Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussions of 21 December through 19 January 2009. Note: discussions may be refactored.

Concerns

"Oneness Pentecostalism holds to a conservative Jewish monotheistic view of God and stress Jesus Christ is the visible manifestation of God in the New Testament (the Father in the Son)." I don't think this is accurate. How can this be a Jewish view of God if it includes Jesus? I think this needs to be rephrased. Oh and the History section needs a total overhaul. Ltwin (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC) And does anyone know what exactly T.D. Jakes is? He has Oneness backgrounds, but in some statements he seems to be leaning between Oneness and Trinitarianism. Just want to know if he should be listed? Ltwin (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from DevonSprings

(This section was archived as part of the topic Near the top so this might be read, which was part of a larger RfC discussion, but has been reproduced here as it was important to the current state of the article. The Request for Comment and full comments can be seen in the archives.)

Near the top so this might be read - Comment from User:DevonSprings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a-lot wrong with the article and it only takes to the 3rd paragraph to get really out of hand. This seems to me to be an edit from a Trinitarian POV about oneness beliefs. "Citing 1Timothy 2:5, the Oneness doctrine affirms that God is indivisibly one, and sees the biblical distinction between God the Father and the man Jesus, as being a proper, observable father-son distinction, except between an incorporeal, transcendent, eternal God as Father, and a human, begotten man as Son, in whom God manifested himself for the purpose of salvation"

---

I think this below would be more neutral --------------

The Oneness doctrine affirms that God is one. Oneness Pentecostals believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three manifestations of One God.

---

Oneness Pentecostals believe that God's proper name is Jesus, and when you call on the name of Jesus you are propelled boldly before the throne of grace into the presence of Jesus himself, and you are connected to God through the understanding of who he is. They believe in this manifestation because of the verse in Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh" and Oneness Pentecostals believe that this is literally true.

---

There also is much UPCI'ing the OP page, and while UPCI represent a large group of OP believers there are many non UPCI groups that hold such beliefs. There is a lot of 3rd party not us on the OP page. That whole 3rd Paragraph is just really nonsense from a oneness point of View. Original Awful Text... Citing 1Timothy 2:5, the Oneness doctrine affirms that God is indivisibly one, and sees the biblical distinction between God the Father and the man Jesus, as being a proper, observable father-son distinction, except between an incorporeal, transcendent, eternal God as Father, and a human, begotten man as Son, in whom God manifested himself for the purpose of salvation. Oneness doctrine affirms the full deity of Jesus, by holding that God incarnate manifested himself to humanity in the man Jesus. It refutes the Trinitarian proposal that the one, true God is composed of three co-divine, co-equal, co-eternal, co-powerful persons. In the sense that the one God and one man of 1Timothy 2:5 co-exist simultaneously, they teach that Jesus exists simultaneously both as man Jesus and as God (God the Father an invisible, transcendent, Spirit) inseparably united (see John 10:30) as the Son of God. Citing John 4:24 (God is a Spirit), Oneness doctrine uses the terms God the Father and Holy Spirit as references to the same one God, who is Spirit. It affirms that the Holy Spirit and God the Father are one in the same Godhead, but only as separate manifestations or relationships of the one person or being that is God. Complete rewrite below in what I consider a more "We are not Trinitarian tone" The Oneness doctrine affirms that God is one. Oneness Pentecostals believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three manifestations of One God. Oneness doctrine affirms the full deity of Jesus, by holding that God incarnate manifested himself to humanity in the man Jesus. 1 Tim 3:16 says "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory" Oneness Pentecostals teach that this is literally true and that Jesus was God manifest in the Flesh. Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all refer to the God simultaneously and that God is not separated from himself. Jesus said "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the End". Oneness Pentecostals differ from Trinitarian beliefs in the fact that Trinitarians describe the manifestations as persons. These three coexistent, co-divine, co-equal, co-eternal, and co-powerful persons. --- I would personally leave out the God the Father bit, as OP don't refer to God in these terms, but if it must be described it would be something like this... Oneness Pentecostals don't believe in three persons so don't individually refer to "God the Father" or "Father God" but when they refer to Heavenly Father, or Jesus, they mean the same thing. Next Paragraph as further Example a little further down... Many Oneness Pentecostals believe that the beliefs and practices of the movement are the beliefs and practices of the 1st century church and that the movement is a restoration of the Christian faith as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. This is reflected in many Oneness Pentecostal churches' use of the term Apostolic in their names and as self designations. Church historians such as Dr. Curtis Ward, William Chalfant, Talmadge French, Dr. Gary Reckart, Dr. David Bernard, and Thomas Weisser in their research and writings argue there were believers who held the doctrines of Oneness Pentecostalism before Azusa Street leading to the early Christian church. Dr. Ward has proposed the view of an unbroken Oneness Pentecostal Church lineage and has chronologically traced its perpetuity throughout history.[citation needed] However, Bernard and other Oneness historians deny any direct link from early church believers to the current Oneness Pentecostal movement.[citation needed] Others teach that the early church that followed the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles entered into a state of apostasy and became the Roman Catholic Church.[citation needed] They believe modern Pentecostalism is a total restoration culminating after a step by step separation within Protestantism until the early Apostolic Church was fully restored. So here is the rewrite from a Neutral POV. Some of this above obviously needs to go way down the page so I left it out... Oneness Pentecostals believe the Apostles practiced the oneness doctrine. This belief is held mainly around the Baptismal formula followed in Acts 2:38, "Baptizing in the Name of Jesus for the Remission of Sins" and that there are no new testament referrals to water baptism using any other formula or reference other than Jesus Name baptism. In Acts 2:42 when "they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine," Oneness Pentecostals believe that doctrine was the Repentance, Baptism, and indwelling of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:38. Oneness Pentecostals do not believe it was only the "breaking of bread" and "prayers" as Acts 2:38 seems a much stronger doctrinal statement than Acts 2:42.

