Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussions of 31 January through 16 March 2009. Note: discussions may be refactored.

Using established titles in non-biographical references

Those not familiar with the OP community and it's culture of recognizing and honoring it's leaders with prefixes such as "Elder," "Bishop," "Doctor," etc. seem to have difficulty with inclusion of "Bishop" or "Dr'" and have repeatedly removed them.

Academic prefixes of certain personalities in the OP movement seems to be more than just an academic or professional title—it has become their name, one by which they are widely known. It has become as honorific as the "Pope" in Pope John Paul. For example "Dr. Marvin Arnold" is a name well known in OP circles, and outside of biographical articles, he is always referred to as such. The same applies to "Bishop" TD Jakes.

The guideline "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)," says in the opening statement :

" The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles. Adherence to the following guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended."

It seems reasonable that if "adherence to the following guidelines is not required" then obviously it would allow for inclusion in instances in which the personalities name and prefix are widely recognized by the OP community (when they are not being referenced biographically as per Wikipedic suggested guidelines). Rachida10z (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been repeatedly butchered by those with absolutely no understanding of Oneness culture or ideals. If we referred to the previous Pope as John Paul or referred to the present one as Benedict we would be ostracized. Who would immediately know doing a google search who Marvin Arnold was? But Dr. Marvin Arnold would immediately ring a bell because we know him by his complete name. Dr. Arnold has received enough slack from tritheists and should at least maintain some honor from his grave. Dr. Arnold is not being referenced in a biographical sense. He is simply being quoted for a doctrinal statement. If the Wiki guide says the specific guideline is not required then of course that means there are exceptions. THIS is a very reasonable exception. Connor1551 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not referring to a religous title though. Doctor is an academic title. Ltwin (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me did you say "tritheists"? I cannot believe this. This whole discussion has been filled with "people don't understand us" rhetoric, and then when referring to other groups language is used that clearly denotes a lack of understanding for other people's beliefs. Trinitarians are not "tritheists" no more than Oneness Pentecostals are Unitarians. Ltwin (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Tritheism from the Wikipedia itself:

"Tritheism is the belief that there are three distinct, powerful gods, who form a triad. Generally three gods are envisaged as having separate powers and separate supreme beings or spheres of influence but working together.

The Hindu Trinity of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer has also been said to constitute a Tritheistic belief system. Like the Christian Trinity, these beings are understood to work ultimately in harmony with one another, but this Hindu trinity does not have doctrinal status as in trinitarian Christianity."

Sure is a good definition of the Trinity—except they wiggle their way out of it by saying it "does not have doctrinal status as in trinitarian Christianity." I see, give it a doctrinal status and everything is OK. That doctrinal status was given by the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD and the following councils. Just as they redefined tritheism, they also redefined idolatry. They renamed it from "idolatry" to "veneration," Evidently this idolatry "does not have doctrinal status as in" the venerating Christianity.

A rose, is a rose, is a rose, by any other name is still a rose.

Trinitarians say that (1) The Father is a person (2) the Son is a person (3) the Holy Ghost is a person. Any way you count it it adds up to three persons. Trinitarians further claim that (1) the Father is God (2) The Son is God (3) the Holy Ghost is God. AGAIN no matter how you count it , it adds up to three. BUT Trinitarians wiggle around the issue by saying that they are one God like a husband and wife are one.

In the Hindu Trinity (1) Brahma is God (2) Vishnu is God (3) Shiva is God. These beings are understood to be one in nature and substance and they work ultimately in harmony with one another, therefore they are one God.

Yes Virginia, Trinitarians are Tritheists. Connor1551 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? It says in the first paragraph, "Tritheism is the belief that there are three distinct, powerful gods, who form a triad. Generally three gods are envisaged as having separate powers and separate supreme beings or spheres of influence but working together." No Christians, of any type that I know of, believe that there are 3 distinct gods having "separate powers or spheres of influence." Your comparing the Hindu Trinity, which is what Western scholars called it as this is not what the Hindus call it themselves, is flawed. When the article says the Hindu Trinity "does not have doctrinal status" what its talking about is the fact that the idea of Trinity is foriegn to Hindu religous thought. Most Hindus don't believe in a Hindu Trinity. The fact that any one talks about it is that Western scholars saw a parallel with the Christian tradition and of course, being Westerners, they looked at the religion from their "Western/Christian" pov. "Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.[13]" Qoute from the Hindu Trinity article.

