Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism

This article is very useful in its current form. I'm not saying it can't be better, but I was glad to be directed here from patripassionismWitnessforpeace (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrections

I provided a more direct link concerning Tim Blixseth. As for as I know he is still alive, with an article (WP:BLP) on Wikipedia, so the criteria is more stringent. While it is evident that the entry concerning abandoning his faith is probably correct, the reference does not state this (I did not see it), so it shouldn't be worded as such. I reworded the entry, along with corrections, to be more accurate according to the reference. On another note I am looking to see how this information is relevant and/or needed in this article. His parents went to a specific church but I have not seen where he espoused those beliefs in the first place let alone abandoned them. I think that if this information is actually important it should be in the article on him. Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Tritheism?

The use of the word tritheism to describe Trinitarianism is not NPOV, as it reflects only the opinion of some. Nontrinitarian is an accurate term, and is NPOV. While it is not unique to Oneness, and thus isn't fully explanatory, it doesn't need to be. The rest of the article explains the doctrine. BroWCarey (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

Where is the reasons for disputing the neutrality of the article? Keep in mind that the view of other Christian denominations or other religions can be used for contrast, but can not themselves be deemed to be more objective than the views of Oneness Pentecostalism believers and should not be used as a reason to dispute the neutrality of the article. Unless reasons for the dispute are given soon, I will remove the dispute marker, say in about a week. Nutster (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No reasons have been given, so I will remove the marker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutster (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a dispute? :) Someone put up the NPOV tag and it was taken down. The article is quite informative but does not report very much criticism of the Oneness view. The lack of NPOV, if at all, is in the need to balance the beliefs of the group with a report of those against such beliefs. This can be done by reporting contrary views. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason given in the edit summary was "Added a npov tag. The Church has rejected non-Trinitarians as non-Christians for centuries, so it doesn't seem neutral to grant that point. I've edited the summary to begin addressing this issue, but I think more work needs to be done." I don't know if this helps?20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. I am not sure what point the quote is making. Can you explain further? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This quote is from one of my edit summaries. My edit changed the article introduction to refer to Oneness Pentecostalism as a group which describes itself as Christian (not necessarily a group which actually is Christian). The vast majority of those who call themselves Christian have rejected non-Trinitarian theology as heretical for centuries. Therefore, it hardly seems neutral for this article to call non-Trinitarians Christians in the face of such history and consensus.James2c19v (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. While scholars agree that they are non-trinitarian, I don't think any scholar will say that a movement that believes that Jesus Christ is God in his fullness cannot be Christian. That is illogical. Ltwin (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Lwtin, could you please clarify your position? I still don't know why Wikipedia should side with Oneness Pentecostals against the Church. Let me give an example. If a freedom-loving group of people in Russia started calling themselves Americans, that would not make them Americans, and it would not make sense for a Wikipedia article to refer to them as Americans. The term American has a definite meaning, and if a person is not a citizen of the United States of America, Wikipedia shouldn't use the term American to refer to that person. Similarly, the term Christian has a definite meaning, and it does not apply to everyone who might want to use the term to describe themselves (like the hypothetical freedom-loving Russians who want to call themselves Americans).James2c19v (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

James2c19v, this is where NPOV comes in. Wikipedia is not "siding" with anyone. And against "the Church?" Which church? Do you really want to open that can of worms? The Roman Catholic Church believes that any organization that does not have apostolic succession is not really a church. Can Wikipedia take that stand? Of course not. That's RCC doctrine. Wikipedia can report it, but not take a position on it. Oneness Pentecostals have always considered themselves Christian, whether we are talking the modern variety or ancient Oneness believers like Bishop Sabellius, middle ages believers like Michael Servetus, etc. Can Wikipedia take a stand on it? Of course not. The definition of Christian is not hard and fast like the definition of American. There is argument even among Christians as to who is a "true" Christian, and who is not. It is not the function of Wikipedia to sort that out. If a group considers themselves Christian, then that should be sufficient to describe them as such. That's what neutrality is about. It means we don't get into the messy business of deciding whether or not any particular group is what they believe themselves to be.BroWCarey (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BroWCarey. Wikipedia can certainly note that the majority of Christians would not consider OP's real Christians. What Wikipedia cannot do is define a movement as non-Christian when the movement defines itself as being centered around the deity of Jesus Christ. We cannot pick and choose who is Christian. We cannot give the opinions of Trinitarian Christians (no matter if they are the majority) greater weight than non-Trinitarian Christians, especially when it comes to defining what is and what is not Christianity. Ltwin (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand where you guys are coming from. To me, the most neutral position would be to suspend judgment on whether or not this group is Christian. That is, the article should neither say that the group is Christian, nor should it say that they aren't Christian. By refusing to take either side of a contested matter, the article can remain neutral.James2c19v (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