---

See much simpler ---------------

BTW, for those that want to know I am a Baptist and a Oneness believing person. Just because your father's doctrine was the Trinity doesn't make it right. The simplicity of what Peter said in Acts 2:38 is what makes it a doctrine. DevonSprings (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There were some glaring inaccuracies in the article obviously placed by someone not familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism. It is evident that it was done innocently, but was still inaccurate. Connor1551 (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I replaced some material that was recently deleted. I feel it more accurately describes OP positions. I have left other deleted material deleted. Connor1551 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job of editing. Connor1551 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Restorationist/Church successionist section there are two problems existent. First it lists three Church historians as "Oneness Historians" of which two of these are not "Oneness Historians" but are established Church historians that have taught in secular academia. To call them Oneness historians is an insult. Oneness just happens to be one of the many subjects of Chruch history they have taught and written on. They are Church historians. Secondly the words "Oneness Pentecostal" appear too many times in this paragraph. The redundancy is irritating.Connor1551 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Expert needed for section

I've tagged this section as needing attention from an expert, as the content of this section differs substantially from the main Restorationism article. Also, one other editor completely removed this section in apparent objection to its content (please elaborate/explain here). It has more of a commentary feel to me than I think is appropriate. I also note the above discussion. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, attention from an expert is needed. I added the Restorationism link; though, you may be right. It may not be the appropriate subject to tie this to. This subject of church historian vs. oneness historian has been noted before so its an old issue one which I think needs to be resolved. Ltwin (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You want me to elaborate/explain? With pleasure! I am sick and tired of religious fanatics who make their own doctors, fabricate their own colleges, and create their own publishing houses. Go the the Physics article. Do physicists create their own publishing houses? If they did would they be quoted? WHO is "Bishop" Golder and who made him one? Is he in the Apostolic Succession or did someone just place the sword on his shoulder and knight him out of the blue? How old is his religious group, does it date from the Reformation or from the mere twentieth century? Who is this publisher, that this "author," the right reverend "Bishop Golder," published through? It certainly wasn't Random house and Golder's name never appears beside authors like Steven King. Who is "Doctor" Marvin Arnold? Who did he publish through? Did he publish through Harper Collins, Atria book Publishing, Simon and Schuster, McGraw-Hill, or the Woodbridge company? Evangelicals and Pentecostals have created an "island society" that is alienated from the rest of mainstream society. Agciorg (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Island Society

