# Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism

I provided a more direct link concerning Tim Blixseth. As for as I know he is still alive, with an article (WP:BLP) on Wikipedia, so the criteria is more stringent. While it is evident that the entry concerning abandoning his faith is probably correct, the reference does not state this (I did not see it), so it shouldn't be worded as such. I reworded the entry, along with corrections, to be more accurate according to the reference. On another note I am looking to see how this information is relevant and/or needed in this article. His parents went to a specific church but I have not seen where he espoused those beliefs in the first place let alone abandoned them. I think that if this information is actually important it should be in the article on him. Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word tritheism to describe Trinitarianism is not NPOV, as it reflects only the opinion of some. Nontrinitarian is an accurate term, and is NPOV. While it is not unique to Oneness, and thus isn't fully explanatory, it doesn't need to be. The rest of the article explains the doctrine. BroWCarey (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not know where the article speaks of tritheism, but I can tell you as a matter of fact that tritheism and the Trinity are not the same thing. In fact, it was condemned by the early Church. Tritheism is taught to be three gods working together whereas the Trinity is taught by Christians as being one God in three divine persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If you would like any legitimate information on this, please let me know. --Nosehair2200 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is the reasons for disputing the neutrality of the article?  Keep in mind that the view of other Christian denominations or other religions can be used for contrast, but can not themselves be deemed to be more objective than the views of Oneness Pentecostalism believers and should not be used as a reason to dispute the neutrality of the article.  Unless reasons for the dispute are given soon, I will remove the dispute marker, say in about a week. Nutster (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No reasons have been given, so I will remove the marker.  Nutster (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a dispute? :)  Someone put up the NPOV tag and it was taken down. The article is quite informative but does not report very much criticism of the Oneness view. The lack of NPOV, if at all, is in the need to balance the beliefs of the group with a report of those against such beliefs. This can be done by reporting contrary views. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The reason given in the edit summary was "Added a npov tag. The Church has rejected non-Trinitarians as non-Christians for centuries, so it doesn't seem neutral to grant that point. I've edited the summary to begin addressing this issue, but I think more work needs to be done." I don't know if this helps?20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I am not sure what point the quote is making. Can you explain further? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This quote is from one of my edit summaries. My edit changed the article introduction to refer to Oneness Pentecostalism as a group which describes itself as Christian (not necessarily a group which actually is Christian). The vast majority of those who call themselves Christian have rejected non-Trinitarian theology as heretical for centuries. Therefore, it hardly seems neutral for this article to call non-Trinitarians Christians in the face of such history and consensus.James2c19v (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't work like that. While scholars agree that they are non-trinitarian, I don't think any scholar will say that a movement that believes that Jesus Christ is God in his fullness cannot be Christian. That is illogical. Ltwin (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Lwtin, could you please clarify your position? I still don't know why Wikipedia should side with Oneness Pentecostals against the Church. Let me give an example. If a freedom-loving group of people in Russia started calling themselves Americans, that would not make them Americans, and it would not make sense for a Wikipedia article to refer to them as Americans. The term American has a definite meaning, and if a person is not a citizen of the United States of America, Wikipedia shouldn't use the term American to refer to that person. Similarly, the term Christian has a definite meaning, and it does not apply to everyone who might want to use the term to describe themselves (like the hypothetical freedom-loving Russians who want to call themselves Americans).James2c19v (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
James2c19v, this is where NPOV comes in. Wikipedia is not "siding" with anyone. And against "the Church?" Which church? Do you really want to open that can of worms? The Roman Catholic Church believes that any organization that does not have apostolic succession is not really a church. Can Wikipedia take that stand? Of course not. That's RCC doctrine. Wikipedia can report it, but not take a position on it. Oneness Pentecostals have always considered themselves Christian, whether we are talking the modern variety or ancient Oneness believers like Bishop Sabellius, middle ages believers like Michael Servetus, etc. Can Wikipedia take a stand on it? Of course not. The definition of Christian is not hard and fast like the definition of American. There is argument even among Christians as to who is a "true" Christian, and who is not. It is not the function of Wikipedia to sort that out. If a group considers themselves Christian, then that should be sufficient to describe them as such. That's what neutrality is about. It means we don't get into the messy business of deciding whether or not any particular group is what they believe themselves to be.BroWCarey (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with BroWCarey. Wikipedia can certainly note that the majority of Christians would not consider OP's real Christians. What Wikipedia cannot do is define a movement as non-Christian when the movement defines itself as being centered around the deity of Jesus Christ. We cannot pick and choose who is Christian. We cannot give the opinions of Trinitarian Christians (no matter if they are the majority) greater weight than non-Trinitarian Christians, especially when it comes to defining what is and what is not Christianity. Ltwin (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand where you guys are coming from. To me, the most neutral position would be to suspend judgment on whether or not this group is Christian. That is, the article should neither say that the group is Christian, nor should it say that they aren't Christian. By refusing to take either side of a contested matter, the article can remain neutral.James2c19v (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
James2c19v, The "Christianity" of any denomination could be contested. That of Oneness Pentecostals is not contested by everyone, not even by Trinitarian Pentecostal groups. (Assembly of God has issued a statement to that effect.) If any group is described as Christian on Wikipedia, then every group that considers itself Christian must also be described that way. To do anything less is indeed taking sides.BroWCarey (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
