Talk:Baptism in the name of Jesus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Seems like 'extremely POV stuff'

I can't but say that this appears to be extremely POV stuff. I know nothing whatsoever about the issues discussed on the page, but still that is the impression I get. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:37 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree (I'd at least put 'purported' in front of 'heresy', but it needs more than that). -- Hephaestos 07:39 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I fixed it up a little bit.. -- Dysprosia 07:41 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It seems ok now. -- FearÉIREANN 08:29 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I concur. It is fine. (for the time being) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:34 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The position does lack foundational and historical support. Besides that, the POV of the issue was started in modern times from a particular event. In essence one person McAleister had a theory and that theory he turned into a doctrine that requires salvation. That should be noted. Anytime a theory becomes doctrine for salvation, it is either a doctrinal revision, heresy, or a new revelation -- [Unsigned comment by 136.1.1.101 22:33, 11 February 2004]

I believe that the statement "it is important to note....not in the Bible" is a biased statement, because it is essentially putting only one side of the argument. Essentially you are putting a very-much-simplified argument in favour of anti-trinitarianism. To maintain neutraility either we have to put in the counter-argument (that the words may not be there, but the concepts very much are) or, since this isn't the place for a theological discussion, we should remove the statement. Anyone who disagrees with this please say why here. -- DJ Clayworth 16:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also suggest that we move this article to Jesus-Name doctrine, if that is what the Oneness movement calls it. We shouldn't generally use an article title that is viewed as an insult by those who hold the belief. -- DJ Clayworth 16:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus-Only_doctrine"

Jesus-Only is considered derogatory term

Jesus-Only is considered derogatory term by those of us that consider themselves Jesus-Name or Oneness believers. This whole article should be rewritten or redirected to Oneness Theology with "Jesus-Only" listed as a phrase only used by non-believers. -- LuckyDay [User:63.13.225.20] 12:16am 04 21 2005

Jesus-Only is *not* purely a derogatory term for the belief. It is, however, distinct in a doctrinal sense from Jesus-name and Oneness. That is to say that the three are not truly and perfectly synonymous. Jesus-name refers to a belief regarding baptismal formulae (in the name of Jesus, as opposed to in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Oneness refers to an ontological position regarding the godhead that insists that there is no personal distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but that all three are simply different aspects, offices, or revelations of the same divine person (depending on one's particular revelation). Jesus-only also refers to the ontological position regarding the godhead, such that, not only is there no personal distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but that the 'person' in all three aspects, offices, or revelations is Jesus. Oneness and Jesus-only are generally flip sides of the same coin, differing over whether the incarnate Jesus is a manifestation of the essential God, or whether God in all His attributes is a manifestation of Jesus, carnate or not (which came first, the chicken or the egg). Both groups are historically (recent history, granted) at odds doctrinally, but both are considered equally Jesus-name. -- David2nd 07:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

