Propositional Revelation Versus Experiential Hermeneutics in Pentecostal/Charismatic Theology

WCF 1.1  Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;1 yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation:2 therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;3 and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;4 which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;5 those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.6 (WCF 1:1 WCS)

WCF 1.6  The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.1 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word;2 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.3 (WCF 1:6 WCS)

As articulated, however, Purdie's position made the mistake of confusing the revelation of Jesus Christ and the church's records of that revelation,  . . .  Peter Althouse

There are voluminous scholarly articles on the problems of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, and, as my time is limited, it will only be possible to address a few of them in this brief article.  I work a full time job and do my research and writing in my free time.  I spent a number of years in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement and did my bachelor of arts degree in pre-seminary at an Assemblies of God college in Lakeland, Florida.  I spent a considerable amount of time  reading the academic and scholarly articles of the movement during that time period.  I wanted to be able to be an academic apologist for the movement because I was fully dedicated to the Pentecostal theology and experience.

Unfortunately, that very endeavor led me in another direction which I could not have anticipated at that time.  Most Pentecostal scholars want to defend the movement from an intellectual perspective because the movement from the beginning was denigrated as anti-intellectual and prone to psychological manipulation of the naive such that the leaders took financial advantage of poor adherents who desperately needed answered prayers and miracles to meet their impoverished conditions.   

Those humble and early beginning of Pentecostalism around the turn of the century soon morphed into megachurches, including Angelus Temple, built in 1923 by Amy Semple McPherson.  But her moral failure soon ended her career as a female evangelist and pastor.  

There are many scholarly works recounting the history of the Pentecostal revival at Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, California and how William J. Seymour, a black holiness preacher studied the theology of Charles Parham in  Houston, Texas and took the message back to his church on Azusa Street in 1906.  I will not go into all the details of that.  However, one of the ground breaking books that I highly recommend is The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, by Donald W. Dayton.  Dayton shows clearly how the Pentecostal theology evolved from and out of the Wesleyan holiness movement, which itself was a spin off from John Wesley's original doctrine of entire sanctification.  Phoebe Palmer, a Free Methodist pastor's wife, helped the evolution of the holiness movement when she advocated the view that entire sanctification could be claimed by faith rather than by years of tarrying and struggling against known sins.  Of course there were other precursors to the movement earlier, including the Edward Irving movement away from orthodox Scottish Presbyterianism.

In short, the Pentecostal movement was not necessarily a new apostolic movement supernaturally enabled by the Holy Spirit, but was instead an evolution out of several different strands of Evangelical Christianity and the Second Great Awakening.  There are ties to the Keswick higher life movement, which is a more Calvinistic emphasis on victory over sin advocated by Asa Mahon and others.

Today there are at least three distinctive but subjective divisions of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, which some claim to number at least five hundred million worldwide.  The first of these is the original Pentecostal movement in 1906 at Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles.  The second is associated with the Latter Rain movement in the post-WWII era of the 1940s.  The so-called third wave began with an Episcopalian minister named Dennis Bennett in Van Nuys, California in the 1960s.  From there the movement spread to both liberal mainline Protestant denominations and to certain conservative Evangelical denominations.  (See:  "The Three Waves of Spiritual Renewal of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement," by Emil Bartos.  Review of Ecumencial Studies Sibiu.  Volume 7, Issue 1.  25 June 2015.  Published online.)

Perhaps the most controversial issue with Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement is the emphasis on an exegetical method that incorporates the experimental religion of Wesleyanism via John Wesley's expansion of the Anglican trilateral of Scripture, tradition, and reason, to include as a fourth element, the spiritual experiences of Christians.  The Wesleyan quadrilateral allowed for the Christian to experience not only salvation but the experience of being entirely sanctified.  The early Pentecostal roots of the holiness movement included the baptism of fire in which the dross of sinful habits were burned away by the flames of the Holy Spirit and making the way for the the third work of grace, which was an empowerment for supernatural service called the baptism with the Holy Spirit; subsequently, it was then accompanied by the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues.  The Wesleyan churches like the Pentecostal Holiness Church and the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee held to three works of grace:  1.  Salvation.  2.  Entire Sanctification.  3.  Baptism with the Holy Spirit.  The more baptistic Pentecostals, the Assemblies of God and the Foursquare Pentecostal Church, held to two definite works of grace:  1.  Salvation.  2.  Baptism with the Holy Spirit.  This is not to say that the baptistic Pentecostals did not believe in entire sanctification or the higher life view of victory over sin.  Rather the latter group conflated steps 2 and 3 of the Wesleyan churches into one final work of grace.  In other words, entire sanctification and the supernatural empowerment for service were one work of grace called the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  All classical Pentecostals believe in the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues as the outward sign of Spirit baptism.  For Pentecostals speaking in tongues functions much like the sacramental signs for more Protestant views of the sacrament of the Lord's supper or for water baptism in that the outward sign of Spirit baptism for Protestants is water baptism, and the outward sign for the sacrament of the Lord's supper is bread and wine.  For Pentecostals the outward sign of Spirit baptism is the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues.

What was most problematic for me as a younger Pentecostal was the discovery that the modern Charismatic movement was even more diverse and inconsistent than even classical Pentecostalism.  The original Pentecostals apparently adopted a no creed but the Bible attitude and refused to officially adopt any doctrinal statements.  It was not until the New Issue of the Oneness or Apostolic Pentecostal movement that the Assemblies of God and the Wesleyan trinitarian Pentecostals began to formulate doctrinal statements to oppose the modalist Pentecostals.  The other issue for me was when I discovered that not only did the modern Pentecostals accept fellowship with modalist Pentecostals but they were also permeated with the Word of Faith, health and wealth prosperity Gospel.

One of my professors at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in the late 1980s, Dr. Terris Neuman, introduced me to a book by Dr. D. R. McConnell called, A Different Gospel.  Reading this book opened my eyes to the fact that the Pentecostal movement was by and large infected with cultic theology tied to Christian Science and New Thought, both of which are not Christian at all.  My home church in Wauchula, Florida was filled with this doctrine because although the senior pastor was more of a classical Pentecostal and a graduate of Southeastern College, the associate pastor was not educated and was a full blown Word of Faith preacher.  I had noticed early on that there seemed to be similarities with Christian Science since I had read many articles about Christian Science in high school and in the years before going to college.  Needless to say this shook my Pentecostal beliefs to the core.

The other issue that breaks the camel's back is the issue of ecumenicalism.  But that would take too long to go into since I want to focus primarily on the experiential exegetical and hermeneutical methods of Pentecostals and Charismatics.  But suffice it to say that for the movement over all, despite their many theological differences, the main issue for Pentecostals and Charismatics in general is not biblical truth but the promotion of their signs and wonders movement.  For them the main cardinal doctrine is continuationism, not biblical truth as a whole.  For this reason they can legitimately reject orthodoxy in favor of their emphasis on charismata to the exclusion of all else.  As evidence of that I can quote from Ralph Del Colle's article in the Journal of Pentecostal Theology.  Del Colle was a Roman Catholic at the time he wrote the article but apparently prior to that he temporarily identified with a more "Anabaptist" and Oneness Pentecostal point of view:

I should like to be precise in my intentions for this paper.  I will not broach all the several issues which divide trinitarian Pentecostals from oneness Pentecostals, for example, the baptismal formula, definition of regeneration and its association with Spirit-baptism and water baptism, holiness standards, sectarianism etc.  I will deal only with their variant views on the nature of God; whether God is absolutely one or triune.  Although I am of one persuasion confessionally--I am a thoroughgoing trinitarian--I will not attempt to engage in what was once called controversial theology, that is, arguing on behalf of one position against the other.  The essay is doctrinally irenic and is intended to offer theological grounds for ecclesial unity between oneness and trinitarian Pentecostals as far as this issue is concerned.