There appears to be "island soceties" within "island socities." The evangelical movement has it's OWN colleges, publishing houses, and self proclaimed authors. Within the evangelical movement is the Pentacostals which in turn have THEIR own, albeit smaller, colleges, publishing houses, and authors. Within the Pentacostal movement is the Oneness Pentecostals which in turn, have THEIR own , albeit even smaller, colleges, publishing houses, and authors. The smaller the island the more restrictive and cultist the movement seems to be (especially the Oneness cult). And yet we accept their heretical colleges, publishing houses, and authors as real. It has gotton completely out of hand with idiots like Rick Warren speaking at the inagural, "Bishop TD Jakes appearing on Dr. Phil, and "Dr." RW Shambach speaking at a local university. Anyone with common sense knows Shambach is not a "doctor" anymore than Jakes was properly made a Bishop or Rick Warren is academically worthy to speak at an inaguaral. Jakes was made Bishop by a small run of the mill group in a small local area that consists of a few hundred people. Yet the whole world now calls him 'Bishop" as though these jack legs made it so.I propose that only secular sources from secular mainstream publishers be cited in this and other articles. Agciorg (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to go to the talk page before deleting. Granted. I will do as requested but I will do so with great intensity. This whole Wikipedia thing is wrought with references to non mainstream secular authors. Most of these religious articles quote authors who publish through their own religious organization's publishing house. Every religious article in Wikipedia needs overhauled. Please direct me to the Wikipedioa guidlines on who qualifies as an author and which publishing companies qualify as mainstream publishing companies. I mean, really, is "Bishop" Golder published by Random House Publishing? or Simon and Schuster? These religious people create their own publishing companies and publish authors that mainstream Publishers would never touch. Evangelicals and Pentecostals are particularly bad at this. These people are in a world of their own and everyone else suffers for their self induced psychosis. Please direct me to the Wikipedia guidelines as to what authjors and publishing houses can be quoted so that I may better do my job in eliminating some of this garbage. Agciorg (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "Bernard" quoted in the article? I contacted Random House Publishing and they don't seem to know anything about him. Is he a real person or someones pet dog? What is this "Word Aflame" publisher? is it an imprint of Random House? Or is it an outfit run out of Brenard's basement (assumming he is not a St. Bernard)? Who is "DR." Curtis D. Ward? Could I scedule an appointment with him to have my blood presure checked? Who is "Chalfant" ? What else has he written? This is appearing more and more like an island society! Agciorg (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that ONLY secular mainstream authors publishing through secular mainstream publishing companies be cited in the articles. Agciorg (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop ranting on this talk page. I agree some of this seems pov (see WP:NPOV) but you don't have to insult every religious group. There does need to be better sourcing, but there is no reason to delete a whole section. Wouldn't it be better to improve the parts you find offensive? For research tips see Wikipedia:Article development#How to develop an article. Anyway while some of the authors do need to be checked for reliability your proposal that only secular sources be consulted for an article on a religious is ridiculous. This is a religious group there is going to have to be times when religious sources are sited. Also for readability can you place new comments after old ones, making new sections below old sections. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

History

I agree with the previous editor that this piece is much too heavy on doctrinal issues and lightweight on historical ones.

As for citing only secular mainstream authors and excerpts from mainstream publishers ... the organ of the religious body IS the mainstream voice for that particular group. Roman Cathoics cite their own authors. Denominal Protestants certainly do not cite Roman Catholic writings, but they cite their own authors. To know where the Pentecostals stand, one must listen to their voice. What would we know about the Azusa Street Mission revival if we relied only on secular mainstream sources? We would be informed that "There were big negroes looking for a fight, there were little fairies dressed in dainty chiffon...the rambling old barn was filled and the rafters were so low that it was necessary to stick ones nose under the benches to get a breath of fresh air " (Los Angeles Herald). We would also learn that "some barked like animals, others contorted as if possessed..." In order to have some idea of the glories and estatic experiences that ignited the revival in the first place we have to go to inside sources of the revival. Much of what we know comes from men like Frank Bartleman, SR Hanby, GT Haywood, Opperman, etc. There are different streams within the Pentecostal movement that secular sources are totally ignorant of, yet Pentecostalisms own authors are well versed in. Try writing anything about Christian Science without citing their own authors. The call for only secular authors has stirred me and I had to voice my distaste in such a proposal. Perhaps I can make some suggestions in the future. Rachida10z (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. While some of the sources cited in the Restorationism / church successionism section do seem pov and we do need some secular credible sources, it does not require that all sources that have religious background are disqualified from being used on Wikipedia. There is no guideline or policy on Wikipedia which says this. The problem is not that the authors cited are/or might be Oneness Pentecostal, the problem is that they may not reflect the opinion of most experts on the subject. If this is the case then sources more credible need to be cited in the article. Rachida10z I look forward to any contributions you might offer. Ltwin (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where would one gather secular sources for OP church successionism? There probably are none for three reasons:

(1) Compared to the rest of the denominal and religious world, Oneness Pentecostalism is quite small.

