# My Friend and the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2007)

I have a friend who has been in contact with some "Jesus Only" Pentecostals. I haven't had any contact ever with this group and don't know a whole lot about them. My friend was wondering how this group twists the scriptures to come to their beliefs. My friend said something about them believing there are three steps to salvation. 

I'll do some googling, but does anybody have any thoughts on this?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Mar 1, 2007)

They believe Acts 2:38 is the unbreakable model of salvation: repent, be baptized in the single name of Jesus Christ( not Father, Son, & Spirit; if you've been baptized that way, you need re-baptism ), and evidence the presence of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. Otherwise.... it depends on who you're talking to, but their principles and their leaders believe you're *lost*.

The easy response to that is to reference Acts 10, where they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues as did the Apostles, who then asked how water could be denied them, seeing that they had received the Holy Spirit in the exact same fashion. I saw two of the top leaders from the 80's, Dr. Nathaniel Urshan & Robert Sabin and they had no answer to that, except to mention that Peter did tell them to be baptized afterward. Sure...

Did you see the thread I started this morning about that? In those videos, not only do they discuss the Trinity / Oneness differences for about 2+ hours, they also got into the whole Acts 2:38 pattern of things. They were soundly whipped for saying it too by the Drs. Walter Martin & E. Calvin Beisner.

If you want to know more, follow some of these links:

The Trinity or "Jesus Only" -- What Do the Scriptures Teach? - TV program in 9 segments of $5 each. I just finished them and they were superb.

Oneness vs. Trinity - A veritable plethora of linked articles from both sides.

The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard - He's probably the number one Oneness apologist today. He's pretty sharp and he halfway beat up on Gene Cook in a debate. It was about a tie, though he came out on top in appearance.

"Jesus Only" Churches by Drs. E. Calvin Beisner & Alan Gomes. - I ordered this and haven't received it. He was superb in his debate, so I expect nothing less in the book.

A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: Defending the Tri-Unity of God by Edward L. Dalcour - He's ex-Oneness and I hear this is the best book on the topic. If you want the book get it from his website( link ); it's $10 less there than anywhere else I could find it. I haven't read it yet, but it's supposed to be in the mail.

You see, I've recently come to the conviction I've got to find a response to it. Some of my best friends are of this denomination and those I work with are more often than not. Hopefully this will help you and me find the Biblical answer.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Mar 1, 2007)

By the way, I've also been horrified to notice that in one of their bookstores, they were selling a book by the Unitarian Sir Anthony Buzzard in which he denies that Christ ever claimed to be God. On one hand, they were also selling sets of B. B. Warfield( why on earth? ); on the other, in the debate I heard Robert Sabin say that Christ the man never claimed to be God. WOW.

Disturbing, to say the least.

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
- - -
Oneness position: this was the human nature of Christ speaking to his deity. They apply the same thing to Christ's baptism.
- - -
It would seem to me that this amounts to Christ being a man who was uniquely indwelt by God. He was not God( "and he never claimed to be" ); he was just overshadowed or filled with the Holy Spirit in a unique way. They totally misunderstand the person of Christ because they make the orthodox Christian belief in the twin natures in unity an division in which both sides can speak to the other. Nature speaks to nature.

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson quoted W. G. T. Shedd's statement on Christ's person in one of his lectures. Something to the effect that Christ had a single self-conscious in which two sub-consciousnesses united. Human / Deity. In the same way in which a man may *feel* cold while he prays *with his mind* to the Lord, there is a combination in Christ's consciousness of His filling heaven and earth while also being conscious of His bodily presence on earth. There was no split self-conscious in Christ, for if there were, where would you find it? As I've said in discussions with my co-worker, Christ spoke of Himself as both the "Son of man" and the "Son of God", correct? This would seem to be an easy way of detecting which split side of His consciousness He is referring to if there were one, wouldn't it? Well, how then does He refer to the "_Son of man *which is in heaven*_" in John 3:13? Apparently, the "Son of man" is omnipresent.

- - -

That's just my few thoughts on the matter. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes in my formulations; I really would like to know if there are any.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2007)

Thanks, Tyler.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Mar 2, 2007)

*Act 20:28* _Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of *God*, which *he* hath purchased with *his own blood*._

It was *God's* blood which was shed to purchase the church. The human nature which included the body which bled belonged to God. Therefore, the humanity of of Christ is unified with His deity.

Also, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" cannot merely be the voice of the human nature, since that blood with which the church was purchased was God's.

Also, just think about it: if the "God nature" departed from the "human nature" at the point of death, then neither we nor the Bible has any right to say that it is the death of Christ which saves us.

"The wages of sin is death.." Sin's wages were not paid by the "God nature", since "He" departed from the "human nature" before "it" died. Therefore, it was only in His humanity that Christ suffered and died if Oneness teaching is correct. Or perhaps you could say that up until Jesus says He was forsaken that the "God nature" was still there with Him. But I'd have trouble saying that He came back at any time after that point. Besides, even if the "God nature" was there the entire time, unless He was united with the human sub-conscious in one self-conscious, it'd be impossible to say that "He" suffered at all. The nerves reporting pain weren't connected to Him.. the blood spilling out was only felt by the body "He" was possessing. Perhaps I'm being too imaginative this late at night. I need to read Bernard's book( I only just received it today ). But isn't what I'm saying at least superficially valid if my interpretations of their views are correct?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 4, 2007)

JW's and Modalists (Oneness or Jesus Only folks) both start off with the same assumption: God is _one Person_. 

Their approach to scripture is the same: they _assume_ that a particular teaching will be found in _one place_ in scripture in a manner which _they feel_ it should be straightforward (proof texting).

Two bad assumptions guide their exegesis.

I'll be posting (on my site - probably starting tomorrow) an entire series I'm beginning on the doctrine of the Trinity (I'm actually using it for a Bible study at this moment for a parachurch ministry I'm associated with). Using this approach _may_ help you to slow down the persons you're associating with and have them look longer and harder at all of scripture and not just isolated texts.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 4, 2007)

would this be considered hardcore dispensationalism?


----------



## etexas (Mar 4, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> would this be considered hardcore dispensationalism?



 They go a ............few stps farther than even a hardcore dispie! Pax


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 4, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> They go a ............few stps farther than even a hardcore dispie! Pax



We must bring every thought captive to Christ! So next time you see someone questioning the trinity, do this:

 

 Just kidding.


----------



## etexas (Mar 4, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> We must bring every thought captive to Christ! So next time you see someone questioning the trinity, do this:
> 
> 
> 
> Just kidding.


You got it brother.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 5, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> would this be considered hardcore dispensationalism?



No. This has nothing to do with dispensationalism.


----------