Trinitarians do not believe in three separate gods. They believe in One God, Yahweh. Yahweh is one God, and yet there are three individuals united, three in one, a trinity. These individuals are identified in the Bible as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." In the beginning there was Jesus and He was with God and he was God. The Father is God but he is not the Son nor the Spirit. Likewise the Son is God but he is not the Father nor the Spirit. Likewise the Holy Spirit. I think it was St. Patrick who needed a way to explain the Trinity to the pagans in Ireland. He used the Shamrock as it is one plant with three leaves.

This is this articles problem. Sometimes we get so busy digging our trenches that we don't realize there isn't even a battle going on. Non-OP editors are not trying to sabotage this article. The fact is we can all work together. OP's can bring their intimate understanding while non-OPs can bring an outsider's, non vested view point to the artical. We can all work together and we should, but arguing over "our side really understands who God is" isn't making this article better. The fact is I don't think any religion, including Christianity which I'm apart, really can understand even a part of who God is because if we did understand him, know him even a little bit, we wouldn't be fighting over things that Jesus never even said anything about. Lets work together. Ltwin (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oneness article or One mess of an article?

May I ask why we are allowing those with absolutely no knowledge of Oneness to shred this article? It is insane. Read through this mess and tell me if any established Oneness Pentecostal would recognise his movement here? Connor1551 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is not that bad. It needs some cleaning up, but then again so do most of the articles on Wikipedia. That's just some of the things one must endure for the freedom of being able to contribute to an online community.Rachida10z (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Connor, Wikipedia is freely editable by anyone. I am a Oneness Pentecostal myself, and I can answer your question - No, I can not identify to the article. There are additions that are "specific" to a "particular Oneness church" that doesn't apply to the overall fundamental "Oneness" belief. Personally, it should only reflect the belief, without any specific church teachings added. But, well... There are even so many citations needed marks, I can attest to others, I can re-edit others so it will be truer to the belief (or movement), but I'm sure someone will add citations needed again :p --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 09:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Article biased through Trinitarian lenses

Regardless as to whether we feel Trinitarians do not "understand us," as a previous slur by a Tritheist suggested, we DO know what we believe and we do not need Trinitarians attempting to define our doctrine, our history, or our culture. The greatest outcry would be if Oneness Pentecostals spent as much time editing the Trinity articles as the Trinitarians do editing the Oneness articles. They do not want this article to say what we believe,they want it to say what THEY believe we believe. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica uses editers familiar with their own cultures when producing an article. Connor1551 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I've said earlier, Wikipedia is freely editable by anyone. If there are people who wishes to misrepresent our belief in the Oneness Godhead, let them be. Leave the matter to God Himself, it is not for us to "end things". Now, I am not saying there are people who intentionally misrepresenting us. But the nature of Wikipedia itself allows free editing. Thank you Connor for your understanding ^_^ Your fellow Oneness Pentecostal believer in the Philippines --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article says that Oneness "like other Christians believe in One God." I beg to differ with that. We do NOT believe like the daughters of the Babylonian Mother. Connor1551 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Connor, please do not call our Trinitarian brothers and sisters as "daughters of the Babylonian Mother". Who are we to judge them? When they call us "cults", many of us get offended or angry at them, then we return "daughters of..." Let's stop it, shall we? If they want to call us "cults" so be it. Just say, God Bless You. Let us not judge one another here. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness I think the Trinitarian article should describe the Trinty doctrine in much the same way as the Oneness article describes Oneness. If the wording is changed in the Trinitarian article then the same changes should follow suit in the Oneness article. Connor1551 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Many Oneness people feel a sense of rejection from the larger community of Christians which are largely Trinitarian. Many even refer to Oneness people as a cult. This rejection fuels animosity in Oneness people which when expressed fuels more opposition. It becomes an endless cycle. Quietly make the changes you feel are honest and fair. Rachida10z (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Connor, that was not a slur. Please dont call me a tritheist. I'm a Christian. I follow Christ and the only way you can dispute that is if you know my heart. Since you don't you'll just have to take my word on that. That was not a slur. I was referring to the cylce that Rachida talked about. I agree. Connor, no one owns this article niether does anyone own the Trinity article. Wikipedia has a policy called WP:Bold. If you want to, BE BOLD and edit any article you want to-OP, Trinitarian, Hindu, whatever. There are no sacred cows in Wikipedia. :) Ltwin (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ltwin, I ask you to forgive me for my rude, insensitive behavior. Although it's no excuse I just experienced a very rough trial of faith. I never even really stopped to see who was writing. I just realized you are the individual I wrote to not long ago. Thnks for understanding. Connor1551 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Trials are necessary parts of the faith walk. Makes it stronger. Ltwin (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK the article has problems, lets rework it section by section.