(2) The secular world has no interest in this smaller sects view of church succession.

(3) Church succession is a relatively new development within OP.

Personal research indicates that the spark of OP church succession was planted by Chalfant, fanned into a forest fire by Dr. Arnold, and refined and spread to other forests by Dr.Ward. Others have jumped onto the bandwagon but besides the three abovementioned individuals I haven't been able to find any other major voices of the movement. It seems to have become somewhat widespread within the last few decades but I am sure that secular sources would be quite sparse. It is my opinion that the only credible sources would be the voices of those who are promoting the belief and representives of the movement itself.Rachida10z (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have discovered that Dr. Arnold was founder of an OP organization that believes exclusively in OP church successionism. There are also many successionists within another OP organization called the Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand it is the third largest OP organization? A certain Dr. Joe Nelson is President of the organization's main Bible College and Dr. Nelson teaches and believes in OP successionism as does most of the alumni and students of the college. A now defunct college, presided over by a Dr. Kiner, also in the ALJC, also has alumni students promoting OP susccessionism. Dr. Ward was co-founder of a Bible college that teaches this also. I am told many within the United Pentecostal Church International, influenced by Dr. Arnolds writings, also holds to this position. One source told me it is especially rampant among independent OP's. The previous little slur about using only secular sources had stirred me to look into this further. I will let you know what I uncover. Rachida10z (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So is this a minority opinion/an unimportant belief, or is it a majority opinion/major belief? In other words, in your assessment, does this topic deserve as much attention as it is getting in this current version of the article? Ltwin (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a majority opinion within certain OP circles. It is certainly the majority opinion in at least two OP church organizations and possibly among the independants. It is the OP movement itself that I refer to as being a minority sect (compared to the rest of Protestant movement as a whole). I think OP church successionism is widespread enough to deserve attention in the article. I think it is a force that is rapidly growing but it is growing without direction or ecclesiastical control. Rachida10z (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. I just wanted to understand if this was an actual notable part of OP. So how would you recommend the section be improved? Ltwin (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This section seems to deal predominantly with the doctrinal history of the post New Testament church. The initial comments about restorationism and church successionism appears to be but a blip (seven sentences). Perhaps this section could be improved by simply giving it a different title.

The first paragraph could be left as is but there needs to be a statement bridging the first and second paragraphs together. The first paragraph briefly describes restorationist/church successionism and then proceeds describing the possible OP doctrinal stance of the post New Testament Church. There should be a bridging between the first and subsequent paragraphs.

What do you think? Rachida10z (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Minor Edit - text on Dr. David Bundy; he left Christian Thelogical Seminary in 2002 and and is now at Fuller Theological Seminary - http://www.fuller.edu/academics/faculty/david-bundy.aspx 71.155.149.70 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine Versus History and who is an Authority

We need two sections for OP one about the doctrine and another of how the doctrine was arrived at. Someone suggested who is David K. Benard. He is a UPC fellow that wrote a book called "The Oneness of God" that probably 50% of OP people read.

To leave out authors who are not published by Random House (etc), would leave out most of the worlds major Scientists, Doctors, and Religions. Although we could get lots of sports figures, and movie mogouls.

OP is a relatively small view of the world with about 10M people world wide (maybe 20) suscribing to the belief. Oneness of God is alarger group of people as their are many people who believe in Oneness who are not Pentecostal.

Likewise Baptism in the name of Jesus is still a bigger group of people, as it includes all oneness groups and other groups who Baptize in the Name of Jesus because it is the only documented way it was performed in the bible. For example it includes the Mormons.

I have a busy week or two, but am thinking of how we make a proper outline of the topics that should be covered, so we get a more complete description of OP, the Doctrine, and the History.

The Doctrine is bound to be a few thousand words as it is should either describe Oneness of God, or Pentecostalism or lead to articles that describe both.