BroWCarey, I hear you, and honestly, I would prefer that we describe every Christian group this way ("describe themselves as Christian"). It seems we're working with competing definitions of the word Christian right now. The first is that of (what I consider) the Church, which represents a much broader consensus than I suspect you realize. Trinitarianism is a prerequisite. The second is that of Oneness Pentecostals, which I frankly am not that familiar with. I don't know if they consider "tritheists" to be Christian, but I would guess not by their use of that term. The third is that which has been proposed by Ltwin, that is, any group which considers Jesus to be God (whatever that means exactly). The fourth, which seems closer to the operating assumption, is any group that calls itself Christian. In the strictest sense of neutrality, we're not being neutral if we choose any of these four options for this article. It would be more neutral to enumerate all these definitions and explain where Oneness Pentecostalism falls according to each definition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James2c19v (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, my definition of who is Christian or not is based on WP:reliable sources and WP:No original research. Oneness Pentecostals consider themselves Apostolic Christians. Others in the Christian world do not. Some Christians will use your Trinitarian criteria to say that the Oneness doctrine rules the OPs out. Others might say that OPs are Christian, but heterodox ones. Besides self declared Christian sources, however, we can also resort to non-Christian sources. Are Oneness Pentecostals generally categorized as a Christian group in scholarly and academic sources? Based on my experience they are usually categorized as Christian for the simple fact that they have all the marks of being Christian. They believe they are following the teachings of Jesus. They use the Christian scriptures. They have a concept of the Church and the body of Christ. They have baptism. They have the Lord's Supper. Etc. Etc. Neither scholars nor Wikipedia have to make judgment calls on which Christian group's theological definition of Christian is the correct or most important. Scholars simply note what they call themselves, how they understand themselves, and observe what they do. They also note how other groups percieve them. That is all we need to do. Simply put, we state that they are a Christian group while acknowledging that they hold a minority position within the Christian world and that most/many Christians do not consider them Christians. We don't have to make this difficult. Ltwin (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding  WP:No original research: From the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd Ed. Revised, p. 1108, entry on Monarchianism, “[Monarchianism] became heretical, as it failed to do justice to the independent subsistence of the Son. There were two distinct groups of Monarchian theologians…(2) The ‘Modalist’ Monarchians or Sabellians, of whom the most notable were Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius.” Dr. David Bernard is quoted as accepting the label “modalistic monarchianism” in the section “Accusations of Modalism and Arianism.” A highly reputable, neutral source like (the Oxford Dictionary) says modalistic monarchianism is heretical. Does that fit the criteria, Ltwin? Mijo323az (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. First, I agree with everything Nutster has said below. Also, while the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is indeed a good source, all you've managed to show with the article you cite (since I haven't read the article I'm going by your summary of it) is that modalistic monarchianism was deemed by a majority of Christians at a particular point in time to be heretical. OK. The Catholic Church considered the Protestant Reformers to be heretical as well. So what? If Oneness Pentecostals are indeed modern day modalistic monarchianism, then that just means that they are being classified as a heretical form of Christianity. Also note, you haven't even shown me anywhere where the Oxford Dictionary says "Modalistic Monarchians claimed to be Christians, but it is a known fact that they are not." It is a big leap to assume that because a reliable source describes the historical fact that Sabellians were deemed heretical that reliable source is saying that something is completely outside the Christian religion. If we are going to definitively say that Oneness Pentecostalism is "not Christian" we need a reliable neutral source that explicitly says "Oneness Pentecostalism is not Christian." Ltwin (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that book was written from an Anglican Church point of view.  While reputable, it is not neutral. Nutster (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As I stated at the beginning of this section, the views of other organizations that identify themselves as Christian can be used for contrast, but that those views can not be used to dispute the neutrality of the article.  Any religious group that self-identifies as Christian should be recognized here as Christian, even if their views and doctrine do match your own, or those of any other given religious organization.  A section in the article that summarizes the contrasts of the views, beliefs and doctrines of Oneness Pentecostals and other Christian denominations could be the place to make this kind of observation.  Mind you, many of those differences are noted throughout the article. Nutster (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ltwin, let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that, per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy (I'm thinking particularly about the third-party criterion), we need to consult non-Christian scholarly sources to determine whether a group is Christian for the purposes of this article?James2c19v (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I would suspect we'd need to consult a variety of sources, both secular and religious, for a claim like that. But my primary disagreement with the Oxford source is not the nature of the source (that it has denominational connections) but that it doesn't say what some people want it to say. It does not say that Sabellians (then or now) were not Christian. It only states that they were determined to be heretical (which necessarily means they are a deviant form of Christianity) by the mainstream church of the time. As others have pointed out, views similar to modalism were propagated before the Trinity was defined as dogma by the ecumenical councils. So at one time, modalism was not a heresy. After some Christian bishops met, they decided it was. In many cases, those who won these doctrinal debates won because they had the civil powers backing them. Using heretical status to determine what is and what is not in the bounds of Christianity is fine for specific Christian churches to utilize, but it doesn't work for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Oneness Pentecostals by any criteria fit within the category of Christianity broadly defined. Ltwin (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