The lead

Is anyone happy/dissatisfied with the current status of the lead? If everyone is fine with the current version we can move on to the Doctrine and theology section. Ltwin (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is the first paragraph I find most troubling. It begins by saying that OP like most Christians believe in one God. While this may make sense to you, it may be offensive to OP believers. It would be like you saying that a "Trinatarian Pentecostal like the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in one God." OP believes to have a greater revelation of the Godhead, one unlike the rest of Christiandom. We do not believe the Godhead like the rest of Christiandom, which most of us believe is following the error of the Roman Cathoilic Church (which most believe is the great mother harlot). However this very same verse placed somewhere else in the article would have a whole different connotation. Being the lead of the article it is amplified. I would suggest it be removed to another place in the article. Also the article barges right in explaining our views on the Godhead. Contrary to popular belief this is NOT our major doctrine. It only appears major because it is the only major dissimilarity that people debate with OP about. When we teach and preach our other doctrines no one takes notice. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember the last time the Godhead was ever even mentioned in my OP home church. Just my opinion. Thanks. Connor1551 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following lead which should satisfy all involved. It is descriptive, concise, and to the point:

"Oneness Pentecostalism is a movement of Pentecostal Christianity that believes in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, His resurrection,His soon return, and the literal Word of God as contained in the Holy Bible. Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that one should literally follow the scriptural injunctions found in John 3: 1-12 and Acts 2:38 by accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior, by the repentance of sins, being baptized in Jesus name, and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance. This is to be followed by holy living, showing love one to another, and exhibiting other fruits of the Spirit. (Gal. 5:22). The major doctrinal difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and mainstream Christendom is their teaching on the Godhead which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine. The doctrine teaches that God consists not of three separate personages, but of three separate manifestations of one God."

Rachida10z (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Connor, while I'd agree many people, not just OPs, believe the Catholic Church is the harlot, I'm of the belief personally that the harlot is present in all our churches. Just my opinion. Ltwin (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ltwin, I apologize. I glanced at your post and all I read was "I'm fine with this." Since your comment was posted directly under my previous post I thought you were answering ME. Therefore I took the liberty of changing the lead. Today I re-read your post and realized it was meant for Connor. Rachida10z (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't make myself too clear. The first was answering you and the second was for Connor, but I am fine with the lead. Ltwin (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving on now to the next section...