DevonSprings (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale Re-editing

I am Dr. Reckart and have contributed to this Wiki entry almost from its beginning. It has always been my practice to present Oneness Pentecostalism without it becoming a UPC or PAW page. If the UPC and PAW Brethren feel they need to promote their organization this should not be the place. There are many, many more Oneness groups who have participated in the information on this page who did not seek control. I am not sure why or who has come here and done wholesale re-editing and deleted a lot of informational material. I know I have my enemies and they may not agree with me on my stand against modern apostasy within the Oneness ranks, but I have been very careful not to place any of my own disagreements here. My contributions have always been to give the world a view of Oneness Pentecostalism in its factual identity not as this or that group wants it to be. It is very clear that who ever is doing the re-editing does not know what they are doing and if this mess continues this whole page needs deleted. If any of you have a complaint against me, be polite and invite me to your church and I will gladly debate any issue you demand I answer. This is not the place to make cheap shots at me and not give your name. This page needs to be reverted back to one several months ago that has not been butchered. As for my writings, one has only to go to my study pages or enroll in my Bible College. I have lots more then just someone coming here and complaining and has not written a thing except the attacks on me.Acts0412 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Reckart. Its nice to meet you. I have heard so much about you from the this article and talk page. All edits can be traced by looking at article history. Most of the revisions have occurred in this last month. Through consensus we are trying to present a neutral and verifiable article. You are welcome to contribute and help us. We don't own this article and we welcome any help and knowledge that you have. However, you might want to review the policy on original research Wikipedia has, as you say you are Dr. Reckart. Happy conrtributing. Ltwin (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Reckark Ltwin and I have been working on this article to make a representive article of the facts of belief about OP. I have worked on the first 3 paragraphs, although I think someone added some UPCisms in there. I started on working on a total reorganization, and my hope is the resulting article will be of the quality of "Trinitarians" article.

Where the doctrine is clearly explained. However as I stated above {Oneness Pentecostals} {Believers in Oneness} {Believers in Jesus Name Baptism} are clearly three complete subsets of each other. I believe all OP people believe in Oneness, However many more people Baptize in the Name of Jesus, like the Church of Christ to name another group of people of 4 Million people or so.

When I found the article six weeks ago, it was Trinitarian POV trying to explain how Oneness people don't believe in 3 persons, but believe in one person. My first step was to point out Oneness people don't believe in Personages at all but manefestations, and that God can choose to appear as any person God chooses.

I have spent the last 15 years in a trinitarian church, and never once has any three people been able to explain the doctrine to me. I definitly call my self a Trinitarian person. I believe in three manefestations of God, Father Son and Holy Ghost, and his one Name Jesus. DevonSprings (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh GREAT! Now we have em crawling out of the woodwork! So "Dr." Reck-art, did you go to Yale or Harvard? Agciorg (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

By american law at least any religious organization may set up its own body to a credit its own people in Doctorates by their own standards. I know UPC at least to be a B. Div. you have to go to college for 3 years. DevonSprings (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, this whole article needs eliminated......

Look, this whole article needs eliminated. Oneness Pentecostalism is a heretical cult so small that it doesn't even deserve it's own article. It sprung out of nowhere around 1914 in an insignificant campmeeting when a an uneducated hillbilly went running through the camp screaming about some dream he had about the godhead, Before that no one ever heard of OP. They never heard of it because it didn't exist. It barely exists even today. OP is nothing more than a group of uneducated fanatics spreading ridiculous teachings about women not wearing pants, make up, or jewelery, and men not wearing beards (as did Christ and all the other biblical semites). Close this dead horse down. Agciorg (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agciorg, I'm not Oneness Pentecostal and I could care less about them; however, they are not insignificant. They have many followers and they are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. I don't believe that OP goes all the way back to the New Testament. The article doesn't say it happened. It says that many OPs believe that. We are talking about what they believe. This is the point of the article. Ltwin (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

According to OP everyone who died before 1914 all went to hell. According to OP everyone that doesn't live in the south or in some hillbilly mountains where a few OP churches meet, can't be saved. The majority of the world has never even heard of OP. Are they all going to hell? If this is such an important truth why aren't the OP's doing what the Salvation Army and other churches who reach out to the needy are doing? Try visiting an OP church. You won't feel welcome. They make you feel like an alien from outer space when in reality it is themselves who are alien. Teen agers look like old grandma's with baggy dresses on and strangly hair made up in 1950 hair do's. Men look like robots in suits. How can you win converts when you look like weirdo's. This isn't holiness, it is stupidity. Your Jesus Only doctrine is a heresy. All those before you went to hell ? When you get there yourselves , explain to them why you didn't reach them sooner. Agciorg (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that is taking the narrowist view of the narrowist view of the narrowist look at what some of the groups say, but certainly not the mainstream. Most OP are restorationists.