One further preliminary is in order.  I reflect and write as an outsider.  I am not a Pentecostal but a Roman Catholic, an ecclesial communion in conversation with trinitarian Pentecostals but not with their oneness brethren.  But there is some personal history here as well as some significant theological interest.  I was once an independent charismatic quite involved in the enactment of an anabaptist ecclesiology and a restorationist sense of mission.  During that period I was (re)baptized by immersion with a trinitarian formula.  The pedigree of that act was not so much Oneness as it was Latter Rain which had adopted the formula but not always their corresponding doctrine of God.  For a short period of time I contemplated a oneness view of the Godhead and then a binitarian one.  For some years now I have owned my first baptism (trinitarian and infant-baptism at that!) in the Catholic Church.  But that is neither here nor there.  My present interest is more theological.  

. . . I have taken it as part and parcel of my own theological vocation to increase awareness . . . of the triune God . . .  Then what to do about oneness Pentecostals?

As might be surmised, one is left with something of a theological conundrum.  How is it that approximately 25 per cent of US Pentecostals whose heritage goes back to within a decade of Azusa Street are not trinitarian in doctrine?  While I am not one to assign the origin and development of doctrine solely to the explication of the religious affections (as in a simplistic version of Schleiermacher) I do consider the doxological expression of the people of God to be significant in the evaluation of doctrine; . . .Considering that Spirit-baptism in particular intensifies the believer's experience of the risen Christ and gives experimental knowledge of the Holy Spirit it would seem logical to presuppose that this common Pentecostal-charismatic witness would also unify the community in their doctrinal testimony to the truth of the gospel.  However, for the theologian no such naivete is allowed. 

Ralph Del Colle.  "Oneness and Trinity:  A Preliminary Proposal for Dialogue with Oneness Pentecostalism."  Journal of Pentecostal Theology.  Issue 10, 1997.  Pp. 85-86.

It is ironic that in the late 1980s the Assemblies of God was hit with a theological controversy between the more classical Pentecostal views of Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and the more charismatic views of the Reverend Karl Strader of Lakeland, Florida.  The controversy centered on the controversial signs and wonders movement that produced not only the Toronto Revival and the Vineyard movement, but also the Brownsville Assembly of God revival in the Florida panhandle.  Swaggart not only opposed the so-called third wave of the charismatic movement, but was also an outspoken critic of Roman Catholicism as a false church.

It would seem that these upper level compromises of Pentecostal scholarship with liberal theology and the larger ecumenical movement of liberal Protestants and liberal Roman Catholics are mostly unknown to the lay members of the classical Pentecostal denominations.  This is troubling on several levels; the Protestant Reformation has never been resolved for Pentecostals because they agree with the papists that there must be a continual reaffirmation of the doctrines of the Bible by means of ongoing charismatic gifts.  Like the papists, the Pentecostals insist that the Scriptures are insufficient for salvation and for the Christian life.  Something more is needed, namely prophetic utterances, words of knowledge, miracles, signs, wonders, and supernatural healings.  Furthermore, it seems to me that the emphasis on ecstatic religious experiences has caused Pentecostalism to move in more heretical directions on at least three points:  1.  Oneness Pentecostalism.  2. Liberal mainline Protestantism.  3.  Ecumenical relationships with charismatic Roman Catholicism.  A further problem is the classical Pentecostal compromise with the prosperity gospel message.

The main point of this blog post, however, is that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is more concerned about an ecumenical cooperation between proponents of an experiential theology of charismata than about doctrinal purity.  Of course, there are some notable exceptions to this thesis including the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, which were influenced by the Protestant and Evangelical Anglicans of Wycliffe College in Toronto.  Wycliffe was low church and opposed not only the high church Anglo-Catholic movement but also the higher critical views of theological liberalism and neo-orthodoxy.  Even the Canadian Pentecostals recognized that undermining the objective nature of Scripture and the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture held dangers for their Pentecostal theology.  However, Peter Althouse sides with the compromises of neo-orthodoxy and higher criticism and criticizes the conservatives as idolaters:

While the attempt to protect the doctrine of the authority and supremacy of Scripture was laudable, Hague and Purdie adopted an extreme biblicism which verged on an idolization of Scripture.  They seemed to miss the point that the Word of God was the revelation of Jesus Christ and that Scripture was the apostolic record of that revelation.  Though following Hague in doctrine, Purdie's statement that Scripture did not contain the Word of God but was the very Word of God was a sentiment possibly intended to safeguard Pentecostals from the subjectivistic assumptions in higher criticism.  Higher critics assumed that biblical authorship was rooted in the subjective religious experiences of the writers and excluded divine inspiration.  Possibly, Purdie wanted to highlight the objective nature of Pentecostal experience.  The danger was, presumably, that the subjective experiences of Pentecostals combined with the subjective assumptions in higher criticism could have led to an overemphasis on experience in Pentecostalism.  As articulated, however, Purdie's position made the mistake of confusing the revelation of Jesus Christ and the church's records of that revelation, but it was a position which followed in the footsteps of his theological mentor, Dyson Hague.

Peter Althouse.   "The Influence of Dr. J. E. Purdie's Reformed Anglican Theology on the Formation and Development of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada."  Pneuma:  The Journal for Pentecostal Studies.  Volume 19, No. 1, Spring 1996.

Althouse is obviously opposed to the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, which the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada upheld due to their being influenced by the low church Reformed Anglican theology of Wycliffe College.  Althouse sees no problem with reading the Old Testament as inspired myth as the neo-orthodox theologians do.  This makes my point that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement leads to theological liberalism and ecumenical relationships with outright heretics like the Oneness Pentecostals and liberal Roman Catholics. 

Moving on to my critique of Pentecostal hermeneutics, the problem here is that from the onset of the Pentecostal movement Wesley's emphasis on Christian experience or experimental religion led to compromising the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration and propositional revelation.  For Calvinists the emphasis on sound and logical exegesis of Scripture meant preserving the church from being led astray by false signs and miracles such as those that the papists produced in the intervening 1900 years of church history.

The problem of religious experience is that everyone's experience is different.  The Pentecostal movement began when Charles F. Parham started a Bible study and asked for laypersons in his Bible institute to study the Scriptures from an experiential point of view and to tell him what the baptism with the Holy Spirit was.  The following is a good summary of the Pentecostal approach to biblical hermeneutics:

The reading of the Scripture is highly esteemed in Pentecostal tradition. Bible reading is interwoven with prayer. The Bible is read until it becomes part and parcel of the individuals thought system and daily expressions. It should however, be observed that the Bible is not studied as an academic work but as a devotional material. As Davies argues, Pentecostals utilize the Bible as a resource for divine encounter. They “read the Bible not to grasp it; but so that God can grasp them through it.”[12] The Bible is seen not only as the word of God but also as the full representation of the mind and plan of God. God is seen to be alive in the scriptures and thus an encounter with the scripture is regarded as an encounter with the living God himself.

