The oneness-trinitarian Pentecostal dialogue illustrates the contemporary crisis of creedal theology. The creedal formulations are in content acceptable to both trinitarian and oneness thinking but remain irreconcilable in structure. The path to reconciliation leads to a reformulation of the doctrine of God that replaces the existing creedal structure of three distinct articles with a narrative formulation that holds together in an affectionate story christology and pneumatology as joint aspects of the activity of the Father. Central to this profession of faith " without articles " is the human being as a vital element without which the story of God cannot be told.

For historical, theological, and practical reasons, it is important for Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals to communicate with each other and to develop a greater understanding of one another's beliefs. When both groups were small and rejected by mainline society and religion, it was relatively easy for them to remain isolated from the world and from each other. Today, however, both groups have experienced such growth and acceptance that they need to consider how to relate to each other as well as to the world at large. The growth of Pentecostals as a whole is well documented, but Trinitarian Pentecostals are just now beginning to acknowledge the growth of the Oneness movement. In June 1997, Charisma magazine reported 17 million Oneness believers. 1 The most thorough study of this subject, presented as a master's thesis for Wheaton College in 1998, documents approximately 20 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide. 2 Trinitarian Pentecostals typically have misconceptions about Oneness Pentecostal beliefs and practices. As a result, misinformation is commonly disseminated. For example, a 1997 study of Pentecostals erroneously states that in the view of Oneness pioneer Frank Ewart "baptism in the Holy Spirit … [was] received only in the immersion rite and only if administered in the name of Jesus." 3 It further claims that "many" independent Jesus Name congregations "practice such oddities as snake-handling and free love." 4 No source is given for either assertion, and there is no reason to believe that the cited "oddities" are any more prevalent among Oneness churches than 1

The concepts of Christology (the study of the person and work of Jesus) and Monotheism (the worship of one God only) have been central to understanding the history of the Christian tradition. The traditional understanding embodied in the concept of Christological monotheism is that the New Testament texts narrate a story about Yahweh and Jesus as in some sense two persons who share a common nature or identity understood in terms of identity descriptions. Oneness Pentecostalism takes the view that the same texts are better understood narrating a story in some sense about one person or self. Though there is an abundance of secondary sources as regards what has come to be understood as the orthodox Christian tradition affirming Christological monotheism, in my view, Oneness Pentecostalism has not responded substantively to christological concerns regarding the nature of God. This paper briefly address three aspects of christological monotheism from a Oneness perspective. Both Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostal traditions have proceeded somewhat in parallel lines, both affirming their own position independently of criticism of the other, at least academically. Crucially, studies from the respective groups examine the most substantive and persuasive case for orthodox christology and monotheism mainly in the context of apologia. This particular research-space is what this paper seeks to fill, and will focus on contemporary perspectives for Christological Monotheism but in the context of Oneness Pentecostalism.

"In Jesus' Name" is a groundbreaking work on Oneness Pentecostalism. It seeks to be an exhaustive study, which historically situates OP culturally and theologically within a long tradition of Pietism dating back hundreds of years in Europe, and Christocentrism found in American Evangelicalism of the 19th century. However, in lifting up an African-American as the exemplar of Oneness Pentecostalism, the book introduces the persons "black heritage" as an interpretive key, but then fails to follow through on this insight, despite several works around Oneness Pentecostalism, in particular, and race. This leaves open the possibility that there is a significant hole in an otherwise comprehensive monograph. Indeed, closer attention to social location and the theological problem of race, would have paid off with material that indeed moves the tradition from so-called heterodoxy to a more robust, if contested, conversation with the dogmatic tradition, which the author seeks.

