In Nomine Christi: An Essay on Oneness Pentecostalism as Heresy

HOW TO GET AWAY WITH HERESY

It is no secret that words have changed meaning throughout all of history. The word “heresy” is no different. Once used as a weapon to threaten the lives of those in opposition of the church, it now simply comes off as a pointed insult from a radical who disagrees with you. Of course, there are those who would say even these definitions are one in the same. According to medieval theologian, Robert Grosseteste, heresy can be defined as “an opinion chosen by human perception, contrary to Holy Scripture, publicly avowed and obstinately defended.” Noticeably, this definition (1) rests on the outcry and defense of the potential heretic and (2) that their opinion be deemed contrary to the Holy Scripture. The first point of this seemed simple enough; you may not be deemed a heretic if you simply kept your thoughts to yourself. If you were not jeopardizing the teachings, authority, or salvation of anyone else, it did not seem to matter what you thought to yourself. However, of course, such would only be a fear if your opinion was found “contrary to the Holy Scripture” in the first place. But who was to deem it as such? Well, the church of course. Who else? It would seem heresy, then, is more strictly defined by those with that authority insofar as they deem it to be “contrary to the Holy Scripture”. Avoiding such a quota would seem easy enough, one would think.

History has proven this to be more challenging than not. Dozens of theologians were condemned as heretics for their (self-seemingly) biblical theology. With the only standard – “contrary to the Holy Scripture” – being made as a reactionary to any potential problematic thought, deemed “heretics” would not necessarily know their ideology would be considered heresy until after it was already deemed as such. Now, these deemed heretics were able to recant their unorthodox opinions once they had been made aware of them, but in considering death this never appeared as much of a choice. 

After moving past the pitchforks and burning stakes, what does “heresy” necessarily entail of today? We could apply Grosseteste’s definition, if we so desired, but we then must affirm what is meant by “contrary to Holy Scripture”. What is contrary to Holy Scripture? Is it a view that God is a simple being with no essential or accidental properties? Perhaps it may be a view in which God is a complex being with a dozen essential or accidental properties? Is it whatever some sole church authoritative organization claims? Or rather, is it left open for interpretation, perhaps maybe even so on purpose? Do topics such as these have to be “contrary” to the Holy Scriptures if the topics themselves are seemingly absent from the text? In contemporary discussions, both Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MWB) and Oxford English Dictionary (OED) define the term as “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma; an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma”  and “theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox”, respectively.  It would appear such an attempt at a drastic use of the term renders fruitless. Are organizational bodies just supposed to “have faith” that God will make these contraries apparent when the time comes? What, then, does “heresy” necessarily entail of? 

In a post-Reformation, religiously free-world, it almost seems fruitless to attempt to make the term impactful, as it once was, without being seen as something of a radical, theological shark. Heresy, then, ought to be de-weaponized as a term. It ought not seek to destroy, but to encourage growth. However, it ought to still remain as impactful and as substantial towards ones’ life of faith as it has in the past. 

Heresy, then, could be redefined to potentially speak towards the essential beliefs of what it means to be saved by the blood of Christ. If Protestant churches aim to claim orthodoxy amongst themselves as a unified body, then heresy would seemingly stand in direct contrast of that.  Practically speaking, heresy would appear as synonymous to blasphemy to those already within Christian environments. Heresy, specifically within a Christian context, can then be defined as “a particular belief which threatens one’s salvation in denial of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who did so in accordance to His divine nature.” Heresy then becomes a statement about ones’ salvific state in accordance to John 3:16 and the evident ministry of Christ through the New Testament gospels. This definition allows the term to (1) be effective for ones’ personal faith, (2) be viewed in the context of de-weaponized legalism, and (3) to encourage open interpretations of Scripture. 