The earliest form of Pentecostalism held this divine essence of the scripture to the point that they regarded the human authors of the Bible as passive instruments in the process of writing the scripture. They saw them only as instruments that recorded what God dictated. Such a view led to neglecting the context of the human authors when interpreting the Bible. However, the latter development of Pentecostal interpretation recognized human authorship as part of the process that God used to communicate his will to the people. This later development introduced an “incarnational” understanding of the Bible. The scriptures, like Christ Jesus, were seen to be fully divine and fully human and the two natures as inseparable.[13]

Michael Muoki Wambua.  "Pentecostal Hermeneutics:  Approach and Methodology."  The Pneuma Review:  Journal of Ministry Resources and Theology for Pentecostal and Charismatic Ministries & Leaders.  April 14, 2014.

Like the liberals and the neo-orthodox, the Pentecostals put more emphasis on their ecstatic experiences than the Scriptures.  While there are exceptions to this like the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and some of the more conservative classical Pentecostals in the Assemblies of God and the Church of God in the United States, the clear trend overall is toward a more and more liberal point of view in regards to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.  The earliest Pentecostals were of a more fundamentalist bent, but the obvious biases of the current leadership in Pentecostal scholarship is toward curbing logic and denouncing any commitment to Scripture as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice as bibliolatry.  

Dyson Hague, best known for his contributions to The Fundamentals, held views similar to Sheraton's, though he may have been more fundamentalist in orientation.  Hague stated that the study of the literary structure of the books of the Bible was laudable, "But the work of the Higher Critic has not always been pursued in a reverent spirit nor in the spirit of scientific and Christian scholarship."  (18)  The conclusions of the higher critics were based largely upon their own "subjective conclusions," their reliance on fanciful German theories, and their "bias against the supernatural." (19)  Hague criticized the higher critics for their denial of the validity of miracles, the reality of prophecy, and the validity of revelation. (20)  He also opposed the higher critics' critique of Genesis as myth, for if Genesis were myth, it had no doctrinal value; it would not be authoritative, true, or reliable; and therefore it would not be inspired by God.  Hague refused to accept this position.  (21)  Generally, Hague held a more conservative position than Sheraton and seemed unwilling to accept any of the conclusions of higher criticism.  (Ibid.,  Althouse.  P. 7).

Of course, the more enlightened Pentecostals and Charismatics do not reject the conclusions of higher criticism because, after all, miracles are just human experiences, not necessarily literally supernatural events, right?  Quite frankly, I would much rather be called a fundamentalist than to join the broad way to ecumenical heresy. 

Now I would like to turn to a more Reformed methodology in regards to doing biblical exegesis and interpreting the Scriptures.  The most basic way of interpreting the Scriptures is to first of all recognize that the Bible is fully inspired by God in every single word.  While it is true that human writers wrote what God moved them to write, the words were not divinely dictated directly by God but each writer wrote in his own style.  Yet what they wrote could legitimately be said to be the very words of God, since God so controlled their psychological thinking and thought processes that what they wrote was exactly what God intended in every single word.  Since God is not irrational but logical, it follows that there are no contradictions in the Bible; all of the propositions in the Bible are logically consistent and in harmony with the whole scope of Scripture.

If everyone's experience is different, it follows that interpreting the Bible cannot be and must not be based on reader response or experiential theology.  There must be an objective way to read, understand and interpret the Bible.  That method of reading and understanding the Bible begins with propositional revelation.  The Scriptures are a logical and propositional revelation from God so that anyone who reads the Bible can rationally understand what it says in the plain passages.  Where there are difficult passages the reader can go to more plain passages of Scripture to interpret the more difficult passages.

The most obvious problem with experiential exegesis is precisely the problem that rejecting propositional revelation and orthodox doctrine in favor of a psychologized reading of Scripture leads to rejecting the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Christ and a whole host of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. 

The influence of Immanuel Kant is also seen here. He had sought the contents of science in experience, in strictly sensory experience. But outside the sphere of knowledge, he also made a place for morality and a religion based on morality. Here Schleiermacher saw an opening for faith and a religion of non­sensory experience. With this he sought to do battle with the irreligion of the enlightenment.

Let us rephrase this a little bit. Previous Christianity had been too intellectual. Religion, Schleiermacher held, is essentially emotional. For Schleiermacher, religion originates in a feeling of absolute dependence. This feeling guarantees the value of religion. By analyzing this feeling of absolute dependence, one arrives at the doctrines of theology. For example, since the dependence is absolute, we may infer the existence of God. In general, Schleiermacher thought he was able to derive a great many Christian doctrines by psychological analysis. The doctrine of the Trinity, the miracle of the virgin birth, and the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper were all, more or less, obtainable in this way. But only more or less.

A superficial view may find a great number of Christian doctrines in Schleiermacher, but a more penetrating view will find each one altered. The basic reason all these doctrines are altered is that Schleiermacher has substituted religious experience for supernatural revelation. This is his decisive break with all previous Christian history. How this affects the several doctrines is easy to understand. For one thing, every doctrine become tentative. We cannot have confidence in the truth of a doctrine because either or both of two difficulties may intervene. First, we may not have been accurate in our analysis of experience. And second, religious experience itself may change. These two difficulties do not attach to supernatural revelation. But for Schleiermacher every doctrine must be tailored to fit human experience.

To show concretely how this deviates from previous Christianity, two or three doctrines may be used as examples. The Lord’s Supper perhaps can be defended as a particularly appropriate expression of our religious experience. No one could quarrel with the idea of having some sort of fraternal meal. [sic].  If, of course, the idea of a fraternal meal is a satisfactory definition of the Lord’s Supper. But whatever the case may be with the Lord’s Supper, it is obviously difficult to derive the doctrine of the Trinity by an analysis of one’s feelings. And it may be said, the virgin birth is surely impossible so to obtain. Indeed, even knowledge of God becomes impossible.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  The Decline of Theology in America.  Audio Transcript.  

Dr. Clark is perhaps one of the only consistent Calvinists and presuppositionalist apologists of the 20th century.  The problem as I see it is that the charismatic movement is simply an adaptation of liberal theology applied to Pentecostal experience; even when the classical Pentecostals tried to retain their commitments to Evangelical orthodoxy, they were attacked by the more progressive neo-orthodox and papist Charismatics as "fundamentalists."  The fact of the matter is that consistent cessationist Protestant Evangelicals do not reject the miracles of the Bible; instead, they are the only Evangelicals left today who believe that the miracles of the Bible are literally supernatural, not just a psychological experience in the line of Schleiermacher and other liberal theologians who kicked off the neo-orthodox movement.  

If we must suspend disbelief in third world miracle claims, then I suppose every superstitious miracle story is credible.  This is true from an orthodox and Protestant point of view that the miracles recorded in the Bible are literally true and literally supernatural, not just inspired myths.  For Pentecostals and Charismatics the Bible is only literally true from the point of view of their own personal experiences, not as an objective reality recorded in the Bible.  Furthermore, the Bible does not just contain the Word of God.  The Bible is literally the Holy Spirit inspired words of God, not just a record of revelation as Althouse contends above.  If the Bible is not the final authority, then the door is opened to all kinds of heretical movements within the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, including the denial of the trinity by Oneness Pentecostals, and the Word of Faith movement, which has more in common with Christian Science than with biblical Christianity.  Without the Bible there is no knowledge of God possible.  None at all.