In his book Ancient Champions of Oneness (Word Aflame Press, 1986), William B. Chalfant examines the extant writings of the earliest Bishops of Rome, showing that at least the first 17 were modalists. From this, we could deduce that it isn't the Oneness Pentecostals who are heretics, but Trinitarians. So we could say of the RCC and other Trinitarian churches that they "consider themselves Christian..." But isn't it enough that they do consider themselves Christian to say that they are? I say yes. As has been stated, Wikipedia cannot be in the business of deciding whose doctrines are correct, which churches are "true" Christian, etc. It goes without saying that every church considers itself to be true Christian. Wikipedia can't take sides, even with the majority. So we either say they are all Christian, or that all "consider themselves" to be Christian.BroWCarey (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
BroWCarey, It would be more neutral to use "consider themselves" Christian on all Christian group pages. Either that or we should note that we are using the term Christian only to indicate as much. The term Christian is not neutral, because Christians use it as a synonym for orthodox and an antonym for heretical. Wikipedia should probably not be implying that any particular group objectively is orthodox or heretical.James2c19v (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
James2c19v, that's my point. Either we call every group Christian if they self-identify that way, or we have to say that every denomination "identifies itself as Christian." But that would entail editing every article on every denomination, as well as articles on Christian denominations in general. I doubt anyone wants to undertake such a task. Therefore, the only thing we can do to keep NPOV is identify a denomination as Christian if they identify themselves that way. Unless, of course, you are volunteering to edit all the articles! ;) You are correct that Christians use the word to mean orthodox, etc. But all Christians use the word that way, including Oneness Pentecostals. For every denomination represented by an article, there will be some who deny they are Christian. BroWCarey (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree. I would prefer to edit everything to say "describes itself as Christian." I think that every denomination should have a section that explains the debate surrounding each group's orthodoxy as well. I hereby volunteer, and I would like to start with this page, if Ltwin doesn't have any objections.James2c19v (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not something you should decide unilaterally. You would need to propose that someplace like the WP:WikiProject Christianity first and see what people think. If you edited the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church or the Episcopal Church or whatever church's page to say that they "consider themselves Christian" you are going to have a lot of angry people and a lot of reverts. So, lets not start here. You should start over at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard. That's my advice. Ltwin (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a can of worms to me. But that's just me. I look forward to seeing your edits for the various denominations.!BroWCarey (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to fair, then you should also edit all the various Muslim denominations to state that they consider themselves Muslim, and so on with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc.  This is really too much of a headache.  Leave it up to each group to self-identify as to what kind of religious organization that they are.  Nutster (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. to make those edits. But let me ask you: are you really prepared to let self-identification be the ultimate criterion though? Christians sometimes claim to be the true Israelites and that their Christian denomination is the purest form of Judaism. Would you be willing to edit the Judaism page to include these Christian groups?
On a separate note, I would say that I'm willing to recognize that there are different definitions of these religious terms. If history and self-identification are the criteria we're going with, I just think that we should be transparent and objective enough to state that somewhere. Perhaps we could just have something on the Christianity page that says something like "there are many groups that self-identify as Christian and trace their origins to the first followers of Jesus." I don't think that would anger anybody, but people would understand the sense in which we're calling everyone Christian.James2c19v (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what else to tell you except that the majority of commentors think that allowing the Trinity or the opinions of competing Christian groups to be the guidepost for what is and what is not Christian on Wikipedia is a bad precedent. There are genuine cases of ambiguity (such as Messianic Jews), but this case is not one of those. They worship Jesus Christ of Nazareth as a god. They hold the Bible as their sacred text. Their historical development is well documented, and it is part of the history of Pentecostalism (a Christian movement). They practice communion and baptism. Besides their belief in Oneness, Jesus Name baptism, and the necessity of water and Spirit baptism for salvation they do not differ from Trinitarian Pentecostals. Anyone looking at them without reference to the finer points of theology will see a Christian group. Ltwin (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Ltwin, I understand what you're saying, but the points I made above were really specifically addressed at what Nuster had said, and they weren't merely a rhetorical argument to allow me to change this article to stick "self-identify" in here somewhere. I genuinely would like us to articulate the definition of Christian we are using, and then state that definition somewhere (either in this article, or preferably in the Christianity article). It's the most objective and transparent (and I would argue, neutral) thing to do.
If you want to go with "worship Jesus—use the Bible–have sacraments" as the definition of Christian, let's put that somewhere instead of giving readers the impression that there is only one, objective definition of the word and that all others are somehow less valid.James2c19v (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The Christianity article already gives us a definition, this:
Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos[1] and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion[2] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.[3] It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[4]
That seems pretty straightforward to me. Ltwin (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the bit you quoted is straightforward, but it doesn't strike me as a definition in the sense we're discussing. This bit categorizes Christianity as a certain type of religion (monotheistic/Abrahamic) and it says that it is based on the teachings of the OT and NT. But it never comes out and says "Mr. Y has proposed X definition of Christianity, and all the groups on this page fit Y's criteria of X." That is, it doesn't define Christianity as a common set of beliefs held by all Christians, as a historical group of people marked by certain historical events, etc. The above definition just doesn't give enough; in fact, it is basically true of Islam.
Please respond to the points I've raised, but would you agree that at this point our conversation should be moved over to the Talk:Christianity page? James2c19v (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What about our/my organization which is nation wide and formed in the early 1900's.  AOH (Apostolic Overcoming Holy church of God) headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.183.189 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 