James2c19v, The "Christianity" of any denomination could be contested. That of Oneness Pentecostals is not contested by everyone, not even by Trinitarian Pentecostal groups. (Assembly of God has issued a statement to that effect.) If any group is described as Christian on Wikipedia, then every group that considers itself Christian must also be described that way. To do anything less is indeed taking sides.BroWCarey (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

BroWCarey, I hear you, and honestly, I would prefer that we describe every Christian group this way ("describe themselves as Christian"). It seems we're working with competing definitions of the word Christian right now. The first is that of (what I consider) the Church, which represents a much broader consensus than I suspect you realize. Trinitarianism is a prerequisite. The second is that of Oneness Pentecostals, which I frankly am not that familiar with. I don't know if they consider "tritheists" to be Christian, but I would guess not by their use of that term. The third is that which has been proposed by Ltwin, that is, any group which considers Jesus to be God (whatever that means exactly). The fourth, which seems closer to the operating assumption, is any group that calls itself Christian. In the strictest sense of neutrality, we're not being neutral if we choose any of these four options for this article. It would be more neutral to enumerate all these definitions and explain where Oneness Pentecostalism falls according to each definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James2c19v (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my definition of who is Christian or not is based on WP:reliable sources and WP:No original research. Oneness Pentecostals consider themselves Apostolic Christians. Others in the Christian world do not. Some Christians will use your Trinitarian criteria to say that the Oneness doctrine rules the OPs out. Others might say that OPs are Christian, but heterodox ones. Besides self declared Christian sources, however, we can also resort to non-Christian sources. Are Oneness Pentecostals generally categorized as a Christian group in scholarly and academic sources? Based on my experience they are usually categorized as Christian for the simple fact that they have all the marks of being Christian. They believe they are following the teachings of Jesus. They use the Christian scriptures. They have a concept of the Church and the body of Christ. They have baptism. They have the Lord's Supper. Etc. Etc. Neither scholars nor Wikipedia have to make judgment calls on which Christian group's theological definition of Christian is the correct or most important. Scholars simply note what they call themselves, how they understand themselves, and observe what they do. They also note how other groups percieve them. That is all we need to do. Simply put, we state that they are a Christian group while acknowledging that they hold a minority position within the Christian world and that most/many Christians do not consider them Christians. We don't have to make this difficult. Ltwin (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:No original research: From the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd Ed. Revised, p. 1108, entry on Monarchianism, “[Monarchianism] became heretical, as it failed to do justice to the independent subsistence of the Son. There were two distinct groups of Monarchian theologians…(2) The ‘Modalist’ Monarchians or Sabellians, of whom the most notable were Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius.” Dr. David Bernard is quoted as accepting the label “modalistic monarchianism” in the section “Accusations of Modalism and Arianism.” A highly reputable, neutral source like (the Oxford Dictionary) says modalistic monarchianism is heretical. Does that fit the criteria, Ltwin? Mijo323az (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. First, I agree with everything Nutster has said below. Also, while the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is indeed a good source, all you've managed to show with the article you cite (since I haven't read the article I'm going by your summary of it) is that modalistic monarchianism was deemed by a majority of Christians at a particular point in time to be