2 Timothy 3:16 (NKJV)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Justin Taylor Vacillates: The Elephant Room: What Really Happened, and How Things Could Have Been Different – Justin Taylor

Heresy Kills.  Sounds sweet but it's deadly.

And in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:6) we read: “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added.”  Gary Crampton



It would appear that Justin Taylor has joined with those who support the false teaching of T.D. Jakes' modalism and "manifestations" language. The bottom line for Taylor is:

But here’s the problem, as I see it: at the end of the day, we just don’t know precisely what he believes. This should chasten both sides.

I hope you will forgive me for becoming a Lutheran for a moment but this is the worst line of bull I have ever heard in my life. As if dissimulation, dodging the questions, giving ambiguous answers, and playing both sides of the fence exonerates T.D. Jakes from his oneness Pentecostal theology? He openly says in the interview that he "moves" in both circles, i.e., trinitarian and oneness Pentecostal circles:

Jakes: You know, you know, let me just make one little comment: one of the things that you said, and [garbled] even as we talked about it before, and [garbled] said this too, that there is going to be one throne and there’s going to be one God that we can see. And I thought the more I hear everybody arguing about this… we’re all saying the same thing. And we like fight about it to the death, and I just think that in the world that we’re living in today, if if we could just connect, and I know that we’ll always be depraved, and there will always be people who define themselves by their differences rather than their connections, who are more comfortable if they’re known by what they are against than by what they are for. But when I hear you say that there’s gonna be one throne and one God on that throne, My soul leaps in celebration, and I hear both of us stumbling trying to explain how God does what He does like He does. I think That stumbling is worship. I think That stumbling is worship. I think that we would humble ourselves and say, “Your thoughts and ways are beyond human comprehension” is what makes worship fill the room. From: Apprising Ministries: The Elephant Room

So what Jakes is saying here is that the issue of the Trinity is really a matter of adiaphora or indifference and it is all a mystery anyway so, "Why cain't we all just get along???" Justin Taylor is essentially just another theological liberal pushing relativism, paradox, and mystery as an excuse for heresy. This is the same path that Socinians and theological liberals went down. It is also the same path that the existentialist and neo-orthodox theologians went down. Basically, we cannot know what God says because God is totally transcendent and it is all a mystery. Unless you're a Pentecostal and have a direct phone line to God's throne room that is. Are we all REALLY just saying the same thing? OR could it possibly be that God says there is a Triunity in the Godhead and there are three distinct persons or subsistences within the Godhead? If the latter, then T. D. Jakes is just as lost as any Mormon or any Unitarian.


How Justin Taylor can say that Jakes is not a false prophet and a false teacher I have no idea. Scripture EXPLICITLY says that we are NOT to fellowship with false teachers who deny the Trinity and the full and complete deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God come in the flesh. That IS the bottom line, folks. (John 1:1, 2, 11, 18; 2 John 1:7-11).

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. 9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11 NKJV)

So T.D. Jakes is a seeker sensitive false teacher who knows how to fool even professional ministers like the wishy washy Justin Taylor. I am impressed. All a false teacher needs to do is play both sides of the fence and appeal to mystery.

Maybe this is why I became a Scripturalist? Propositional truth leaves no room for ambiguity. The Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and that there is one God and three distinct persons within the one divine nature of God. (2 Corinthians 13:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Peter 1:2; Titus 2:13; 2 John 1:7-11).

Click here to read Justin Taylor's original post: The Elephant Room: What Really Happened, and How Things Could Have Been Different – Justin Taylor



Addendum:

Scripturalism is a world and life view. A worldview is a set of beliefs about the various issues of life. All persons have worldviews; they are inescapable. One’s worldview will determine how he views the entirety of life, the decisions he makes, why he does what he does, and so forth. And all worldviews have presuppositions which govern their system of belief; these presuppositions function as axioms from which all decisions are deduced. Scripturalism is that system of belief in which the Word of God is foundational in the entirety of one’s philosophical and theological dealings2. This system of thought avers that Christians should never try to combine secular and Christian notions. Rather, all thoughts are to be brought into captivity to the Word of God (2 Corinthians 10:5), which is (a part of) the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). Our minds must be transformed “to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God,” as found in Scripture (Romans 12:2), i.e., our thoughts must progressively become God’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:6-9), which divine thoughts are only known by the Word of God. Scripturalism, then, teaches that all of our knowledge is to be derived from the Bible, which has a systematic monopoly on truth. This approach to a Christian worldview is taught by the Apostle Paul and is confirmed by the teachings of the Westminster Standards3. In the words of the apostle: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:6) we read: “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added.”  Gary Crampton, "Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview."

Calvinistic Cartoons: Elephant in the Room

Calvinistic Cartoons: Elephant in the Room  Looks like Mark Driscoll and James McDonald have bigger problems than they realize.

Carl Trueman on the Elephants in the Room: Do You Beat Your Wife? - Reformation21 Blog

Carl Trueman is a professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. His remarks below are a telling indictment of Mark Driscoll and the Elephants in the Room:

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of `Hey, hater!' from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant's wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, `Did you do that?' to which he says `No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives'; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.

Click here to read the full article: Do You Beat Your Wife? - Reformation21 Blog

Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries did an entire show on The Dividing Line concerning the heresy of T. D. Jakes and Oneness Pentecostalism:

A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

01/27/2012 - James White

OK, we've never crashed our servers before by going past the maximum number of connections, but, we did today. I guess there is really a great deal of interest, which, on one level, is very encouraging. In any case, I addressed the TD Jakes: is he a Trinitarian? issue head on during the first hour, and then took calls on the topic for a full hour after that. The callers were wide ranging, and while none defended the ER or Jakes, they did provide some good insights. Lots of positive feedback on Twitter and FaceBook. Hope it will be helpful! Here's the program.

Click here to see Dr. White's blog page: A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

Dr. Calvin Beisner Comments: elephant room | discernment | association | TD Jakes | James MacDonald

The following is from Here I Blog:

I asked Facebook friend, author and scholar, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner7, who has published two books on the Trinity, his thoughts on Jakes’ comments in the above interview. Beisner replied:

Far, far, far too little evidence there to justify reclassifying Jakes as Trinitarian granted all he’s said before and his continuing to consider United Pentecostals his Christian brothers. Nothing quoted there falls outside what any reasonably sly and sophisticated United Pentecostal could say. Let Jakes clearly and explicitly affirm such clear Trinitarian statements as the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Chalcedon, the Athanasian Creed, or even just Warfield’s summary–There is but one God; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is a distinct Person–and then let him also repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of United Pentecostalism and other modalist sects, and it’ll be time to declare him converted to the true God. My impression is that Jakes is simply out to gain the trust of larger groups than the Oneness and Pentecostal crowd in which he’s been at home.