What about it? Nutster (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

per WP:BLP I have removed the entry for Tim Blixseth as a notable member of the church. The source cited makes no such claim in fact the source quotes Blixseth as saying he has no religion and the source does not link his parent's cult to Oneness.

Source:  Tim Blixseth was raised in the Jesus Name Oneness church in Roseburg, Oregon, where his father was a minister........................... "There's one member in my religion, that's me,"......... "Based on what I went through as a kid, I don't belong to any organized religion. I'm spiritual, but I don't belong to a group." (Blixseth on religion- Accessed and Retrieved; 2011-10-20. Club Med for the multimillionaire set, New York Times Magazine, March 5, 2006.) [Comment made by User:Keithbob 19:47, 30 January 3013].
Yes, that's my entry, sorry I forgot to sign :-(  -- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is very useful in its current form.  I'm not saying it can't be better, but I was glad to be directed here from patripassionism. Witnessforpeace (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I find this article to lack a lot of clarity. Even as a former UPCI, I found it difficult to navigate and understand, so I wonder how those who are researching this topic will react. The article also seems biased. Just my thoughts. 
Would someone be able to clarify the following for me: "PCI tradition" and "PAJC tradition"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastornar (talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC) 

Thank you for your comment. Over the years, there have been editors committed to getting this article up to snuff, but as you are probably aware Oneness Pentecostalism is a controversial topic. Often, editors with good intentions quickly suffer burn out on this article simply because it is overrun by editors who make disruptive and unverified changes to the article to suit their own personal point of views. It might help us better if you gave more information on what you think is biased. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The last couple of comments added to the talk page look like the kind of thing that could be accommodated using the WP:AFT5 feedback tool.  I am wondering what others think of adding this tool to the bottom of the article. Nutster (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have turned on the AFT5 for this article. Nutster (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it looks like AFT5 was discontinued in 2014.  Oh, well.  Nutster (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

When using a Multiple issues template in an article, it is incumbent on the editor to explain details about these points in the talk page.  I do not see anything from January 2013 or more recently that points out specifics about the noted topics:  Where are extra citations needed?  Which page references are too broad?  Where in the article are the citations unclear? 
We have already had a major discussion on NPOV last year.  If you feel that the above discussion did not clear things up, please be specific about how the article is not neutral and what can be done to make it more so.
Again, this has been sitting here for almost a year.  If the discussion does not start soon, like a couple of weeks, I will clear the template from the article and be done with it.  Nutster (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No comments as to why this big tag has been applied, so I will remove it. Nutster (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I restored the deletion made by user:Musdan77 to the section Notable Adherents. The stated reason for the removal was "unsourced or non-notable content." Sources were included, so it can't be called unsourced. And I don't see how the founder of a denomination that has since grown into a worldwide movement of denominations can be considered non-notable.
Prior to future edits/revisions, can we get some feedback from others? BroWCarey (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, per WP:BRD#Discuss, don't add something back that was reverted until consensus is found for it. (2) The main problem is that it appears to be a conflict of interest. (3) A list like this should not have names of people who don't have their own WP article (WP:NLIST). (4) When you added it, you didn't give an edit summary. (5) The style is incorrect. Notice how the others have inline citations, while you used external links and a list of publications. Neither belongs there. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
There are other people listed there who do not have their own WP articles. I notice you didn't delete any of them. Agenda? WP:NLIST does not say persons must have their own WP article to be included in a list. It simply says they must be notable. I believe notability was established. I researched conflict of interest carefully before editing, and do not believe one exists. Lack of an edit summary does not justify automatic reversion. If you didn't have the time to review my edit carefully, why not leave it for someone who does? Incorrect style  also does not demand reversion. At best, incorrect style would require simple correction, or a note on the talk page asking me to correct it. BroWCarey (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Look again. I did remove others as well. But, if you want to remove the others that don't, that's fine with me. And I didn't say "must have their own article"; I said "should". Having an article is the main way to show notability on WP for a list like this. I basically listed them in order of importance. Most of those alone would not not be a good reason to revert, but all together is definitely valid reason to. You are the one who added it, so it is incumbent on you to find consensus and/or make corrections (or ask for help if you don't know how). --Musdan77 (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Would someone fix a statement in Holiness standards subsection? The statement "According to standards written in the late-1990s...", might be correct as "rewritten" standards but the sentence makes it appear that Oneness standards began or were first written in the late 1990s. Otr500 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We can't say "rewritten" unless there's a mention of when it was "written" before. The way it is now is accurate for what info is available. But, unfortunately, unless we have the book(s) used as source(s), we can't know how accurate the text is. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" section, the article says, Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals, Oneness adherents assert that receipt of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation." The clause "Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals," needs to be removed, as it's not true. Most Christians think receiving the Holy Spirit is needed for salvation. They just don't agree that it must be manifested by speaking in tongues.
Changes made.

Many Christians baptise in Jesus name,tthis does not make them adherents to oneness pentacostalism.MMany Christians believebbaptism is critical for salvation, as is receiving the Holy Spirit.. This does not mean that they are onenessppentacostals.  Many Christians wear pants, so doooneness pentacostals.  . Notaallccorrelationsppoint to causation.
While some of these things are features of oneness pentacostal cchurches they are not that which uniquely defines their beliefs. To start downtthis road would require a very largellistof doctorines held in common with many other churches

---It has been my experience as a Pentecostal minister that, other than Oneness Pentecostals, very few Christians practice baptism in Jesus' name. The overwhelming majority of Christians baptize using the formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Although I have known a very small minority of Trinitarian Pentecostals who baptized in Jesus' name, by and large, baptism in the one name is a hallmark of Oneness Pentecostalism. As far as wearing pants, the majority of Oneness Pentecostal women do not. There are some smaller Oneness groups and individual churches that allow more freedom of dress, but the largest Oneness organizations do not.
By the way, I don't think this article intended to imply that any Christians who believe baptism is essential for salvation, or that receiving the Spirit is essential, are automatically Oneness Pentecostals. Rather, while it does contrast the Apostolic (Oneness) beliefs with those of most other Christians, it does so particularly in respect to Trinitarian Pentecostals, a great many of whom no longer believe water baptism is essential, some of whom don't believe receiving the Spirit is essential, and some of whom no longer believe that the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit is speaking in tongues. (I say "no longer," because when Pentecostal churches began to proliferate in the early 20th century, all of them believed water baptism was essential, all believed that speaking in tongues was the initial evidence, and with the exception of those denominations that had already existed as part of the holiness movement, all believed receiving the Spirit was essential. For the most part, only Oneness Pentecostals retain all of those beliefs today.)
Also, I would recommend that you check your spelling and grammar before posting. An occasional error is no big deal; we all make them. But you've got a minimum of 24 errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar in just that short passage. It makes it very difficult to read and understand. BroWCarey (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Gospel singer Vestal Goodman and her family have roots in the Pentecostal Church of God, not Oneness Pentecostalism. The PCG is Trinitarian, not Oneness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.177.176 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC) 