Doctrine and theology

God

The statement that OP are modalists is not entirely correct. Modalism, as understood by historians, teaches that God had three different modes he operated in during different despensations. From the Wiki definition : "According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times." This is NOT the OP doctrine. OP teaches that there were three SIMULTANEOUS manifestations of God (at the same time and in all despensations of time). Whenever one hears an OP claim the ancient modalists as the early OP, they are making that assumption based on Bernard's teaching that the ancient modalist doctrine was not accurately, nor even correctly, described in the writings of their adversaries. It is believed that the modalists were actually OP's and NOT "modalists" as the historical records described them. In other words, the modalists never really believed in modalism as described. Rachida10z (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The edits you are referring to were recently added by an anonymous editor. If these views are incorrect then we should probably just revert them. I'm doing that now, but if you disagree it can always be added back in. Ltwin (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this section is a bit repetitive in explaining the OP and Trinitarian version of the Godhead. What do you think? Rachida10z (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well first off, I think the whole Doctrine and theology sections need to be more comprehensive about what OP's believe. For the God section, we need a clear and concise statement of what their understanding of Oneness is backed up with sources. I have yet to see anything in the article that gives clear understandable and sourced definition. Ltwin (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rachida, are you the editor who made those last edits? Just wondering. Anyway I think we need to get some verifiable sources to back up this section. Also is the sentence on Unitarians really necessary? Ltwin (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added this tag: after some statements in the lead and God sections as those are what we are currently working on. IMHOP one of the problems is that we have a lot of information in this article, but there is not a lot of sourced material. If the information was sourced then we would certainly know what is true or not, but as it stands now I don't know what information to trust and what not to. If we could get the article sourced well and all the unsourced information out of it then I think we can really move forward. Just so everyone knows, I am not attacking the beliefs. I just want to the readers of Wikipedia to have a source they can look to and know that Oneness Pentecostals actually believe this. Right now the casual reader can't tell what is the verifiable facts from what has just been thrown in here. Ltwin (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am certain I have all of the needed the sources. I just have to go dig them out of my mountain of books...sigh.Rachida10z (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling, just take your time. The article isn't going anywhere. Ltwin (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Practices section

While the Theology sections are being worked on and sources are being gathered, who thinks we need a Practices section? I prototype I offer as an example is this paragraph I pulled out of the article history:

In common with other Pentecostals, Oneness Pentecostals are known for their charismatic style of worship. Oneness Pentecostals believe that spiritual gifts found in the New Testament are still present and active in the church. Services are often spontaneous, punctuated at times with acts of speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophetical messages, and the laying on of hands for the purposes of healing. Pentecostals are characterized by their practice of speaking in other tongues. A Pentecostal believer in an ecstatic religious experience may vocalize fluent unintelligible utterances (glossolalia) or articulate an an alleged natural language previously unknown to the speaker (xenoglossy). Ltwin (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful! I think it is a perfect addition.

I am involved in a research project that will be consuming most of my time for the next six weeks. Perhaps after that I can dig out the needed sources for this article. Rachida10z (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok sounds good, I'll add it to the article. Ltwin (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is no longer Wiki-like

The opening paragraph keeps going into detailed specifics that are not specific to OP people in anyway.

--> in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, his soon return, and the literal word of God as contained in the Bible. <---

This represents all of Christianty by each religions own definition. I think what the person who corrected this mean, is that OP believe in it Literally as true. Ask any Catholic, if they believe in the "Literal word of God" and if the person is a practicing catholic of course they do.

I would say this was written by in the exclusionist tone that they believe only OP are the only people that believe it.

The doctrine teaches that God consists not of three separate personages, but of three separate manifestations of one God

Again this as I have stated many many times is not the Oneness belief of Manifestations. Oneness people believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three of the Manifestations of God, but they also believe that many of the other appearances of God unto men are Manifestations of the Same God, for example the burning bush, God Appearing to Moses on the Mount of Olives, The cloud that lead Moses in the desert, and manifestestions yet to come. This is best expressed by the Revelation of Who Jesus Christ is in Revelation 1:8. I am the Alpha and Omega, the begininning and end, That which was, which is, and is yet to come. Jesus is Everything

The more accurate statement is That Oneness Pentecostals believe that God manifests himself to man in the way he chooses, not specifically as persons. God is not a person. God is God.

I think it is inconcievable to Trinitarian believing people that OP don't limit themself to thinking about, The Father Son and Holy Spirt.

Oneness believe God is both one and yet three simultaneous manifestations

I hope I didn't do this. It is wrong although I know I was trying to explain the Manefestations while Jesus was on Earth. First of all Oneness people don't believe in only 3 manefestations in anyway. Although why he was on earth the only correct statement answer is that Paul explains that how Jesus spoke to the Father is the "Mystery of God" that God Was Manifest in the Flesh.

Its like there is a big push on to explain that. How did God speak a 1.7 x 10 ^ 77 atoms into existence that we can guestimate in our visable universe. I don't know.

God is infintesimle, and we are small. God spoke us into existance. Wow!

When changes go on, resist describing OP from a Trinitarian point of view.

I think before we need to discuss what the result of the opening paragraph should be.