I beg to differ with Dr. Beisner on one point.  With the downplaying of "essential doctrine" in Pentecostal circles, it has now become generally accepted that the trinity and oneness issue is considered a matter of adiaphora.  The Society for Pentecostal Studies has removed all trinitarian doctrinal statements so that oneness pentecostals could participate since they could not in good conscience sign such a doctrinal statement in order to join the society.  See:  Wikipedia:  Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Click here to read the whole article: elephant room | discernment | association | TD Jakes | James MacDonald


Click here to read the transcript of the Elephant Room interview with T. D. Jakes: The Elephant Room II

T. D. Jakes and the Elephant Room Controversy

 "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”" (John 8:45-47, NKJV)

 I posted the following comment over at the Daniel's Place blog.  Daniel is a student at Westminster Seminary, California.  He has been covering the controversy over the invitation extended to the heresiarch T.D. Jakes to speak at The Elephant Room.  You can see Daniel's article by clicking here: News: James MacDonald resigns from TGC .

I agree that inviting T. D. Jakes to the Elephant room is a tacit endorsement of Jakes' theology. But I hate to break this news to you. The fact is the vast majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics these days NO LONGER REGARD ONENESS PENTECOSTAL TEACHING AS HERESY. Excuse me for yelling:) But I think this emphasis needs to be made. Basically, the Charismatic movement is more concerned about spreading Pentecostalism and Charismatic teaching than about correct doctrine on the ESSENTIALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. For example, The Society for Pentecostal Studies, which publishes a theological journal called, Pneuma, does not require belief in the trinity or triunity of three persons in one divine nature. That can be easily demonstrated in the compromise of their original doctrinal statement here: Wikipedia: The Society for Pentecostal Studies. The short of it is that Pentecostals and Charismatics are compromised from the get go because their emphasis on the "gifts of the Spirit" and the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" trumps the orthodox and essential doctrine of the trinity. I've been saying this for several years now and I'm wondering why so few are listening?

The fact that T.D. Jakes enjoys such mainstream popularity among Charismatics and Pentecostals and on "Christian" TV is proof enough that the movement as a whole is cultic, heterodox, and heretical. Yes, you heard me right.

Another indication of this sort of heterodoxy is the widespread acceptance of the Word of Faith doctrines on health, wealth and prosperity--doctrines which come from Christian Science and New Thought. Included in that package are extremely heretical doctrines on the incarnation of Christ and His deity. Word of Faith teachers say that Christ is not fully God but is simply a "Spirit-filled man". They also teach that Jesus was demonized on the cross and that He suffered for three days in hellfire.

It is beyond my comprehension why anyone who considers themselves Reformed in theological perspective would want to lead others into this heretical and heterodox movement. I'm thinking here of "non-cessationists" like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Vincent Cheung, Mark Driscoll, Vern Poythress, and others. This wrong emphasis is akin to saying it's ok to be Mormon! In fact, the Word of Faith movement also incorporates some Mormon doctrine since Kenneth Hagin taught that God has a "spiritual" body, i.e. a spiritualized physical body.

I could go on but I'll stop there. The short of it is that I think Evangelicals in general are way too gracious toward Pentecostalism and Charismatic theology because of the fear of losing support.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie

Addendum:  I know some of you think I am overgeneralizing since some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches take a strong stand against modalism and the Word of Faith movement.  However, to take a strong stand against false teaching while continuing to fellowship with heretics is duplicitous.  This sort of dissimulating compromise reveals that Pentecostals and Charismatics are more concerned with ecumenicalism than with Scriptural truth.  But if the souls of millions of adherents are at stake, why invite false teachers to lead them astray?  That is the question at issue here.  It is impossible to follow false teaching while at the same time following the truth. 

The Westminster Captivity? Further Comments on the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement

[I no longer believe that Dr. Gordon H. Clark's book, The Incarnation, is an endorsement of the Nestorian view. Charlie J. Ray. 1/5/2014]


The comments over at the official blog for Regent University were closed after I posted a comment there. However, Dale Coulter was generous enough to post my comment. You can see the original article and the comments at Westminster Captivity. However, I would like to briefly respond to the comments made after mine. I will admit first of all that I did over-generalize when I mentioned the link between Christian Science and the charismatic movement's theology of healing. Having spent almost ten years in the Pentecostal/charismatic movement and having been a graduate of an Assemblies of God bible college, as well as at one time having been a member of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, I am well aware of the different historical schools of thought on the origin of the classical Pentecostal movement and its offspring, the modern Charismatic movement.

Donald Dayton, for example, traces the theological roots of Pentecostalism to the Wesleyan holiness movement, a thesis popular among Wesleyan Charismatics and classical Pentecostal denominations which came from the Wesleyan holiness movement. That would include the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee and the Pentecostal Holiness Church among others.

Others see a link between the Keswick higher life movement and the outbreak of Pentecostal teaching within the Christian Missionary Alliance churches, which were a mix of both Presbyterian and Arminian churches dedicated to missionary outreach. One of the movement's leaders was A. B. Simpson and his focus on divine healing, etc. The crisis which developed over the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace and an empowerment for missionary and evangelistic outreach and the ongoing "practice" of spiritual gifts led to the formation of what is known today as the Assemblies of God. Hence, the similarity between much of the theology within the Christian Missionary Alliance and the Assemblies of God. There are indeed pockets of Reformed theology within both the Christian Missionary Alliance and the Assemblies of God even today. However, both denominations are predominated by Arminian theology. A good example of that is Ravi Zacharias of the CMA.

Of course there were instances of healing movements and teaching prior to the influence of E.W. Kenyon via Kenneth Hagin and others. However, even in these movements the theology of healing has more to do with what the believer does to get healing than with trusting God's absolute providence and will. If you do not do your part, God will not do His part. This is inherently a synergistic and cooperative emphasis on healing from an Arminian perspective at best. At worst, it reduces to the syncretism of Christian Science/New Thought with Pentecostal theology. I observed this strain even in officially approved books from Gospel Publishing House, the official organ of the Assemblies of God. One book on the required reading list from GPH was a book on the spiritual gifts by Harold Horton, a British Pentecostal within the British Assemblies of God. I cannot remember the exact title or the page number of the quote but I clearly remember Horton comparing kittens as little cats, puppies as little dogs, and Christians as "little gods" or little "Jesus'". This is not Christian doctrine but is borrowed from Christian Science. Anyone who studies New Thought and Christian Science will be immediately struck with the similarities, not the differences. Most of the language used in charismatic circles today about "believing" for a miracle, etc., actually has more to do with visualization and other concepts from Christian Science than with biblical theology.

While I do recognize that pentecostals have developed a sophisticated and intellectual defense of their experiential theology, it is alarming to me that in doing so many current Pentecostal scholars are scuttling justification by faith alone, sola Scriptura, confessions of faith, creeds, and other necessary doctrines recovered and restored at the Protestant Reformation. What these scholars fail to see is that both the Wesleyan holiness movement and the Keswick higher life movements were still within the realm of Protestant theology. Both of these movements gave rise to the Pentecostal/charismatic movement. Essentially, the Pentecostal/charismatic movement has moved beyond Evangelicalism, despite their desire to claim that heritage as well, and has moved into radical Anabaptist theology and heterodoxy.