Could you provide a reference that confirms this one way or the other, please?  See WP:Reliable sources. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This seems to have been in the interim. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

In multiple locations in the article, some recent edits have included a third parameter (Version) of 9.  e.g.  { {bibleverse|Acts|8:12|9} } The use of 9 in the Version parameter is not in the documentation for the Bibleverse template.  What is that supposed to do?  I recommended changing that parameter to match one of the documented values.  Nutster (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Modalism has long been recognised as a heresy. They can call themselves what they want, but they are not Christians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.129.6 (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 

Yes, they can call themselves what they want. That is the whole point, isn't it? On Wikipedia, pretty much any group that chooses to self-identify as "Christian" is accorded that label. Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints and Oneness Pentecostals alike, we give the benefit of the doubt, and group them here as Christians. Elizium23 (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"After the way which they call heresy so worship I" was a badge of honor for Paul, whereas "Christian" was originally a label of derision and mockery for the early believers, not a title they chose with which to self-identify. So labels of 'orthodoxy' mean little when classifying doctrinal beliefs as biblical or not, especially when those terms are defined by Roman Catholicism. And in this case, Wikipedia is an arbiter of neither. - JGabbard (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
JGabbard, actually Wikipedia does decide who to categorize as "Christian", it's just a broader classification than most Christians would use. Wikipedia does not call ISKCON followers Christians, nor does it call Jews Christians. So I would say that Wikipedia is indeed an arbiter of "Christian" (as for "orthodoxy" we try to stay out of that argument, although we, of course, allow Christian Churches to self-identify as "Orthodox" as much as they like.) Elizium23 (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Within the broader schema of world religions which do not follow the New Testament, that is correct. My comments, however, are addressed only within the narrower framework. Individuals will always have biases, but editors should maintain an overall neutrality in doctrinal debates. - JGabbard (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
We had this discussion 8 years ago (see way above) with the conclusion being that if a religion or denomination self-identifies as Christian then it should be recognized in WP as Christian. Nutster (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors! I am a newbie here. So go easy on me.
If you will please review the most recent edits that I have done to the Intro section I would appreciate it. I know that one fellow contributor has already voiced concern and reverted to the prior version. However, I feel that the edits are not so extravagant, nor guilty of the allegations proposed, to merit full reversion. 

