of the anathema clause, which is not actually part of the creed itself.10 Certainly, as the paper has demonstrated, there is sufficient basis for mutual respect, cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, and further discussion of scriptural truth. 10David K. Bernard, The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1993), 22-23. 8