David2nd, thanks for your comments. While it is true that 'some' among Oneness adherents do not consider the term "Jesus-Only" to be derogatory, 'many do'. Some have had occasion to suffer a false accusation that (since Oneness people are supposedly "Jesus-only", therefore) they "deny both Father and Holy Ghost." That accusation has caused some to consider the use of the term ("Jesus-only") against us as a pejorative, and (for many) is it not a term they chose of their own accord to use in reference to themselves. Although a minority differ, and defend the term and choose to use it in reference to themselves, the majority do not, me thinks. Perhaps we can find a way to succinctly point out the variation, and identify that "a portion of adherents...." You get the idea. -- DougJoseph 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that babtism is in the name of "Jesus Christ" and not using the term Father son and holy spirit. Because if we clearly look at Mathew 28,19 it clearly states in the NAME of the father son and holy spirit. Using that term is wrong because when Jesus said that the disciples knew what he meant so they babtized in the name of Jesus. first lets look what is the name of the Father, in John 5,43 Jesus clearly said I come in my Fathers name. Now the name of the holy spirit, on John 14,26 Jesus says the holy spirit, of which the father will send in my name. Now the name of the son on Mathew 1,25 says they gave the sons name Jesus. In Isaiah 52,6-7 says Therefore my people shall know my name and I am who speaks behold it is I.How beautiful are the feet of him who brings good news. So we clearly see that the name of the Father and the son and the holy spirit is JESUS. Remember He shall be named Emmanuel which means GOD with us. Isaiah 43,10-11 says you are my witnesses says the lord and my servant whom I chosen,[Jesus] that you may know and believe me and understand tat I am he. Before me there was no God formed,nor shall there be after me. I even I an the lord and besides me there is no Savior. But is not Jesus our Savior. John 17,3 says that they may know you the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. notice it says the only true God. 1st of John 5,20 says Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life. But the Bible tells us there is only one God not two. God tells us in Deuteronomy that there are no gods with him so how can Jesus and the Father be two Gods. In Joel 2,28 God clearly tells us that he will pour out HIS spirit on all Flesh and we will Prophesy but is it not the Holy Spirit that makes us Prophesy. They are all the same God is one, in 1st John 3,16 says perceive we the love of God because he laid down his life for us. Acts 20,28 says the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood. God manifested himself in three different ways but all three are one. To say there is three is insane the word trinity does not exist in the bible or a Babtism using the phrase Father son holy spirit. Javier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.202.118 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Redirected from "Jesus-Only", that term is not only NPOV but also very derogatory. -- Boothcat4320 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Perhaps a merge with Oneness Pentecostalism should be considered? -- Greenlead 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology of Edits

I am the person who made the recent edits to this article. I am very fluent in Oneness theology, but I confess I'm a total newbie with regard to Wikipedia etiquette. Out of my newbie ignorance, I made edits to the article without first logging in, and without posting to the discussion page first. Please forgive me if I have violated normal etiquette or Wiki ethics.

The article, as it existed before, could have given readers the wrong impression that Oneness people teach and believe in sequential modalism, i.e., that God stopped existing in the mode of 'Father' to begin existence in the mode of 'Son', and God's existence in the mode of 'Son' must have stopped so God could 'change' or 'morph' into existence in the mode of 'Holy Spirit.' There may be a few sequential modalists here or there, but that is not an accurate description of us as a whole.

I tried my best to edit in a way that presents both Oneness and Trinitarian PsOV accurately and without insinuation of accusation or inflammatory statement. The possibility remains that someone will find something objectionable, but the statements I added are factual and can be substantiated.

It should be noted that, among adherents on either side of the debate, there is not a lot of solidarity in doctrinal views. Some scholars of either given side disagree somewhat with other of their own scholars, and the rank-and-file of either side often vary significantly from their own scholars and from one another.

Someone commented above with the implication that the source of our doctrine was 'McAleister' and that we view the doctrine as a salvific matter. Neither point is accurate. That comment either confuses the doctrine of the Oneness of God with the doctrine of Jesus-name baptism, or claims we confuse the two, or perhaps the comment seeks to portray 'McAleister' as the origin of both doctrines and that we view both as salvific. Inaccuracy seems to abound in such implications.

(For the following reply, we must assume that 'McAleister' is either a reference to Evangelist R.E. McAlister, who is purported to have preached about Jesus-name baptism in 1913 at a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California, setting off a doctrinal shift, or perhaps it is a reference to a story in which a man is purported to have run through a camp meeting in the early twentieth century, shouting out his 'revelation', and setting off a doctrinal shift.)

Christians that refused to affirm, and/or debated against, the doctrine of the Trinity predate 'McAleister' by many centuries; actually, for the entirety of the existence of the doctrine of the Trinity. Also, people who historically baptized in Jesus name date from the first century, clearly predating 'McAleister', and extant proof that such practice continued in the centuries after the first, and predating the twentieth, is readily available. Both the 'Oneness' and 'Jesus-name-baptism' doctrines predate 'McAleister' by many centuries. 'McAleister' is not the source, regardless of whatever role he may have had.