Two points stick out to me:
1) The Intro section should briefly answer the question: "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe?" This can even be re-worded as "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" However, the aforementioned question is implied within the latter, in my opinion.
2) Concerning the specifics of the Oneness doctrine, it seems logical that summaries of such should come from a Oneness Theologian and not from the doctrine's opponents. In a reply to one of the critics of the edit, I used the analogy of asking a Democrat to describe the Republican Party's platform. I think we can all imagine how that might turn out and how a Republican might disagree with the word choices and presentative of the facts. 
When I stumbled upon this article I was a bit flabbergasted by the lack of accuracy and inability to answer the fundamental question of "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" This is what led to my edit. It is the reason I made a Wikipedia account. However, I am not unaware that the doctrine has its critics and these critics are well-learned scholars. Still, there is scholarship on either side of the debate. Furthermore, when it comes to academics in the realm of theology and religion, the debate is always ongoing. The consensus on topics changes from generation to generation. One cannot be ridged with presuppositions and expect adequate representation of the facts. I have read the contention concerning whether or not Oneness Pentecostals are or are not Christian. This is the case and point. Scholarly presentation requires objectivity.
--Timboact238 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Responding, it already states what Oneness Pentecostals believe. That is what the lead of all articles are purposed for. Further, this analogy is horrible as Democrats and Republicans may define each other's platforms without the use of erroneous bias, yet reliable facts through historical precedence. This is trying to define all Democrats and Republicans into one, as if they have no civility between each other; please refrain from making further comments such as this; it may agitate various parties utilizing Wikipedia. The contents within this article are quite accurate, and as you have made it known, you are a Oneness Pentecostal alleging the desire to revise it in favor with no competing sources. Doing such a thing would render the article unreliable, and provide undue weight. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
For further evidence, Googling "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe" the result was the following from Wikipedia: "Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Trinitarian doctrine is a "tradition of men" and neither scriptural nor a teaching of God, and cite the absence of the word "Trinity" from the Bible as one evidence of this." As for what Oneness Pentecostalism is, the result is this: "Oneness Pentecostalism is a movement within the Protestant Christian family of churches known as Pentecostalism. It derives its distinctive name from its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the 'Oneness doctrine,' a form of Modalistic Monarchianism." From there, the person desiring to know more in good faith would often, per psychology, research more into the movement. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, my political analogy was meant to represent extreme views held by the one describing the other. However, after reviewing the style guide, I do see that analogies such as this are best left unsaid for the purposes you stated. 
Back to the issue at hand, the Oneness view should not be presented in its summary as a form of modalism because it is a contentious point of academic debate. It is presented as fact. That's the thing with religion topics, opponents present interpretations of sacred text as fact and cite the opinions of other others from long-ago as fact when it is all still supposition and opinion. There are differences between modalism and Oneness Pentecostalism. 
And how was I "alleging to revise in favor with no competing sources" when I clearly used verifiable sources? Also, it's not favor verses unfavorable because I used quotations. I'll concede that I need to remove the language "well published theologian" as fluff or Peacock working, despite the fact that it is true. The guy as authored a ton of books. I digress. 
The summer of oneness doctrine is also lacking in accuracy. First, even Wikipedia's style guide says that religious topics with contentious elements should be tactful with giving the debate itself undue weight. The presenting the Oneness doctrine's first point of belief(of two... And the second doesn't take a lot of words either) and immediately contrasting it with an opposing and contentious viewpoint gives undue weight to the controversy. Literally, it cuts the summary in half and references Trinitarianism. Related to this, citing the relatively minor evidence of "the word Trinity" as a primary point is misleading. The core and foundational belief comes from the Shema and not some reasoning with the lack of Trinity in the Bible. I concede that many use this as a relatively minor arguement but to educate the reader in condensed form the Shema is the preferred key support.  Timboact238 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus determines it as a form a Modalism, and critiquing Modalism and Oneness viewpoints, they both work hand-in-hand; even through dictionaries this may be established. Your comment may be termed as unfounded, as per academic consensus and research, it is indeed a form of Modalism, to clarify once more. Yes, Modalism in its essence has some variations, however Modalism itself is denominated into various perspectives; Oneness theology is a variation of Modalism according to textbook definitions. Next, you misunderstood the context of the allegation once again. The whole article provides undue weight, with sources from those for and against Oneness theology, and those who maintain a sheer unbias toward the matter at hand. These conversations are getting nowhere, and all that is occurring is a consistent rehashing of verbage; I also deem this as stale due to again, overt self-references from a proclaimed member of this movement; if you desire to be an arbiter of information with an advanced purpose such as this which has been observed thus far, haven't you considered becoming a editor of Oneness theological encyclopedias and forums? I am not trying to sway you, rather, providing an alternative in addition to contributing. On your talk page, you have stated: To clarify, I am somewhat saying bias presentation as in the order of presentation. I'm not disputing that opposing views have their due weight. Just that the lead section should summarize the facts of Oneness Pentecostalism and not summarize the academic opinions of the group. Once again, it is essentially "what do Trinitarians think Oneness Pentecostals believe." and not "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe." If that is not evidence of Dunning-Kruger or confirmation bias pertaining to academic consensus from multiple parties, I do not know what to tell you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Let me then add this: overwhelming sources from Oneness parties would serve as undue weight, and the majority of such sources, including yours which forgo those competing sources from other non-related parties would culminate in the article attaining another importance level for bias pattern, and sources from those related to the movement thereby making the article unreliable. All articles work this way. No one is exempt. - TheLionHasSeen (talk)
My apologies, as they quotation is riddled with autocorrect mistakes. It is supposed to say "academic opinions of other groups." and not "the group."
I do apologize, but I am a bit confused by your sentence structure in the past reply. Please shorten you sentences into succinct points to be better understood. 
However, if I didn't understand. You seem to bounce back and forth between focusing on the entire article and the lead and what constitutes undue weight in your interpretation. Is undue weight a paragraph-by-paragraph issue, section-by-section, or the article in its entirety in your interpretation of Wikipedia's style guide? 
Academic consensus? This is only because Oneness is a minority. Therefore, every opposing view will be the consensus. It's a numbers game. There are more opposing theologians writing source material. The guidelines seem pretty clear that minority groups require special care. This right here seems to be the reason for the endless rehashing. Proponents of the Trinity claim academic consensus and proponents of Oneness say it's a NPOV. Which I concede it is NPOV as a whole. I simply disagree with the accuracy of the condensed explaination of Oneness doctrine and they allegations of modalism be reserved for coverage in a separate sentence with langauge that explains the important point that it is not exactly like ancient modalism but similar to and compared to such by modern scholars. That's a more accurate statement. Also, if it is called modalism by a formal dictionary, then is that dictionary the citation?  Timboact238 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no bouncing between the entire article, and the lead, rather clarifying points. There is also no personal interpretation; Wikipedia is not the place for such things. In accordance with undue weight, purging information from the opposing parties, which authenticates venerability and reliable sources, will establish undue weight, and create a bias as if there is no competing information available. I'll say again, and again, and again: Wikipedia is not a soap box. In sum, opinionated and biased sources from opposing parties, if they verify the information upheld and have further backing, are to be deemed reliable. Read the Oxford dictionary; it ties in hand with the further definitions of Oneness Pentecostalism. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Just for reference I counted the sources, and there's from 40 to 50 sources from pro-Oneness sources. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I read the Oxford dictionary this morning. Although the first sentence of the definition is in accordance with the main attribute of Oneness doctrine, the second portion in italics is that exact thing about modalism that Oneness Pentecostalism is not: the belief in progressive changes over time. This was the purpose one a single sentence in the edit I proposed. 