heretical. OK. The Catholic Church considered the Protestant Reformers to be heretical as well. So what? If Oneness Pentecostals are indeed modern day modalistic monarchianism, then that just means that they are being classified as a heretical form of Christianity. Also note, you haven't even shown me anywhere where the Oxford Dictionary says "Modalistic Monarchians claimed to be Christians, but it is a known fact that they are not." It is a big leap to assume that because a reliable source describes the historical fact that Sabellians were deemed heretical that reliable source is saying that something is completely outside the Christian religion. If we are going to definitively say that Oneness Pentecostalism is "not Christian" we need a reliable neutral source that explicitly says "Oneness Pentecostalism is not Christian." Ltwin (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that book was written from an Anglican Church point of view. While reputable, it is not neutral. Nutster (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated at the beginning of this section, the views of other organizations that identify themselves as Christian can be used for contrast, but that those views can not be used to dispute the neutrality of the article. Any religious group that self-identifies as Christian should be recognized here as Christian, even if their views and doctrine do match your own, or those of any other given religious organization. A section in the article that summarizes the contrasts of the views, beliefs and doctrines of Oneness Pentecostals and other Christian denominations could be the place to make this kind of observation. Mind you, many of those differences are noted throughout the article. Nutster (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ltwin, let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that, per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy (I'm thinking particularly about the third-party criterion), we need to consult non-Christian scholarly sources to determine whether a group is Christian for the purposes of this article?James2c19v (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I would suspect we'd need to consult a variety of sources, both secular and religious, for a claim like that. But my primary disagreement with the Oxford source is not the nature of the source (that it has denominational connections) but that it doesn't say what some people want it to say. It does not say that Sabellians (then or now) were not Christian. It only states that they were determined to be heretical (which necessarily means they are a deviant form of Christianity) by the mainstream church of the time. As others have pointed out, views similar to modalism were propagated before the Trinity was defined as dogma by the ecumenical councils. So at one time, modalism was not a heresy. After some Christian bishops met, they decided it was. In many cases, those who won these doctrinal debates won because they had the civil powers backing them. Using heretical status to determine what is and what is not in the bounds of Christianity is fine for specific Christian churches to utilize, but it doesn't work for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Oneness Pentecostals by any criteria fit within the category of Christianity broadly defined. Ltwin (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In his book Ancient Champions of Oneness (Word Aflame Press, 1986), William B. Chalfant examines the extant writings of the earliest Bishops of Rome, showing that at least the first 17 were modalists. From this, we could deduce that it isn't the Oneness Pentecostals who are heretics, but Trinitarians. So we could say of the RCC and other Trinitarian churches that they "consider themselves Christian..." But isn't it enough that they do consider themselves Christian to say that they are? I say yes. As has been stated, Wikipedia cannot be in the business of deciding whose doctrines are correct, which churches are "true" Christian, etc. It goes without saying that every church considers itself to be true Christian. Wikipedia can't take sides, even with the majority. So we either say they are all Christian, or that all "consider themselves" to be Christian.BroWCarey (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