Some among us (especially the unstudied, i.e., not among scholars) do seem to believe it is salvific that one have a 'revelation' about the oneness of God (which, in context, does not mean 'new, infallible, extrabiblical doctrine', but rather means to gain illumination from God's Spirit regarding the Bible's existing data on the oneness of God as pertains to the unity of the Father and Son). Nevertheless such a requirement is not monolithic among us. That would be an unfair depiction of us on the whole. Many, especially among our scholars, believe it is not necessarily a salvific matter, as long as one has taken on faith that the man Christ Jesus was and is the Son of God, which means that He was and is God manifested in the flesh (a biblical statement). Neither of those affirmations is objectionable according to most all Trinitarian scholars.

I have read, and met, some Trinitarians who hold that agreement with their view on the matter is salvific, e.g. unless one believes that the Trinity is an adequate and accurate description of God, then one is not saved. I have succeeded in getting some such Trinitarians to soften up on the matter by asking them pointedly, "Do you believe that salvation is through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone?" When they answer "Yes," then I reply, "Yet you actually believe that acknowledgment of a certain creed (or creeds), must also be added or there is no salvation. Thus, your actual view contradicts your words."

In other words, people can be found on both sides that make the matter salvific, and people that don't make it salvific can be found on either side.

I concur that a merge with Oneness Pentecostalism should be considered.

-- DougJoseph 18:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Question concerning this statement:

Jesus-Name doctrine is an informal term used to describe the Oneness doctrine, i.e., regarding the oneness of God[1], which is taught by Oneness Pentecostals such as the United Pentecostal Church and other denominations. They explicitly reject the doctrine of the Trinity as an inadequate and inaccurate description of God. Most who hold to the Oneness doctrine claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was slowly formulated over a period of more than three centuries.

If the doctrine of the Trinity was slowly formulated over a period of more than three centuries, how did it over take the Oneness doctrine within the 1st century without any objection against it? The only early church writing we have available are those of the suppose church father's refuting Oneness.

-- [Unsigned comment by User:Whitsitt3 00:16, 9 July 2007]

Request for Clarification

The article was recently flagged with "neutrality disputed" and "factual accuracy disputed." However, no discussion was provided here on the discussion page, about the disputes. The following memo does appear in the article's history page: "(This seems to misrepresent mainstream (many would argue historic orthodox) Christian views on the derivation of the doctrine of the trinity both factually and in a biased way)."

If it were clarified as to which portions or statements are alleged to be inaccurate, and which statements are alleged to misrepresent in a biased way, the disputes could be investigated. Would those who flagged the article be so kind as to point out which portions are disputed?

We would like to either 1) concede matters and edit the article to see the flags removed, or 2) seek to produce proof either from historic documents or writings of modern-day scholars, to try to show that there are not misrepresentations based on bias and the facts purported can be substantiated, and thus see the flags removed.

Thanks.

-- DougJoseph 03:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Note regarding 'Request for Clarification'

We have requested that the person(s) who flagged the article with "neutrality disputed" and "factual accuracy disputed" please let us know which portions or statements are disputed, so that we can investigate. There has been no response here as yet.

We understand that an author of statements in a Wiki article bears the burden of proof, so we are not asking others to disprove any statements, only to point to which statements they feel are not factual or misrepresent based on bias.

Since no input or reply has been forthcoming, we have attempted to guess at which statements may appear incredulous to others, and have edited the article further in order to provide footnotes containing references that show we are not making these things up out of thin air or posing them simply out of undue bias. The statements are verifiable beyond any biased writings of a Oneness adherent.

We will wait a few more days, perhaps a week, to hear back from someone on this. Unless someone points to some other statements in the article as still disputed (as either unverifiable or posed simply out of bias), we will then conclude that the disputes are resolved, and remove the dispute tags. Thanks.