There are several areas where this is observed. One that stands out in my mind is the push for a re-unification between oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarian Pentecostals. In 1916 when the "New Issue" controversy threatened to tear the new fellowship, the Assemblies of God, into division, the A/G decided to guard itself against the charge of heresy. Most of the founding members were from traditional mainline Evangelical churches and understood that sabellian modalism or monarchial modalism was a denial of the biblical doctrine of the tri-unity of God as one Godhead or divine nature and three eternally existent and subsistent persons within that one God. Today, however, that is not seen as an obstacle to fellowship and the Society for Pentecostal Studies does not require belief in the Trinity as a necessary doctrine for membership. This is partly due to the influence of Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. an Assemblies of God scholar, and other Pentecostals from the Trinitarian side reaching across the aisle to the Oneness Pentecostals like David K. Bernard, who is now the General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International.

D. William Faupel, a former A/G member who is now an Episcopalian and is a librarian at Asbury Theological Seminary, has clearly outlined the historical situation within the Assemblies of God over this issue in this quote:

The newly organized Assemblies of God immediately encountered a second theological crisis, which was also set forth in a restorationist context. The second person of the Trinity had been the focal point of the five doctrines restored to the church. Jesus was the Savior, Sanctifier, Baptizer, Healer and Coming King. Furthermore, as Pentecostals looked to the Acts of the Apostles in an effort to follow the apostolic patterns of the early church, they noted that converts were baptized in water in "Jesus' name." As a result, it had been a common practice in the movement's initial years to practice water baptism using either the trinitarian formula found in Matthew or the christological formula noted in Acts. A fresh revelation now came to some that Jesus was not the second person of the Trinity but rather the Name of God, who revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as Son in the New Testament, and as Holy Spirit in the church age. The message swept the newly formed fellowship as one leader after another embraced the new teaching, including E. N. Bell, the first general superintendent.

The controversy raged for two years, the final showdown coming in the 1916 General Council, where trinitarians won by a decisive two-thirds vote. J. Roswell Flower, general secretary and managing editor of the Pentecostal Evangel, led the fight for the orthodox position. He charged that the new teaching was a form of modal monarchianism, which had been condemned as heresy by the early church fathers. Patient argument and shrewd political maneuvering paid off, although the cost was heavy. Of 585 ministers, 156 withdrew from the fellowship, taking their churches with them. They would move on to found such "Oneness" denominations as the United Pentecostal Church and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World.

The decision to exclude the Oneness teaching forever changed the nature of the Assemblies of God. Its leadership adopted a "Statement of Fundamental Truths," established a strong central executive and abandoned the restorationist understanding of church history. [From: The Restoration Vision in Pentecostalism].

Apparently, the modern Charismatic movement has decided that denying the trinity is no longer a heresy. T. D. Jakes is welcomed with open arms and Oneness Pentecostals are even studying in Ph.D. programs at the Regent University School of Divinity. (See Daniel Segraves' profile at his blog, Center for Oneness Research and Education).

Most Evangelicals still view the Oneness Pentecostals as modalists and therefore a cult that is not part of Protestant Christianity. But under the influence of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement the heresy is now being ignored as if it were not a major issue. This is because Charismatics view their doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the ongoing supernatural gifts as the measure of fellowship and doctrinal orthodoxy over and above the five solas of the Protestant Reformation and the catholic creeds as a proper understanding of what we believe the Holy Scriptures teach. While the Scriptures are the only infallible rule for faith and practice, for Protestants who seek to maintain both Evangelical and catholic orthodoxy, the Reformed confessions and the ecumenical creeds establish what is authoritative doctrine for congregations who wish to be in fellowship on earth and in the invisible communion of saints.

The current trend among Pentecostal/Charismatic scholars is to reject the traditional Wesleyan quadrilateral and the Anglican trilateral and to instead place their ecstatic experience above biblical theology and Holy Scripture. Like the Roman Catholics, Charismatics place their doctrinal tradition above Scripture and use both their experience and their tradition to interpret Scripture rather than seriously drawing out the meaning of the text as it was intended by the original human authors and as the original hearers and readers would have understood it in their own cultural and historical context. In other words, the allegorical approach to hermeneutics trumps the historical-grammatical approach along with a healthy systematic and biblical theology.

What is particularly alarming for Reformed scholars who study the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is the heterodox and even heretical compromises made in the pragmatic attempt to spread their ecstatic, enthusiastic theology at the expense of biblical truth, confessional commitments to the magisterial Reformation, and Christian orthodoxy as it is expressed in the ecumenical creeds. For this reason one has to question the entire movement.

I strongly disagree with Dale Coulter. There is no Westminster Captivity of Evangelicalism. Rather, there is an attempt by the Reformed denominations to restore the churches and reform the churches to the apostolic doctrines of the New Testament era. The Protestant Reformation was a recovery of Holy Scripture as the final measure, rule of faith, and authority in all ecclesiastical and doctrinal matters. The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, on the other hand, is determined to reintroduce the radical reformation which questioned all, even going so far as to deny the trinity.

Even more ironic is the fact that most lay persons in Pentecostal denominations see themselves as fundamentalists and even act and operate on that level as they understand things literally from Scripture. In the intellectual and scholarly circles of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, however, there is clearly a move toward postmodernism, reader response hermeneutics, neo-orthodoxy, and even liberal theology.

The real problem as I see it is that most Reformed scholars are so busy fighting their own battles against Federal Visionism, the New Perspectives on Paul, Theonomy, the Neo-Nestorianism of Gordon H. Clark and John Robbins, and the creeping in of liberal theology and quasi-Arminianism that they have overlooked a major threat to the Reformation in their own backyard. Even men like Wayne Grudem and John Piper are promoting the ongoing practice of the apostolic signs, wonders and gifts within an essentially Reformed paradigm which for all practical purposes operates as a synergistic theology.

This is particularly true of those who are Anglican and Reformed. Rather than seeing Anglican Charismatics as allies perhaps Evangelical and Reformed Anglicans should reconsider. It might be that Charismatics within the "conservative and orthodox" side of the Anglican Communion might in fact be contributing indirectly to the erosion of biblical theology and propositional truth conveyed through the inerrant and inspired revelation of God in Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture. (Hebrews 1:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21).

Peace,

Charlie J. Ray, M.Div.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/

www.reasonablechristian.blogspot.com

The Steve Winter Oneness Pentecostal Band

Someone pointed me to this youtube video. At first I thought they were Johnny and Edgar Winter, a popular 70's heavy metal band. But then it dawned on me from the lyrics who this guy is. Steve Winter has been around since at least the 1990s in Fidonet (before Al Gore invented the internet). I have been reading James White's debates against Steve Winter's oneness pentecostal heresies at least as far back as 1995 when I bought my first 286 computer.

While I don't agree with Winter's theology or his nasty debate tactics back then, I must admit I'm impressed with the band. Nothing approaching professional level mixing and such but the music itself is fairly close to the 70's style rock I was used to back then. I guess you never know when you will encounter the unexpected!

I wonder if Steven Winter is in favor of legalizing marijuana?


Charlie

Ecology of a Cracker Childhood: Janisse Ray's Religious Upbringing

Click on the image.

I have not said much about my family. However, I have a famous cousin, Janisse Ray, who is a published author and a naturalist. Janisse has dedicated her life to preserving the Georgia longleaf pine and other wild plants and wildlife. Janisse's father, Frank Ray, is the brother of my father, C. J. Ray, who is now deceased.