Noticeably, this definition does not account for other potentially harmful or dangerous beliefs and ideologies that can exist within orthodoxy. Within Protestantism specifically, many denominations may proclaim tenets of their faith that may be well-intended yet to other denominations appear as disheartening. Potential denominational tenets, such as societal gender roles, free will, or worship styles, ought to all fall at the feet of Jesus. Such tenets ought not to be used as weapons from one denomination against another, but rather as mere allowance by the grace of God to interpret the Holy Scripture and may not be forced onto the autonomy of others. It is then when these denominational tenets become dangerous, and while they may not jeopardize the individual’s faith in Jesus and His gospel, they may end up treating God’s creation in an inhumane, ungodly way for which they may be judged for. 

If this application of heresy were to be given an analogy, it would be comparable to going offroad of the highway of biblical theology, crashing through the guardrails of orthodoxy. While going offroad does not ensure destruction, it does entail of a lack of protection. The highway is still dangerous, though, as there are other drivers who may be reckless – going too fast or going too slow – all within the confines of orthodoxy. The church’s role with orthodoxy, then, should be to assist drivers in staying on the highway as best as possible, either advising them to slow down or to speed up as to not cause a collision for their sake and others. 

“JESUS ONLY”

One modern Christian movement that has been a prominent topic of heresy is Oneness Pentecostalism. Oneness Pentecostalism, and perhaps Pentecostalism as a whole, has been discussed as heresy by many theologians and scholars, largely due to their radical eccentricities regarding worship. However, this paper is not focusing on Oneness Pentecostalism’s practices, but rather its beliefs. As the name implies, Oneness Pentecostals deny the orthodox belief of the Trinity in favor of a Unitarian sect, Modalistic Monarchianism. That is, Oneness Pentecostals believe the entirety of the Godhead to rest within one person, and that person expresses themselves in different manifestations through modes. This singular person is usually identified as (1) the Father Himself who takes on the modes of the Son, named Jesus, and the Spirit, and (2) Jesus, as Jesus is the proper name given to God Incarnate. This latter description is also why Oneness Pentecostalism is also known as the “Jesus Only” movement. This is noticeably and undoubtedly done for the purpose of drawing a distinction between the Trinity and polytheism. If the members of the Godhead are nothing more than “modes” in which God enters and exits at will – much like an actor with their characters – then the comparison to polytheism is removed. Like many other heresies, Oneness Pentecostalism starts with humble beginnings in an attempt to provide a thoughtful solution to a complex problem. However, it finds itself with problems, nonetheless. 

As Jonathan Wright notes in his book, Heretics: The Creation of Christianity from the Gnostics to the Modern Church, heresy can be defined as a necessary means by which the church formed orthodoxy.  The entire reason we have proclaimed orthodoxy is because ideas that have challenged and violated the truth of Scripture have arisen. Orthodoxy is the guardrails to the dangers of driving off a highway. In a way, though, orthodoxy is determined by manmade tradition. Orthodoxy ought not to be interpreted as sacred nor to change the meaning of Scripture for itself. Orthodoxy, like any tradition, ought to be open to interrogation. Such interrogations may include that towards the Trinity. It is true; the Trinity is a doctrine that has been defined as orthodoxy by men who have interpreted Scripture in such a way to claim the Trinity. The difference then between Modalism and Trinitarianism does not lie solely in their distinctions of belief, but also in who championed their position in history.  Modalism, and any other interrogation towards the orthodox belief of Trinitarianism itself, ought to be taken seriously as contenders for the truth of Scripture.  Common philosophical and theological arguments regarding space and time, Christ’s death and resurrection, supposed Trinitarian manifestations, baptism and salvation, and real distinctions of person and being, are typically used both for and against both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views.  

The current earliest and perhaps clearest documented argument for the Trinity can be found in Tertullian’s Against Praxeas, in which Tertullian argues against Praxeas, who advocated for Monarchianism; the belief that God is just one person. Tertullian’s descriptions were incredibly complex. In retrospect, his distinctions between the philosophical concepts of person and being are implied at best. At worst, Tertullian seemingly affirms strict monotheism at times or soft polytheism at others. The line is gray, to say the least, but his arguments are clear enough insofar as he disagrees with Praxeas for conflating the persons of the Godhead.  For contemporary discussion, we have the other 1800 years of church fathers and councils (i.e., “tradition”) to thank for refining Tertullian’s ideas. 