-- DougJoseph 22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of disputes resolved

We have provided (several days ago, about a week) footnotes with encyclopedia statements and writings of academic and theological scholars showing that statements in the article are factual and not based simply on undue bias. Since our requests (for further comment about the disputes) have gone unanswered, we are judging the dispute resolved and we are removing the dispute flags. Of course, we remain open to any and all discussion about any portion of the article that is deemed to be in need of dispute. -- DougJoseph 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

I am not the person who placed the original POV tag on the article. Nevertheless, reading it I felt that it could use some cleaning up to conform to the NPOV policy. It spends most of the first half of the article bashing trinitarianism rather than explaining what the doctrine actually is. (Imagine if much of the article on Atheism was spent in explaining who and which people have disbelieved in the existence of a god throughout history, rather than relegating this to a history section and spending the bulk of the article discussing the actual subject.) 207.245.124.66 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is innacurate to say that Oneness don't consider themselves Protestants because they aren't protesting anything. The etymology of the word Protestant isn't about protesting, it is about presenting testimony. [Unsigned comment by User:216.37.230.100 20:02, 22 June 2006]

According to Wiki policy (paraphrased), such discussions (about groups of people and their beliefs) should be as good a defense of a given group and their view as they would give themselves. Oneness people, when describing/teaching their view, do indeed include historical proof and scholarly evidence that the Trinity doctrine is philosophy-based instead of biblically-based. Showing such points here (in describing them and their view) does not make either view false or true, and it is not bashing Trinitarianism (except in the mind of one who believes the Trinity to be biblically-based and who is offended by any facts that dispute his or her view); rather it is simply pointing out that, according to a substantial majority of scholarship, philosophy was the root of the Trinity doctrine. Unless one's approach is "My mind is already made up; don't bother me with the facts" then facts and scholarship have their place in the discussion. And Wiki policy agrees.

Oneness people are not in charge of the Wiki article about Trinitarianism, and we should not be. We also are not watching and/or editing that page to "make sure" that it portrays Oneness in a kind light or Trinitarianism in a poor light. Likewise, Trinitarians should not be trying to prevent Oneness people from being accurately described here, or trying to prevent Oneness articles from describing its belief and adherents, including some of the historical and biblical reasons why the Trinity doctrine is rejected by same.

Because Atheism is an inverse relative to Theism, any article on Atheism will need to mention words like "god" (perhaps even in a way that sounds like bashing to some Theists). Likewise, Trinitarianism and Oneness are inversely related, and thus any discussion of the one need not exclude mention of the other. Defense of the Trinity doctrine can and should occur in articles about Trinitarianism. Defense of the Oneness doctrine can and should occur in Oneness articles. As long as we don't falsely portray each other here, everything is fine. If you think we have inaccurately or falsely portrayed you or your group, state where and how, so we can try to investigate and/or correct it and/or work to prove or validate the statements. That is how it works here.

-- DougJoseph 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "etymology of the word Protestant isn't about protesting". I don't know who posted that comment but.... No, actually that word is [exactly] about protesting. Those historical figures (Martin Luther, etc) who began whole religious groups entirely on the basis of protesting against the Catholic church, are the basis of the word "Protestant." Etymologically, the root word found in Protestant, is protest. Sorry, but that is what the word means. DougJoseph 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks

A few weeks ago I came across the Jesus only entry and was less than impressed. A lot less. Having been Oneness believer for 25 years I have never heard the term used in any way except as derogatory. For many reasons I've been too busy to log on and comment, and now that I can, I find measures already taken to fix the matter.

As for "bashing" trinitarians. I don't think thats intentional. Its just that we inevitably have to spend time explaining to people what we don't believe before going on to what we do believe.