As far as the number of sources as a whole, I've already said from the start the the article as a whole is fine and holds a NPOV. The problem with yours and my approaches is that you claim academic consensus against a minority group, seemingly ignoring Wikipedia's guidances on articles specifically about a minority group. 
I don't believe I "purged" any sources from any section. If I did, put that particularly source back. 
For the record, the Oxford dictionary definition was not originally cited. Once again, if a user makes a point that's valid, it's professional to acknowledge such. I asked plainly if it were cited in the lead and it was not. It's good that it is now. Nonetheless, I can quote directly from Dr. Bernard saying that the progressive changing aspects of modalism are not part of the Oneness doctrine. 
You can argue academic consensus but this is a minority group page; therefore, the opinion of the minority group should be given special treatment. A better way to say it would be "is compared to modalism" or "is similar to modalism" but it is inaccurate to equate Oneness doctrine with modalism. Again, this may not be the majority opinion the larger stage of theologians, but that is simply a numbers game. Oneness Pentecostals literally have one accredited Seminary offering advanced degrees in theology and Christian ministry and it has been around in this capacity for less than a decade. 
I can also point to verifiable sources saying that the Shema is the foundation support for the doctrine from a Oneness Theologian. This is more accurate than citing the word game with the word "Trinity." 
I'm not soapbox. I am not preaching Oneness through this medium. I have specific point of concern backed by reason and source material. It seems that I am being stonewalled. 
My edit may not have been written in the proper style, initially. However, the core content changes, that is, the verifiable facts added, were worded using direct quotations to maintain NPOV and reflect scholarship on the subject. I didn't remove the comparison to modalism. I did clarify it and give special treatment to the minority group's own academic assessment. Once again, claiming consensus against a minority group is a loaded arguement. Even Wikipedia, by my understanding, calls for special treatment here.  Timboact238 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Good day. Thank you for reading the Oxford dictionary definition; I would however have to clarify that according to the updated dictionary the italics portion further clarifies the aspects of Oneness theology. Please refer to this URL: Modalism, defined by the Oxford Dictionary via Lexico. It is good that you have acknowledged the article is written according to a neutral point of view, however if academic consensus is forgone the neutral point of view would lack. In academic consensus, scholars for and against, and just studying Oneness Pentecostalism have led to these precepts being formulated. In translation, perhaps I have lost you: Bernard is a member of that scholarship, evident in the citations. Simply forgoing others, in apparent contradiction to acknowledgement on the basis of being a minority group is detrimental to this conversation; it continues to occur often, along with claiming a "numbers game". Special attention has been granted to this article, leading to this article's present state. Regarding the Shema, I believe such references are already established in some citations of Bernard where he writes on the Oneness of God and Oneness in the history of Christianity, pertaining to lines mentioning a strict monotheism or Judaistic monotheism. There is no stonewalling here whatsoever, rather, an apparent complete disregard for context and the pretenses I have already iterated which have been established before I was ever here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That was the best reply I have read yet! Really, I appreciate the clarity and succinct points. I honestly feel I understood all of it, which is a first. I believe possibly some of the Wikipedia jargon is lost on me,for now, but this is reply was really quite explanatory and I appreciate it immensely! In short, thank you! 
Back to the subject. 
First, please don't assume I have only studied Oneness doctrine. As I've stated on my user talk thread, I wasn't raised in this denomination or doctrine. During my youth, I went through an entirely different religions education program that was Trinitarian. I'll leave it at that because it's not worth sharing the specifics. 
I assure you, if you knew me personally, you would know how unfounded that notion is. You don't. I understand that this is your perception, which is valid as an opinion. I respect it. I really do. 
I digress.  
I understand now that you look at due weight, NPOV, and bias from the wholistic standpoint. I agree. I also understand that you apparently dispute Dr. Bernard's assessment against equating Oneness doctrine perfectly with modalism, per you arguement that the second portion of the definition clarified Oneness theology. 
Quoting the section on question:"He uses metaphors and illustrations that confuse the persons of the Trinity and describes God's being as changing, over time, from one divine person to another (an idea known as modalism or patripassionism)." 
Now I'll quote my proposed revision of the comparison for reference. 
"Many theologians consider it similar to Modalistic Monarchianism, considered to be a heresy refuted by the early church.[10] However, a key difference between Modalistic Monarchianism, otherwise known as modalism, and Oneness Pentecostalism is the belief that the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are subsequent and progressive manifestations of the One Indivisible God, which is not entirely accurate with regard to Oneness Pentecostalism.[12]"
In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with Oneness. The citation remains intact and the fact is conveyed. 
What I do show is clarification of a single, yet important, distinction. You may not agree, but Dr. Bernard is the theologian, not you or I. 
Quoting from Dr. Bernard's work (reference 12). "Finally, since we do not know with certainty everything the various modalists believed, it is not productive to identify modern Oneness directly with ancient modalism, Patripassianism, or Sabellianism."
Further: 
"Third, modern Oneness does not accept the expansion-contraction, successive-manifestation theory attributed to Sabellius."
So, here we have direct disagreement with your personal assessment that the definition clarifies it's equation to Oneness theology by a Oneness theologian. The "expansion and contraction" referenced by Bernard is speaking of the idea of progressive changes over time. This is a key point within the quoted text of the definition. Second, Bernard clearly points out modalism and patripassionism (albeit spelled differently, for whatever reason) as not accurately equated with Oneness doctrine. 
So, are you disagreeing with Dr. Bernard's assessment as an expert of Oneness theology?
I thought we were not allowed to make our own assessments of information; to conduct our own research. 
Nonetheless, if your issue remains that this is covered later in the text of the article, where is the harm in moving the information in summary to the introduction? Once again, if the arguement is that it is addressed later in the body, then it invalidates the arguement that it's categorically untrue and should be removed because it is there already. 
This logical applies to the other proposed edits. If the Shema is mentioned later, why not switch the position of the "word game" with the Trinity example with the Shema? This would maintain the presence of both sources, convey the same message from a wholistic standpoint (ie article as a whole) and sufficiently communicate the true foundational principle of the doctrine. 
To say a few things in closing this reply, I have learned a great deal of things in the past few days that have encouraged me concerning the deep thought and care Wikipedia editors put into these articles. As a scholar of a different field, I have always avoided Wikipedia because in academic writing it is unreliable presumably because anyone to write anything and publish it. While that is technically true, I can see that there are checks and balances of a sort. It isn't perfect but it's a great concept and tool for sharing knowledge for free. 
I can see beyond a doubt that my originally proposed edits would not meet Wikipedia's standards for style for a number of reasons. However, I'm not convinced that there style issues cut to the content itself or my core intent to bring central facts to the lead section that are cited elsewhere. As I've said before, if these points are covered, then it is about order of presentation and not the content itself. 
I am learning. I will continue to learn. All I ask is for clear, succinct responses with Wikipedia-jargon clarified within the context of the response.  Timboact238 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Typographical error: I said, "In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with Oneness."