DevonSprings (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't comment on this as I don't know enough information to be able to make an informed judgement. I do agree that we shouldn't give the impression that only OP's literally believe in these beliefs, as most other conservative Christians believe many of these same things. I don't think that this was done intentionally though. I would like to here what other editors think about the lead? Ltwin (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead structure

I understand that the lead of a Wikipedia article is supposed to give a brief overview, capturing the essence of the topic, but (in general) avoiding detail. So how about a three paragraph structure something like:

Oneness Pentecostalism (also known as Apostolic Pentecostalism) is a movement of Pentecostal Christianity.

In common with mainstream Christendom it believes <insert short list here>.

Its major doctrinal difference(s) is/are <insert another short list>.

By the end of the brief lead, I (the enquiring reader) should have been given two ideas

1. for the details of shared beliefs I should look elsewhere (Christendom)
2. if I am already familiar with Christendom, the lead has now given me a foothold on the key difference.

It so happens that in real life I have lifelong familiarity with Anglicanism, including the Trinity doctrine. (Note "familiarity with", not "complete understanding of"!) Can someone produce a single sentence summary of the form "Whereas the doctrine of the Trinity says X, Oneness says Y". Such a sentence, kept brief, would be the basis, probably even the entire content, of that proposed third paragraph. How does that seem? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this. This sounds really good. I also think that any definition of the Oneness doctrine should be cited from a reliable Onenesss Pentecostal source, as I have yet to see a definition of OP's understanding of the Godhead that everyone here agrees on. Ltwin (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I too support this, this sounds really good as the opening paragraph. I believe with all good intention that many writers in the past have tried to prove the doctring of OP true in some obvious way in the first paragraph. Oneness as a doctrine, stated in a few sentences that anyone can understand, and then we need to make a really good kick at the can in describing "Oneness doctrine" on another page such that if a person reads through it, it is obvious what Oneness people believe. The goal of wikipedia is that it would be written as a Oneness person would write themselves.

The issue of the Oneness versus the Trinity page is that you get such strong views from both sides. People in the Oneness camp saying Trinitarians are not saved, and people in the Trinitarian camp calling Oneness a heresy. It will be very difficult to get through this kind of page, to deliver a result that both Trinitarians and Oneness people could say "this represents a work I could say, a Oneness person would say." DevonSprings (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oneness Source as far as I know other than the Doctrinal Statements of the Oneness Organizations the fundamental description is "The Oneness of God" by David Bernard. With Doctrinal statements come the excess of the rest of the "non-oneness doctrine" for example Holiness. UPCI the largest OP organization has a very strict legalistic holiness standard for its ministers and believers that has nothing to do with a belief in the Godhead.

A person can be a OP person with short hair, and wear sandles and jewelry to church. DevonSprings (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well when I say Oneness doctrine I'm referring to the specific teaching on the Godhead, as separate from the Holiness standards that aren't that unique given that other pentecostals and holiness Christians have similar beliefs. However, if a significant part of the OP movement could be classified as holiness then that should be noted too, but as a separate issue then the Oneness of God. Ltwin (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ltwin. It is part of Holiness and not the Oneness Godhead. Although I can attest that the description of Holiness Devon spoke above is tied-in too much to us Oneness believers, however, I do not agree that we "wear sandles and jewelry to church". In fact, it is the contrary, jewelry is not allowed. And sandals are not enforced (actually, this is the first time I heard that :p hehe). Again, I'd like to point out, the Oneness Pentecostalism article should concentrate on the General Oneness belief, without any bias towards any Oneness churches. In that regard, I can point out sentences that doesn't represent the Oneness belief as a whole, unbias, but I wouldn't be able to give a citation other than that it isn't being taught from the Oneness church I belong to. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 10:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is the article talking about "wear sandles and jewelry to church"? Ltwin (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does. We're getting distracted! Let's drop sandals and jewellery. We're talking about what the lead, and only the lead, should look like. And my guess is that it should highlight just one or two key points that distinguish Oneness from Trinitarianism. Leave till later the details of those points, and the introduction of points that may vary within various subgroupings of Oneness.

An earlier contributor (Devon Springs? indent unclear) had said "The goal of wikipedia is that it would be written as a Oneness person would write themselves." I suspect that WP policy might not agree (NPOV and all that). But I think I can see what the contributor is aiming at, and I think I agree in this particular instance.