--David Bird 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Will Update

The Oneness Pentecostalism page is slowly coming to a point where I think it's NPOV and style tags can be removed. Once that happens, I will transfer similar changes to this page as necessary. If you want my opinion, it needs to redirect to the main Oneness Pentecostalism page, because all it is is a copy of what is already there, but I'll work on getting updates as I can. The OP page seems to be badly referenced in MANY places. I'm editing Sabellianism right now, which used the derogatory term in it to refer back here, which is how I got here. I said it when I first read the OP page, non-Oneness people should not write Oneness doctrinal pages any more than a Roman Catholic priest should be writing doctrine on Hindu pages. Feel free to edit. Feel free to add opposing views. But every time I've seen a non-Oneness person write a Oneness doctrinal statement, they make grievous errors. One error can make it look like Sabellianism, Patripassionism, or Adoptionism. Other errors can be referring to Son and Father in incorrect relationship terms, negating either the humanity or deity of the Son. This is a very easy mistake to make for many Trinitarians, just by force of habit in how they think about it themselves. So, I say let OP doctrine be from OP sources, or at least OP contributers summarizing. Otherwise, there's a 99% chance it'll be wrong. *sigh* Looks like I've got a lot more work ahead of me. --DeWayne Lehman 12:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of DougJoseph's comments (who has done considerable amounts of work on OP pages, which I thank him for), I have to agree with his view on the tag itself. Where are the discussions about what here is NPOV? I agree, there are some things that need changed, and I'll change them as I update. But I have to agree, that the NPOV here and at Oneness Pentecostalism seem based on the fact that some view it as opposition to "factual trinitarianism". After I make enough changes that both articles have nothing in them that can be considered anti-NPOV I'll be removing the tags. These tags on here are going on "years". That in itself is a shame that still not enough considerable work has been done to actually correct the actual stated problems, and second, the connotations that the facts concerning the doctrines they have are not NPOV are themselves against the meaning behind NPOV. Just because you disagree with the theology of what a group believes does not mean it is not in NPOV.

If anyone objects against me removing the NPOV this very minute (as the article is now, is what I mean), then object to the specific parts that are objected to and why. Otherwise, I'll edit what I think could be done better, and remove the tags. So, yes, a future article will be better, but object now in its current form, or I will remove the tags.

For future reference, and I will state this on the OP page as well, if the tags are re-added, and specific reasons are not stated, just as they weren't here, they will be removed immediately by me personally as soon as I see them on my watch page, with the possible extra request that the pages enter into protective states.

I don't mean to be a hard case, but I find it inexcusable that such tags might be just slapped on when someone objects to subject matter of the article, and not its actual prose, style, or ability to cite its sources. It's like people that slap NPOV violation tags on pro-life or pro-choice pages just because they disagree. That is NOT how |Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia of reputation) operates, and you can ask any moderator about it if you feel what I'm saying here is wrong.

The tag will be gone on both pages by the end of next month at the latest. --DeWayne Lehman 13:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Denial of the Father and Holy ghost

A person who is a oneness does not deny the Father, nor do we deny the Holy Ghost, thats simply and rediculously false. As a oneness I belive the fullness of the God head dwealt bodily in Christ. As to Matthew 28 and 19 the term used is the elohim referring to the eloha. "go ye unto all nations teaching and babtizing in the Name(singular useage defining the pluarlity of God)of the Father and the Son and The Holy Spirit" When in acts does not an apostle or elder babtise in any other manner than on the name of the Lord Jesus or in jesus name, were the early leaders of the church writing in open rebellion to the work of God? Babtism is so central because it completes an act of obediance to God, Paul said it is the circumcission of our spirit, the abrahamic covenant had the circumsicion made of mortal hands that seperated gods people from the world. If this is circumcisiion made by Gods spirit to our own spirit then it is an inward sign that we are seperated from the people of the world. Paul says babrism washes us of our sins, again those with the stain of sin cannot fellowship with the light (GOD) and will not be admittable to heaven.