BroWCarey, It would be more neutral to use "consider themselves" Christian on all Christian group pages. Either that or we should note that we are using the term Christian only to indicate as much. The term Christian is not neutral, because Christians use it as a synonym for orthodox and an antonym for heretical. Wikipedia should probably not be implying that any particular group objectively is orthodox or heretical.James2c19v (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

James2c19v, that's my point. Either we call every group Christian if they self-identify that way, or we have to say that every denomination "identifies itself as Christian." But that would entail editing every article on every denomination, as well as articles on Christian denominations in general. I doubt anyone wants to undertake such a task. Therefore, the only thing we can do to keep NPOV is identify a denomination as Christian if they identify themselves that way. Unless, of course, you are volunteering to edit all the articles! ;) You are correct that Christians use the word to mean orthodox, etc. But all Christians use the word that way, including Oneness Pentecostals. For every denomination represented by an article, there will be some who deny they are Christian. BroWCarey (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. I would prefer to edit everything to say "describes itself as Christian." I think that every denomination should have a section that explains the debate surrounding each group's orthodoxy as well. I hereby volunteer, and I would like to start with this page, if Ltwin doesn't have any objections.James2c19v (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not something you should decide unilaterally. You would need to propose that someplace like the WP:WikiProject Christianity first and see what people think. If you edited the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church or the Episcopal Church or whatever church's page to say that they "consider themselves Christian" you are going to have a lot of angry people and a lot of reverts. So, lets not start here. You should start over at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard. That's my advice. Ltwin (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a can of worms to me. But that's just me. I look forward to seeing your edits for the various denominations.!BroWCarey (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to fair, then you should also edit all the various Muslim denominations to state that they consider themselves Muslim, and so on with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. This is really too much of a headache. Leave it up to each group to self-identify as to what kind of religious organization that they are. Nutster (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. to make those edits. But let me ask you: are you really prepared to let self-identification be the ultimate criterion though? Christians sometimes claim to be the true Israelites and that their Christian denomination is the purest form of Judaism. Would you be willing to edit the Judaism page to include these Christian groups?

On a separate note, I would say that I'm willing to recognize that there are different definitions of these religious terms. If history and self-identification are the criteria we're going with, I just think that we should be transparent and objective enough to state that somewhere. Perhaps we could just have something on the Christianity page that says something like "there are many groups that self-identify as Christian and trace their origins to the first followers of Jesus." I don't think that would anger anybody, but people would understand the sense in which we're calling everyone Christian.James2c19v (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you except that the majority of commentors think that allowing the Trinity or the opinions of competing Christian groups to be the guidepost for what is and what is not Christian on Wikipedia is a bad precedent. There are genuine cases of ambiguity (such as Messianic Jews), but this case is not one of those. They worship Jesus Christ of Nazareth as a god. They hold the Bible as their sacred text. Their historical development is well documented, and it is part of the history of Pentecostalism (a Christian movement). They practice communion and baptism. Besides their belief in Oneness, Jesus Name baptism, and the necessity of water and Spirit baptism for salvation they do not differ from Trinitarian Pentecostals. Anyone looking at them without reference to the finer points of theology will see a Christian group. Ltwin (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ltwin, I understand what you're saying, but the points I made above were really specifically addressed at what Nuster had said, and they weren't merely a rhetorical argument to allow me to change this article to stick "self-identify" in here somewhere. I genuinely would like us to articulate the definition of Christian we are using, and then state that definition somewhere (either in this article, or preferably in the Christianity article). It's the most objective and transparent (and I would argue, neutral) thing to do.

If you want to go with "worship Jesus—use the Bible–have sacraments" as the definition of Christian, let's put that somewhere instead of giving readers the impression that there is only one, objective definition of the word and that all others are somehow less valid.James2c19v (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Christianity article already gives us a definition, this:

Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos[1] and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion[2] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.[3] It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[4]

That seems pretty straightforward to me. Ltwin (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the bit you quoted is straightforward, but it doesn't strike me as a definition in the sense we're discussing. This bit categorizes Christianity as a certain type of religion (monotheistic/Abrahamic) and it says that it is based on the teachings of the OT and NT. But it never comes out and says "Mr. Y has proposed X definition of Christianity, and all the groups on this page fit Y's criteria of X." That is, it doesn't define Christianity as a common set of beliefs held by all Christians, as a historical group of people marked by certain historical events, etc. The above definition just doesn't give enough; in fact, it is basically true of Islam.

Please respond to the points I've raised, but would you agree that at this point our conversation should be moved over to the Talk:Christianity page? James2c19v (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oneness or Jesus Name church's.

What about our/my organization which is nation wide and formed in the early 1900's. AOH (Apostolic Overcoming Holy church of God) headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.183.189 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What about it? Nutster (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Blixseth

per WP:BLP I have removed the entry for Tim Blixseth as a notable member of the church. The source cited makes no such claim in fact the source quotes Blixseth as saying he has no religion and the source does not link his parent's cult to Oneness.

• Source: Tim Blixseth was raised in the Jesus Name Oneness church in Roseburg, Oregon, where his father was a minister........................... "There's one member in my religion, that's me,"......... "Based on what I went through as a kid, I don't belong to any organized religion. I'm spiritual, but I don't belong to a group.".