Just for the moment, let's stick to trying to get a concise lead which (if we are agreed) aims towards the structure I outlined at the start of this subsection.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Ltwin (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the lead should plunge into a sudden description of what makes OP different from Trinitarian Pentecostals. This article is not about what makes OP different but it is about what OP is. For example the Roman Catholic Church article does not begin with "The Roman Catholic Church is different from the rest of Christendom inasmuch as it venerates mother Mary, prayers of veneration are offered up to the saints, the Eucharist literally transubstantiates into actual flesh and blood, etc." It simply begins describing what the Roman Catholic Church is, how large it is, and what it has accomplished. Later in the article the differences are then attended to in an inconspicuous way.

I was the one who changed the lead to begin the way that it does. The previous lead seemed to focus on OP's differences with the rest of Christianity making it seem like these differences were the hobby horse of every OP in existence. While some smaller OP churches may find it necessary to focus on these differences, the larger more established churches do not. Ordinarily what most people see as major differences are to them just as much a part of basic doctrine as is " the atoning death of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, his soon return, and the literal word of God as contained in the Bible."

My purpose was NOT to say that only OP followed the Bible literally, but that the basic foundation of most OP's were the atoning death, his resurrection, and the literal word of God. These basic beliefs must come before Acts 2:38, else Acts 2:38 would be without meaning.Rachida10z (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as "wearing jewelry to church" this is not an accepted doctrinal view by all OP's. Just as there are Roman Catholic Churches that believe in using latin rites and others that do not, there are OP's that believe in strict dress codes and others that do not. Rachida10z (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To me Feline Hymnics proposal does not overly focus on what Oneness are not. What do you think about this as an outline for a new lead, Rachida10z? Ltwin (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirm Ltwin's observation. It was not my intention to focus on a negative/not. My suggestion for the opening was a coupled pair of paragraphs:

• In common with mainstream Christendom it believes <insert short list here>.
• Its major doctrinal difference(s) is/are <insert another short list>.

with both to have a positive slant, and (especially in the lead) aimed towards informing the outsider (not insider) of the characteristic common features and characteristic distinctives. The "Christendom" (or whatever) link takes the complete outside to an overview of Christianity in general; these two paragraphs takes the next step: "to a first approximation they are the same because ... and different because ...". No negativity intended!

Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Salvation section

i don't know if anyone has started working on the salvation section yet, but i have a problem with the fact that it starts with (loosely quoted)"In theory, Oneness pentecostals believe in salvation by grace through faith". I don't think that sets the appropriate tone for the statement. I feel like it's saying that Oness Pentecostals believe that way in theory, but perhaps not in practice.

I'm a oneness pentecostal, and I beleive that salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus. I also believe that one must put their faith and trust in Jesus in order to be saved (per John 3:16-19). I believe that one must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and that one must recieve the baptisim of the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues (per acts 2:38 among other verses). Although I believe that salvation comes by grace through faith, I believe that the scriptures indicate that one should be baptized and filled with the Spirit. Jcsavestheday (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "In theory" but if you feel that there are inaccuracies then maybe you can add better information with reliable citations. As you can see, this section is not sourced at all. Some editors are attempting to find sources now, but improvements to the article have been slow. However, there have been many improvements. You should check the article history to see some real problems.Ltwin (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A Total Work Of Confusion

I have come to this page over the past years, contributed to it with historical information, even adding the necessary sources: but this article has been gutted by people who hate each other, one another, who are not Oneness; who show utter contempt unless their name, their organization, their claim to being first or non-racial, become center stage. A lot of what is written here reflects organizational Oneness and does not take into account the Independent Oneness and their history, their leaders, their doctrinal stands, or their interpretation of the Scriptures. Anyone who takes what is written here as the truth about Apostolic Oneness will be deceived. This WIKI entry will serve to hurt the Apostolic Oneness people more then help others to understand who they are and what the different Apostolics believe. What is left here is like a gutted fish, the skeleton is there but the living working part has been cast aside. What remains stinks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.219.157 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then contribute reliable, verifiable sources to the article. We have heard the complaints about this article not being representative of all of OP but the people who make the complaints never do anything to improve the article. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)