Peter draws its comparrison to the flood waters that seperated the world of sin and death that existed in noahs time to what it symbolizes for us, a vehicle so to say that babtism does also now save us. that is in 1st Peter 3;20 - 3;22.

Romans chapter 6 describes it as the symbolism of us transcended through the death buriel and ressurection of Jesus Christ, also that can be seen in collosians 2;8-2:13. Galatians 3:24-3:29, in summation to all I have written of First John 5:7 "for there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, The Word (referance st john chapter 1), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

It does not say they are 3 in one it says they are one. referance Isaiah45:5-45:6.

st john 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, The sprirt, and the water, and the blood and these three agree in one.

What do they agree in but in babtism in the transcendance of ourselves to be adopted by God through the sacrafice of Christ that who says there is no christ denys the father as well.

A good reason the early day church those who walked with Jesus babtised in his name, they had revealtion to the diety of the Father the Son the Holy spirit.

It is important to understand the mystery of God, and then to obey God.

-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.198.60 (talk) 19:51, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Edit Update 11/2007

The challenged word "derogatory" has been edited out and replaced with more accurate wording. The issue here is whether or not Oneness can write what they believe without Trinitarians editing out the facts and inserting in their own prejudices. It is not the fault of Oneness if Trinitarians do not properly explain or post what they actually believe. When falsehoods are posted expect them to be edited. This is the only way a fair and honest entry can represent the truth. I have noticed that special care is being taken to make Oneness statements confusing by adding nonsense. It is time for fairness and it is time for the objection to be ruled upon and the page no longer tagged. (Dr. Gary Reckart, Sr.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acts0412 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' Name or Jesus Name

This is a painful article to read for someone who cares about punctuation. Why is it Jesus Name without an apostrophe? It makes no sense. Googling the subject finds many references to Jesus' Name and rather fewer to Jesus Name. Most of the Jesus Name references are in the names of churches rather than discussion of the subject, and I can only assume that these churches have been incorrectly named by people who write things the way they sound, rather than the way they should be. Any comments? MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left this comment here for three weeks and nobody's responded. If nobody responds before I next look, I will replace "Jesus name" with "Jesus' name" throughout the article. MarkyMarkD (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now moved the article to its new name as once again nobody has commented in the alternative view. And I've amended the wording throughout the article accordingly. MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing Oneness from a Trinitarian PoV

I am a lay person that spent 10 years in a Oneness church and 13 years in a Southern Baptist Church.

I started some work on this page, but can only say as a fairly neutral person, that I was totally aghast by the content of the page it went from Baptism in Jesus Name, to Oneness is Anti-Trinitarism to Modalism in 3 SHORT Paragraphs.

First any definition of the Trinity and the belief should be left up to work on the Trinity page.

There is no part of Oneness that says that the Father doesn't exist, or the Holy Spirit doesn't exist. The major difference between Oneness people and Trinitarian people is that Oneness say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manefestations of God, and the Trinitarians say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons of God.

I am not sure that God cares if we think of him as a Manefestation or a Person as long as we understand he is One God.

Second most Oneness people don't describe them selves as 'Jesus Only' people. The more correct term would be 'Jesus Everything' but even still it is kind of like saying Trinitarians describe themselves a Tritheistic believers. I believe the Laity would not describe themselves at all, but certainly some of the theologians would apply such terms.

Third to Jump to Modalism without even covering what Jesus Name baptism belief is and why, is just extreme.

I know I should discuss the work for months first, but over the next few weeks I am going to work to make it much more Neutral in the Spirit of Wikipedia. Sabellism for example at best should be a link with possibly the reference, that some Jesus Name people used to believe in Modalism at best. It should NOT be the most readable part of Jesus Name beliefs.

Also much of this document is comparitive to Trinitarians as opposed to explaination of Jesus Name belief in Baptism. Since Oneness already has a document that stuff should not be placed over here.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)