However I believe calling a "Jesus Only" doctrin a heresy, is a position that no bible scholar should take until they understand what that doctrine encompasses. First it isn't "Jesus Only", it is "Jesus Everything." Most Trinitarian people believe they understand the doctrine, and I have yet to meet one who really did. Once I explain it too Trinitarians, that the fundamental difference is OP believe in Manefestations of God which is referenced in the Bible, and Trinitarians believe in Personage of God which by their own admission was formed at the council of Nicea, they go "Oh I thought it was...." I personally am over trying to explain it to them. I am sure it is blessing to understand that the proper name of the Creator is Jesus, I am not sure it is a salvation issue to understand the Godhead. My personal Opinion and is not meant to represent a OP view.

But see Ltwin's note alone, and if you can't take a neutral POV then please take NO POV. DevonSprings (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone, including Agciorg, please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Especially note the beginning statement: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ALL Protestant churches can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church can be traced back to the Nicene and subsequent councils. Most of todays other church organizations can honestly trace it's beginnings within the last 100 or 200 years. But GOD can be traced back to the very beginning. I don't pretend to know how he spoke or who he spoke through to each generation but I fully believe he did. He didn't need the Methodist organization, the Presbyterian organization, the Roman Catholic organization, the Assemblies of God organization, the OP organization, nor any other organization to do it. The body is not an organization but it is an organism. God is a Spirit and speaks to whom and through whom he chooses in every generation. And I don't need Random House Publishing nor Simon and Schuster to prove it to me. Rachida10z (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ltwin. Trinitarians can disagree with Oneness and we can debate, but bigotry such as Agciorg shows is why Oneness Pentecostals need their own page. Maybe Agciorg can tell us his real name, when his group was started, and so forth and put up a page. When I contributed to this page nearly 50% or more of it, it was netural. Then came UPC and PAW editors and each trying to make it their organizational offical organ. This was to be a public page to give the Oneness Pentecostal history as well as provide the names of individuals who were instrumental in the development and spread. Most of this has now been gutted out because this or that person didn't like the names of those who were significant players. One man came here to promote himself and deleted out all those whom he did not like. I have been associated with the Oneness ranks since 1949. I think I have a clear and unbiased view in spite of my stand against the great liberalism I see now in the ranks. I have refused to bring that fight here, but seems like my enemies use that to delete and edit and butcher this WIKI entry. What this will turn into only God knows. Already the editors cannot document anything properly. Then we have to deal with trinitarian hate-mongers. Maybe there will arise some fresh unbiased editors who can stand guard like I have for the past many months. I will no longer participate in a project that is going to be gutted every full moon and where I become a target of antisemitism as well as hate because I beleive it is no sin for a black to marry a white.Acts0412 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, this whole Talk Page is about improving the article

Let us keep the subject of this talk page on how to IMPROVE this article. It is ABOUT the OP church and not about whether they are right or wrong. Please keep all mental disturbences and expressions of PTSD within the office of your counselor. Now let us continue to amicably improve this fine article.Rachida10z (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Acts0412, let me tell you how I got involved in the article. It was through my working on the Pentecostalism article. I don't know how the article looked when you left, but the first article I read had many problems. The main one was that it was disorganized and cluttered. The second problem was that the OP belief about the godhead was not understandable to the average reader. It really confused me so I set out to try my best with my limited knowledge to first get the article to a readable, organized state, then go on to try to tackle the belief. Later I was joined by two other editors Connor1551 and Devonsprings. There knowledge of OP has been very helpful to this article IMHOP. As I am a trinitarian pentecostal they know way more about the movement then I do. This brings us to where we are now. The suggestions of Agciorg have been overruled by consensus:

1. Agciorg has proposed that only secular authors be cited in this article. I believe consensus is against this.
2. He/she has suggested this article be deleted. I think its clear on both points consensus is against this.