What her book, Ecology of a Cracker Childhood, does not give much detail about is the religious tradition with which her father was and is affiliated. While the politically correct media moguls lament the horrible conditions of being ill fated to grow up in a religious home where religion is forced upon the children, the Christian world celebrates the idea that some families still read the Bible and pray.

That being said, I must say that my Uncle Frank's religion is a harsh and judgmental one in comparison to the rest of the Evangelical world. The irony here is that while the political left harshly condemns this sort of religion my uncle's religion is actually derived from an African American denomination considered as a heretical cult rather than an orthodox and mainline denomination. In fact, the tradition I am speaking of is the apostolic pentecostal movement or "oneness" pentecostal tradition. What makes this particular branch of the pentecostal movement especially controversial is the fact that the doctrine of the trinity is denied and instead a modalistic view of the godhead is adopted. The churches affiliated with the various oneness pentecostal denominations are extremely sectarian and fundamentalist, most using the King James Version of the Bible as the only "inspired" translation of the Bible there is.

However, Uncle Frank's denomination is even more sectarian than most because fellowship with other oneness pentecostal denominations, like the United Pentecostal Church International, is rejected. The name of the church Uncle Frank follows is The True Word: Apostolic Ministries of America, Inc., which was founded by a black man known as Bishop S.C. Johnson, who Uncle Frank listened to by AM radio and shortwave radio for years. Uncle Frank has not attended any church in many years because he believes that they are all apostate and false churches. This not only includes the apostolic pentecostal churches in the area, but also the oneness pentecostal churches.  The UPCI and TWAMA both do not fellowship with broader Evangelical denominations for the simple reason that there is a mutual animosity between the trinitarian denominations and the modalistic pentecostals. The True Word ministry was founded in Philadelphia and is now a somewhat successful ministry, aside from the fact that its doctrine is heretical and unorthodox.  But the UPCI and TWAMA reject each other as well.

Where to begin describing how the oneness pentecostals came about in the first place is difficult but I shall make the attempt. When the pentecostal revival broke out at the Azusa Street Mission, affiliated with the African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Los Angeles, California on April 14, 1906 under the leadership of a black man named William J. Seymour, it was fully trinitarian as all the Methodist churches were then and are today. While the African Methodist Episcopal Church was part of the Wesleyan holiness tradition, Seymour's theological training ironically came from a white Wesleyan holiness preacher named Charles Parham, who was extremely racist.

The genesis of the pentecostal movement was initially trinitarian since the majority of those participating in the Azusa revival were Christians from other denominations which were in fact trinitarian. The trinity is and has been one of the universally accepted doctrines of the Christian faith since apostolic times and was later more fully developed and fleshed out by the church fathers, including Tertullian. As the doctrine was attacked by those without and within the church, the first four ecumenical or universal councils of Christianity stated more fully what the churches believed the Scriptures teach about the trinity or tri-unity of God as one being and three distinct yet unified persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What is interesting is that initially all pentecostals were trinitarians. However, when the New Issue broke out around 1914 that all changed. Until that point the Assemblies of God, one of the largest pentecostal denominations today, had no formal statement of beliefs. However, in 1916 after the controversial modalist view of the godhead threatened orthodoxy, the Assemblies of God formulated the Sixteen Fundamental Truths to counter charges of heresy against their pentecostal beliefs. While the Assemblies of God and other mainline and classical pentecostal denominations still formally deny the oneness teaching, the irony today is that the heresy of modalism is now tolerated and even embraced by leading pentecostal scholars at the Society for Pentecostal Studies and by the denominational leadership of the Assemblies of God (baptistic pentecostal in the line of William H. Durham) and the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee (wesleyan and three step pentecostal) and others. The reason for this is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit and Spirit baptism are seen as the sole basis for fellowship rather than a commitment to sound doctrine and the historic Christian faith as well as the orthodoxy espoused by the Protestant Reformation in England and Europe. (For a more indepth discussion of the theological roots of pentecostalism see Assessing the Roots).

The key doctrinal position of pentecostal teaching common to both wesleyan and baptistic pentecostals, is the doctrine of initial physical evidence, which says that the first or initial outward sign of the inward grace of Holy Spirit baptism is speaking in an unknown tongue. (See Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-48; 19:1-7). This doctrine is also part of the oneness pentecostal distinctives. However, the oneness pentecostals derive more from the wesleyan holiness side and also emphasize salvation as a three step process. Wesleyan pentecostals such as the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee believe that salvation is obtained by faith through justification, regeneration, and the new birth. This is the first work of grace. The second work of grace is in line with the wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification where the heart is made clean. The third step is then the baptism with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by the initial physical sign of speaking in tongues. Spirit baptism is intended to empower the believer supernaturally to perform signs and wonders and to witness the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The baptistic pentecostals such as the Assemblies of God believe only in two steps of grace: new birth and Spirit baptism. The baptistic pentecostals also believe entire sanctification comes with the second work of grace, the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

However, the oneness pentecostals believe that salvation is only possible after three events are completed: repentance (deliverance from sin, i.e. entire sanctification), being baptized in water according to the formula in Acts 2:38 and being baptized with the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues or glossolalia (Acts 2:1-4). The following paragraph from the United Pentecostal Church International's website illustrates this view:

Salvation

Salvation consists of deliverance from all sin and unrighteousness through the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Testament experience of salvation consists of repentance from sin, water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, after which the Christian is to live a godly life (Acts 2:36-41).

In fact, it is the doctrine of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ only which pushed the oneness pentecostals in the direction of modalism. What is particularly troubling is that the modalistic view was allegedly given by divine revelation during a camp meeting where evangelist R.E. McAlister emphasized Acts 2:38:

The modern beginnings of Oneness

The Pentecostal movement was from its inception Trinitarian. It was from the revival at the Azusa Street Mission from 1906 to 1909 that the Pentecostal experience spread throughout the world. When this modern day revival had first occurred with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, it was upholding Trinitarianism.

Their message of Oneness was first delivered to the Pentecostals that fateful day on 1913 in a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California, where hundreds of preachers were attending. The truth of the Oneness of God was given accompanied by the new revelation of baptism in the name of Jesus. Evangelist R.E. McAlister was selected to preach on the subject of water baptism. He began with the accepted baptismal message and spoke on the different modes of baptism, mentioning trine immersion by which the candidate was immersed three times face forward. He summed it up by “they justify their method, by saying that baptism is in the likeness of Christ's death, and make a point from scripture that Christ bowed his head when he died.” that to them, it was necessary to baptize once for each person in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). He concluded his message abruptly by saying that the Scriptural answer to this was that the Apostles invariably baptized all their converts once in the name of Jesus Christ. He ended by stating the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never used by the early church in Christian baptism .

McAlister introduced in 1913 a “new thing,” a Jesus name baptismal formula-- that had no mention of the Father and the Holy Spirit. McAlister was taken aside at the time and told not to preach the this new theory about the “baptismal formula.”

However, many hearing McAllister speak received the new revelation of the name Jesus. Three important men attended and were influenced by this new revelation, these were Frank Ewart, G.T.Haywood, Glenn Cook.