This brings the discussion to 325 A.D., the Council of Nicaea. This council was meeting largely to discuss and discipline Arius for his beliefs and teaching of Christ as not fully God. Whereas Praxeas was criticized for his inflation of the divine persons, Arius was criticized for the separation of them. This, however, is why the Nicene Creed is so emphatic on the relationship between the Father and the Son, as it reads:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth… And in the Holy Spirit.  

Even with this newly established creed, though, there is room for error.  The Nicene Creed introduces vague language, such as “begotten not made” in the same breath as the Son of God being “God from God, light from light, true God from true God.”  As theology becomes more developed, it seemingly demands the language to do the same. 

Unsurprisingly, the issue persisted through the oncoming years. In 381 A.D., another council met in Constantinople, reaffirming the Nicene Creed and specifically condemning multiple heresies, including Sabellianism, the name given to Modalistic Monarchianism at the time and named after Sabellius. Unfortunately, the Council of Constantinople does not go into detail as to why the Sabellians were wrong, only that they were. The creed that arose from this council does provide more detail to the Father and Son’s relationship with the Spirit, which in turn may add implications to the argument against Sabellius.  

This discussion has carried its way through history ever since, and in a post-Reformation, religious free-world, the theology and philosophy have expanded. In company with Praxeas, one such view of the Trinity is the aforementioned Modalistic Monarchianism. One organization that identities themselves with this belief is the United Pentecostal Church Independent (UPCI). Their statement on their view of God is as follows: “There is one God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. He is both God and man.” The key word to note here is emanation. Emanation and how it is described acts as the sole term in which this distinction and potential heresy is founded upon. If you were to follow the OED definition of emanation, then emanation is “used to denote the ‘generation’ of the Son, and the ‘procession’ of the Holy Ghost, as distinguished from the origination of merely created beings.”  In context of the OED definition, it would seem emanation would be a proper term to distinguish the persons of the Trinity.  Yet, however, this is not what the UPCI means, as they do not affirm three distinctly emanated personhoods within the Trinity. Current General Superintendent of the UPCI, American New Testament scholar, and Oneness Pentecostal theologian, David Bernard, describes the Trinity as the following:

The Bible speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes, relationships to man, or functions of the one God, but it does not refer to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three persons, personalities, wills, minds, or Gods. God is the Father of us all and in a unique way the Father of the man Jesus Christ. God manifested Himself in flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, called the Son of God. God is also called the Holy Spirit, which emphasizes His activity in the lives and affairs of mankind. God is not limited to these three manifestations; however, in the glorious revelation of the one God, the New Testament does not deviate from the strict monotheism of the Old Testament. Rather, the Bible presents Jesus as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus is not just the manifestation of one of three persons in the Godhead, but He is the incarnation of the Father, the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Truly, in Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 

As opposed to the Tertullian or Nicene description of the persons, Bernard calls them everything but persons, in addition to outright denying any potential of such. Rather, Bernard’s language of modes, roles, manifestations, titles, and relationships is what deems this as Modalistic Monarchianism. The fact this is against traditional orthodox teachings is indisputable, and thus would be claimed as heresy. However, as has been argued, if heresy is going to be a term in which is affective in a post-Reformation, religiously free-world, then the term must mean something more substantial to ones’ personal faith. However, that is not to say this view is unproblematic. 

Even if one may plausibly affirm faith within Modalistic Monarchianism, this particular approach to the Trinity would appear to attempt to render the God of Scripture as insincere at best. To claim God exercises modes or roles in Scripture that propose distinct personal distinctions – as described previously by Bernard – without actual personal distinctions would be contradictory. This contradiction may be found in further interaction with Bernard’s and Modalistic Monarchianism’s descriptions of “role”, though. The MWD describes a role as “(1a) a character to be assigned or assumed, (1b) a part played by an actor or singer, or (2) a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process.” Even if both definitions can be described as unorthodox, they are distinct nonetheless. 