Ltwin (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ltwin, I agree with the consensus against it. Rachida10z (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned the one section up a bit and added missing references. i also changed the title of the section since the previous one seemed inappropriate for the content. It now seems to be more simple, direct, and makes more sense. Let me know what you think. Rachida10z (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave my opinion in the edit summary when I changed it. From a non OP view it seem to be asserting OP is the ancient doctrine. IMHOP Ltwin (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ltwin. A great move. The article is starting to look MUCH better. Bravo. Rachida10z (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rachido, Ltwin, DevonSprings, you have done a great job cleaning up the Restorationist/church succession section. I have been away for awhile and when I came back to this article I was very well pleased. it looks great! Job well done. Perhaps now we need to focus on the following section titled Development. it is unclear what this title means. It seems this section should follow with a more coherent modern church history of OP as opposed to the early ancient history addressed in the previous section. Connor1551 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Development section and Pentecostal Assemblies of the World section needs closer attention

Connor has suggested the history in the Development section needs redone and I agree. Any suggestions? Rachida10z (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The section Pentecostal Assemblies of the World is spotted with so many Citations Needed that the whole section looks leprous. The information needed is easily available. It seems the section is simply lacking from neglect. I am limited in time I can commit to this. Surely someone can assist in taking time to add the proper citations needed. As I said it is easily accessible. Rachida10z (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine) and Oneness vs Trinity articles need attention

Will everyone who contributes and observes this page please take time to read and assess two related articles, Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine) and Oneness vs Trinity, Both of these have major issues which need to be resolved. Ltwin (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should talk about what Oneness People Reject.

"It rejects all concepts of Trinity, polytheism, or other doctrines which are seen as representing multiple and separate Gods. As such it rejects three separate persons in the Godhead. All concepts of Jesus Christ are explained as either the Father or the Son, the divine Spirit or the man Christ in two different modes. Jesus is taught as being fully God and fully human, and as to his humanity, Christ is believed to be the only begotten Son of God. They reject Jesus being seen as only one of three Gods. They believe Jesus as the Son is the only present high priest and at the same time God.

Some confuse the terms Unitarian and Oneness; however, Oneness Pentecostals deny charges of believing in Unitarianism or that they believe Jesus was only human. Although Unitarians and Oneness are similar in the belief that there is not a plurality of persons in the Godhead, Unitarians believe that Jesus was only a moral authority whereas the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ are essential to Oneness doctrine. For a contrast and comparison of the Oneness and Trinity doctrines, see Oneness vs Trinity."

In this section, it says Oneness people Reject all concepts of Trinity. Which as I have tried to explain is simply not true. Oneness people believe "God Manefest himself in Flesh" to continually describe oneness in Rejecting the Trinity is like continually describing Naturalopathy as though it rejects Pharmicuticals.

Oneness people don't reject the "Trinity" they just don't believe God should be represented by Persons. Have you ever seen this Picture. .

Goodness gracious look at that for a few minutes, and then think about describing Oneness movement in relation to that. In the oneness movement there would be three rings like Olympian Rings, and inside the rings there would be titles of God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Comforter, or More, and around the outside would be a ring entitled God.

It would also be like going to the Trinity article and by the second or so Paragraph, say the Trinitarians Reject all Oneness beliefs that God is eternal, and has manefestations, even though 1 Tim 3:16 clearly states it this way.

Then comparing Unitarians and Oneness that should be an after note.

Unitarians are sometimes confused with Oneness Pentecostals, but differ significatly as Unitarians do not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ.

DevonSprings (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

They differ, however, in explanation as to how God is both one and yet three.

Ok, so I did another rewrite, but let me be clear to my Trinitarian friends that want to correct this again. While Oneness people don't deny the existance as our Father in Heaven, Oneness people believe his Name is Jesus.

Oneness People don't belive in "Yet Three"

Oneness people see the Burning Bush, and the Holy Spirit, and the Thundering Cloud, and the Shakaina Glory of God, all as the Same Thing, manefestations of One God.

They don't believe there are just 3 manefestations, and they certainly are not trying to explain the God head in three terms. They belive the "Trinity" is an invention of man, and instead of describing "Rejecting Trinity" as a modus operandii would say they believe in "One God"

DevonSprings (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this description as long as by saying OPs believe in one God you don't say or imply that trins believe in three gods.Ltwin (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was spending particular care not trying to describe what Trinitarian's believe, and in that describe it in the briefest of terms the differences. I am hoping that we can develope the Oneness of God just not to be the doctrine of the UPCI, but more the neutral belief. The problem is most of the doctrine is written in One book "The Oneness of God"

And when people want to dig deeper into Trinity Vs Oneness we will have a relatively neutral document. I thought it might be nice to do a checkbox chart and go down the checkmarks and select the things that are in common first before pointing out the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)