By the spring of 1914, Ewart accepted the "new found truth" [and] became one of its leading advocates. Ewart reached the conclusion that the singular “name” in Matthew 28:19 was Jesus Christ. He came to believe that the one true God who had revealed himself as Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Spirit was none other than Jesus Christ. To support this view, he pointed to Colossians 2:9, which states that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Ewart explained his discovery to other Pentecostal ministers, some of whom rejected his teaching, but others enthusiastically embraced it. On April 15, 1914, Ewart rebaptized Glenn A. Cook, his assistant and a veteran evangelist of the Azusa Street Mission, in the name of Jesus Christ, and Cook rebaptized Ewart. This would set in motion an issue that would divide the Pentecostal movement between the Trinitarians and the Jesus Name only, or Oneness, believers. After Ewart and Cook were rebaptized, they began to rebaptize thousands of Pentecostals with the shorter new found formula “in Jesus name.” Claiming those baptized with Mt. 28:18-20 were not valid, it must be “in the name of Jesus” (only). Anyone baptized in the threefold name of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, must renounce that baptism and be rebaptized with the right words said over them, before they can be regarded as biblically baptized. Today it is added one must speak in tongues to have salvation. This evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit (i.e. speaking in tongues) must be present or they are not born again, and they cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Many of you are now asking, "What does all this have to do with your cousin, Janisse Ray?" I have given all this background information to show that the theology of her father, who is a lay preacher in the apostolic pentecostal tradition, is extremely sectarian by anyone's doctrinal standards, including modern day pentecostals. Some oneness pentecostals, such as T.D. Jakes, have gone mainstream and charismatic. (See also T.D. Jakes). Jakes is widely accepted today among prosperity preachers and was even invited to pray at the inauguration of President Barack Obama. The fact that some oneness pentecostals are willing to fellowship with other charismatics and vice versa is surely a sign that theological liberalism has set in even among fundamentalist oneness pentecostals. On this point at least, my Uncle Frank is consistent with the classical oneness pentecostals that separation is called for between trinitarians and modalists. Trinitarians are in line with the apostolic teaching of Jesus and the early church while oneness pentecostals are categorized by Sabellian modalism and a denial of the dual nature of Christ as both God and man. (See Gregory Boyd's critique of oneness pentecostal theology and problems associated).

But realistically the legalistic and sectarian and even cultic aspects of oneness/apostolic pentecostalism is what emotionally and psychologically damaged my cousin and ultimately turned her against Christianity. This is unfortunate. However, I would say that all Christian denominations have a potential to degenerate into legalism anytime that sanctification is emphasized above the doctrine of justification by faith alone and apart from good works. This is particularly true of the wesleyan holiness movement where outward obedience is emphasized over an admission that the heart is renewed while some aspects of the old nature remain. The standards of holiness for membership in the oneness pentecostal churches are generally these:

It is also expected that UPC members consistently comply with several "holiness standards," including, but not limited to, the following:

• Women should wear skirts, but never pants or slacks.
• Women should never cut their hair.
• Women should not wear jewelry or makeup.
• Men should only have short, conservative haircuts.
• Men should not wear facial hair.
• No one should own a TV.
• No one should watch movies at a theater.
• No one should wear shorts, or anything that would expose the legs.
• No one should go swimming in a public place.

These "standards" vary a little bit from church to church, but most are consistently taught within the UPC (some of the more "liberal" Oneness churches do not teach these kinds of "standards.")

While many of these holiness standards were inherited from the wesleyan holiness churches and perpetuated in the classical pentecostal churches for many years, most classical pentecostal churches have since relaxed these legalistic and cultural guidelines. I graduated from Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in 1991. At that time one of the codes of conduct was that students and professors would not attend theater or movies. Ironically, during one summer I violated that policy and went to see, "Dances with Wolves," the Kevin Costner movie when it first came out. Three of the professors from the college were also in attendance! I will not name them for the sake of privacy. For all practical purposes the rule was merely a symbol of the past which no one agreed with or even kept. I suspect that the rule has been changed at Southeastern University today. (Southeastern University is the new name of the school since its emphasis changed from a ministerial focus to a liberal arts focus).

While most of these standards are only practiced by small country churches, in the more classical Pentecostal churches most of these legalistic standards have died out, even in some large metropolitan oneness pentecostal churches. However, for the most part these standards are still in effect in the oneness/apostolic pentecostal denominations across the board.

Having visited pentecostal churches in both the oneness and the trinitarian traditions, I can understand the emphasis on being set apart from the rest of the world. However, the wesleyan arminian tradition in general has institutionalized legalism based on outward appearances despite the fact that their doctrine officially teaches that sanctification is a cleansing of the heart. Unfortunately, this teaching arises out of John Wesley's understanding of sin as a violation of a known moral law of God rather than as any inherent corruption, any sin committed in ignorance of God's moral law, any sinful thought, anything done in violation of God's law, or any omission of doing what God commands. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer's Morning Prayer service has an excellent exhortation, general confession, and general absolution of sin from a more Reformed perspective:

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying after me;

A general Confession to be said of the whole Congregation after the Minister, all kneeling.

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

The Absolution, or Remission of sins, to be pronounced by the Priest alone, standing; the people still kneeling.

ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins : He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Sadly, those of the non-Christian world do not recognize the distinctions between the different traditions within the Protestant side of Christianity or the distinctions between Protestant denominations, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The main reason I am a Reformed Christian and Evangelical is that I understand that my salvation is totally based on God and not on my own obedience, sanctification, or efforts. Salvation is all of God from beginning to end. I can trust God to save me apart from my own merits or my own meager attempts at personal holiness. Sanctification and holiness are always partial and incomplete in this life and we can never arrive until the hour of our death and glorification. This is precisely why justification is objective, forensic, and outside of us. Our salvation and justification is completely founded upon the objective work of Christ for us on the cross and not upon anything we do. Even our faith is a gift of God. Salvation truly is an amazing grace.

Moreover, suffering in this life is a result of Adam's rebellion against God. Many times suffering comes from man's false attempts to build religious towers of Babel to reach God. The oneness pentecostal magnification of the sectarianism and legalism of the wesleyan holiness movement is just one example of this. Unfortunately, such cultic and manipulative religious beliefs turn people against God rather than toward His mercy, grace and kindness.

God's grace is irresistible, however (John 6:37-39, 44, 65; Romans 2:4). Once we realize that God is not eager to condemn the ungodly but rather to forgive us and accept us unconditionally, then we can experience His mercy and forgiveness. When God truly touches the heart we are drawn irresistibly into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I lament man's religious manipulations and pray that God would reveal His mercy to all of His elect and straying sheep who have not yet been brought into the flock. I pray that God will grant this grace to everyone in my family, especially Janisse.

GLORY be to God on high, and in earth peace, good will towards men. We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.

O Lord, the only begotten Son Jesu Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.

For thou only art holy; thou only art the Lord; thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

(Agnus Dei, 1662 Book of Common Prayer).


I will comment later on John Wesley's doctrine of justification by faith alone and how that has been compromised in the modern holiness movement, especially in legalistic denominations like the oneness pentecostal churches.

[Note: For an excellent discussion of the sociological roots of pentecostalism among the lower classes see Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, by Robert M. Anderson. (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1992).]

Addendum:  It should be noted that God is absolutely sovereign in both salvation/election and in reprobation.  He either has mercy and softens the heart or He hardens the heart to unbelief.  (Cf.  Romans 9:11-22; 1 Peter 2:8; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28; Acts 16:14; Ezekiel 36:26; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 2 Thessalonians 2:13).

See also:  Janisse Ray's Atheism.