If the latter example were to be applied, then the proposed persons of the Trinity exist just as my role as brother, student, and worker exist. Towards my siblings, I am their brother. Towards my teachers, I am their student. Towards my employers, I am their worker. Furthermore, I also act accordingly to my role considering my circumstance. When I am a worker, I work. When I am a student, I study. When I am a brother, I do brotherly things. In this analogy, God brings Himself to particular scenarios as a particular function – as Father, Son, or Spirit. The issue with this form of Modalism is the restriction of temporality of the roles. Although I may be a student and a worker, when I am working, I am not studying. God, however, portrays Himself in Scripture as actively partaking in these “functions” at once. As is evident through Scripture, the Father is still in heaven amidst Christ’s ministry on earth. 

The former example resembles the functions-view insofar as possessing the same temporal limitations. The difference, however, allows some level of personification. If the former example were to be applied, the proposed persons of the Trinity exist just as characters exist to an actor. Zane portrays himself as Abe, Bob, and Carl. Abe, Bob, and Carl may have relationships amongst each other in the theatrics – just as the Father, Son, and Spirit seemingly have relationships – but the issue arises in the person of Zane. Zane still seems to be his own identifiable person apart from his characters. If the analogy follows, and we know Zane’s characters through his theatrics, then who we have a personal, salvific relationship with are characters of God and not God Himself. Furthermore, if any of Zane’s characters take on a property for the sake of the theatric, then it is just that; theatric. It isn’t real or substantial. If Abe dies in the story, Zane is still very well alive. If Bob is sick in the story, Zane may be perfectly healthy. If Carl were to take on human nature, sin, and die in any real or substantial sense, then it would appear the same properties would have to be true of Zane. However, if any such properties were to be true of Zane, then they ought to be true for Zane’s other characters as well. Therefore, if Zane were to take on human nature and sin and die in any real or substantial sense as Carl, then the same must be true for Abe and Bob. Scripture would seemingly imply this cannot be the case, as there are properties attributed to each of the proposed persons that aren’t of the others. In addition to this, however, this acting-view also faces the same temporal limitations as the functions-view.  

In opposition of these views would be the orthodox, Classical Trinitarianism view, which holds that the persons of the Trinity are embodiments of their relationships towards one another; the Father is the Father due to His relationship of begetting the Son, the Son is the Son due to His relationship of being begotten by the Father, and the Spirit is the Spirit due to proceeding from the Father, through the Son, as a comforter. These relationships then make up the individual personhood of each member, with the Father being the logical exception as being necessarily prior to the other two members per their begottenness and procedingness. 

As described in orthodoxy, the Trinity can seemingly be seen as a combination of the two Modalistic approaches, with the addition to eternality. God the Father, being logically prior in the Godhead, begets the Son. This eternal relationship of begetting and begottenness are what make these persons of the Trinity distinct persons; their individual relationships of one another. For example, the Father does not experience the begottenness of the Son, for if He did, then He would be the Son and would be begotten from Himself. Likewise is true in vice versa with the Son. The Spirit, then, experiences being preceded from the Father through the Son; a distinct relationship and experience the other two do not possess. In a way, the relationships within the Godhead all embody the persons sustaining said relationships, with the Father taking logical priority. In comparison with the previously explored forms of Modalism, it would be as if Zane were to play a character as himself and then beget a duplication of himself into Abe, calling the duplicate “son”, thereby making him a “father”. By the essence of Zane and through the work of Abe, the two precede Bob, who through his precedence also exemplifies the relationship between Zane and Abe. Of course, all these actions would be happening co-eternally with one another, with no actual distinction to be made between the beginning and the end of any particular event.  There is only the logical distinction to make between the Father and the other two persons, as the other two’s relationships hinge on the Father.  

The importance of these distinctions, nonetheless, are (1) to theologically ensure the sincereness of the implications through Scripture, as evidenced by textual occurrences, (2) to significantly allow Christianity to stand firm and stark in a multi-religious world of monotheistic and polytheistic religions, and (3) to personally and practically enable us to connect through prayer and worship to the Father our creator, through the Son our redeemer, and by the Holy Spirit our comforter. In conclusion, while Oneness Pentecostalism’s view of the Trinity may not be defined as heresy, it does lack a substantial view of the revealed persons within the divine life.