It is a polemical work against Oneness Pentecostalism from a Fundamentalist Trinitarian perspective. The author does not seek to understand Oneness theology on its own terms, but from the outset the book presents a flawed interpretation, which it then proceeds to attack as a straw man. Fundamental Misrepresentation of the Oneness Position This problem is evident from the "Abstract" at the beginning of the book. Here is the description of the Oneness doctrine, upon which the rest of the book is predicated: First, since Oneness doctrine asserts a unipersonal God without the distinction of three Persons, it sees Jesus then as the mere "name" of the unipersonal deity, who manifested as the modes or roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thus denying the unipersonality of Jesus Christ. Second, since it asserts that only the Father is God (i.e., Jesus' divine nature/mode), the "Son" represents only Jesus' human nature/mode, thus denying the Son's deity. Third, since it rejects the idea that the Son is God, Oneness Christology denies (a) the Son's pre-existence, (b) the Son's active role as the agent of creation (the Creator), and (c) the Son's eternal and intimate relationship with the Father. Pertaining to redemption, Oneness doctrine maintains that Jesus as the Father took flesh, hence denying the incarnation of the divine Son.

Paper presented to the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies at the University of Birmingham, UK 30 September 2014. As the title suggests, the paper suggests certain similarities shared between Oneness Pentecostals and Catholics, Evangelicals and Reform theology, as well as Islam and Judaism, that is not shared by the wider trinitarian Pentecostal movement, thus seeing the possibility of Oneness Pentecostalism being a bridge to those religions in ways that trinitarian Pentecostalism cannot.

Michael Burgos is a Bible teacher at Northwest Hills Community Church in Torrington, CT, and as of this publication has earned a Master's degree from Andersonville Theological Seminary. He has written a polemical book against Oneness Pentecostal theology from a Fundamentalist or Evangelical perspective. His title is possibly modeled after Against Praxeas by Tertullian, the first theologian to enunciate a clear trinitarian theology, although Tertullian was a heretic by Burgos's standards. General Observations Burgos's work is more credible than previous works in this genre (although Burgos cites some of them with approval). For example, unlike them he seeks to understand the Oneness position theologically and to present it accurately. He cites recent scholarly sources, such as Dr. David Norris, Dr. Daniel Segraves, and my doctoral thesis, although he sometimes relies on self-published or internet authors who are not well known. Burgos commendably begins with a presentation of hermeneutics and definition of terms, which is helpful in establishing a common basis for discussion. He then presents classical trinitarian positions and classical trinitarian exegesis of key passages of Scripture such as Genesis 1:26; Matthew 28:19; John 1; John 17; I Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1; and Hebrews 1. He engages Oneness exegesis and sometimes acknowledges when trinitarian scholarship supports Oneness exegetical points. Overall, this discussion is beneficial in advancing dialogue. For the most part, I thoroughly engage these issues in my books The Oneness View of Jesus Christ and The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ (the published version of my thesis, which wasn't available to him). Thus, I will address a key issue of hermeneutics and then respond only to some points that he misunderstands or that warrant further explanation, citing my books when relevant. Based on progressive revelation, Burgos argues that we must modify Old Testament monotheism in light of the New Testament (68, 145). This argument is necessary for him because it is impossible to establish the Trinity from the Old Testament itself. As Burgos acknowledges, I also accept progressive revelation, which results in doctrines such as the Incarnation, the Atonement, the gospel, and the new birth. However, when we study the most basic concepts in the Bible, such as God, truth, love, grace, faith, and repentance, we must start with Old Testament definitions, because God used this method to reveal truth to the apostles and the New Testament church. From the outset, Scripture consistently teaches the oneness of God, and as it reveals more about His identity, character, and work, it never contradicts this foundational revelation. As most scholars today, including trinitarians, acknowledge, the New Testament does not explicitly teach the Trinity but at most it provides data that was subsequently used to construct the doctrine. (See discussion of early Christology in The Glory of God.) What is now orthodox trinitarianism was not clearly defined, formulated, and widely adopted until the fourth century. Thus, Burgos starts with the definitions and creeds of the fourth century, which are based on Greek philosophy, and uses them to interpret the language of the New Testament. He then uses this theological reinterpretation to modify the foundation in the Old Testament. This is progressive revelation backwards-imposing post-biblical, philosophical developments upon the text of Scripture.