And I meant: "In this I do not deny the fact the writers like Eric Patterson (reference 11) equate Oneness Pentecostalism with modalism." Timboact238 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

no, LDS thought is not a version of Arianism.  In Arianism Jesus was a subordinate creature.  In LDSism, Jesus was begotten, not made - just as every other human being is a literal natural child of God, and God and his wives and his brothers and sisters and his cousins and his aunts are all natural children of other gods before them, ad infinitum.  Far from Arianism or JWism. --142.163.195.18 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It does not state that. It merely states one's insistence in defense of their movement. Context is key! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article.  Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 


### Observations
   HTML document size: 305 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 52 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 148 kB
   Wiki text: 80 kB
   Prose size (text only): 32 kB (5233 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 21 kB

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Are there too many links in the Lede? See MOS:LEAD
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Reliable sources used.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The link the lede to Modalistic Monarchianism is both important and informative.
The link to church history is not informative
The section 'Background of Oneness theology' holds together really well. It is clear and not confusing in its exposition.
Oneness views on the early church → consider the clarity of this section and the utility of citing Tertullian directly.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Remarkably, given attempts to put personal points view into this article, stringent page watchers have been able to preserve neutral point of view for this article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Page created 27 July 2003
Page has 153 watchers of whom 15 are page watchers who visited recent edits.
Page has 2,954 edits by 859 editors
Page has 18 generic rollbacks...
90 day page views =  30,012 with a daily average of 330 page reads.
46 reverts for the first 500 edits. Some reverts are edit warring over doctrine and theology.
34 reverts for the next 500 edits.
Another 14 reverts from page creation.
That's 94 reverts. Most reverts are over doctrine. Citations. Church History.  Keeping Praise the Lord out of the article.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Page has one image:  Basic Latin cross; fair use rationale is present.
Overall:
Good work in presenting Oneness baptism, Oneness theology. A strong preservation of the doctrinal presentation of this form of Pentecostalism is given.
 
 Passed

 

Hello, fellow editors! I have a concern about a potential dispute on the Baptismal formula section of the article, specifically in regards to the statement, "and several scholarly sources used by Oneness Pentecostals deriding it have been outdated pertaining to modern consensus on the Didache's text and dating." Here's the context: "In contrast, the Didache (a Jewish Christian text generally dated to the first century AD) cites the Trinitarian formula, and several scholarly sources used by Oneness Pentecostals deriding it have been outdated pertaining to modern consensus on the Didache's text and dating.[126][127][128][129] Additionally, mainstream Christians exegete "in the name of Jesus Christ" as by the "authority of Jesus" which denotes baptism in the name of the three persons of the Trinity." I have a few concerns with this statement, which is why I removed it in an edit, but I noticed that it was restored, so I wanted to open up a discussion to hopefully resolve the issue.
My concerns are mainly this:

While there are currently four cited sources at the end of the sentence, I can not find anything stated within those sources that would support the statement in question. I have looked over each of the sources cited, and, from what I have seen, they don't mention anything that would support the claim.
If indeed there is no evidence to support the claim provided in the statement in question, then this statement feels very POV. As outlined in WP:IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia should always have an impartial tone even while providing all the information. The statement in question, in my opinion, does not have an impartial tone, but rather a partial tone labeling the Oneness view as outdated and naïve.
Instead of re-deleting the text in question, I have decided that opening a discussion would be a better way to resolve this issue. Here are my recommendations for moving forward with this particular statement:

Looking for sources that actually support the statement. If some are found, I really don't have much of a problem with this statement (except for the fact that, in my opinion, it could be worded in a little more impartial way).
If sources are found, it would be helpful to additionally provide a quote in any citations found so others can review the legitimacy of the supporting citation.
If we cannot find reliable sources to support the claim, then I would suggest deleting the statement in question entirely.
Please let me know your thoughts on this! Thank you for your input!
JParksT2023 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello JParksT2023, thank you for initiating this discussion. I intended to begin it, but my internet was temporarily unavailable; forgive me. Looking through these sources, specifically, the one Oneness Pentecostal source within the cohort, the Oneness scholar stated it was a second century AD text; others generally accepted it as a first-century AD text. Therefore, the statement against impartiality cannot be substantiated in this sense. I do resonate with you, being an adamant Oneness Pentecostal according to your personal account, feeling this makes your religion's viewpoint as "oudated and naive." With that stated, none of us (regardless of our viewpoints) should have those emotions and attempt to usurp against a supposed personal grievance with the information for the purpose of it attacking our religion (according to personal emotional appeal). If that were so, I would have written a statement about creation science a long time ago, respectfully dear Wikipedian and collaborator of a like-minded faith. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Now, let me clarify, I am not stating you are attempting to usurp a statement (as you have stated yourself that is not the aim); I am merely responding that for record's sake in case such happenings occur from other parties in the future. I have dealt with one particular issue on Horn of Africa-related articles, where someone has been evading from Wikipedia administration for a long time, per example. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply,  TheLionHasSeen. I appreciate your diligence regarding this article, and additionally, I appreciate the new wording you have used in the particular passage I was concerned about; it seems to be very balanced in its viewpoint. I'm glad that you have acknowledged my personal feelings towards this topic, as they do influence how I gather and present information (especially regarding this topic), and I do agree with you that we should always strive to keep our personal views out of editing. That was my goal in stating my personal views upfront on my user page; so that other editors (such as yourself) could keep me accountable in my editing. One thing I would like to say, however, is that you, affirming the Nicene Creed, also have personal influences which can impact how you present information on this page. Naturally, the viewpoint of this article does not agree with your personal views, and that can lead you to be harsher in your analysis of the supporting evidence provided for the Oneness position, just as my views lead me to be harsher in my analysis of the evidence against the Oneness view. I'm not claiming that you are intentionally doing this (and, as you have already noted, I am susceptible to this as well, and I readily agree with you on that point), but I do think that it is important to acknowledge that we both have views that impact our work on this topic. That is why it's important to have conversations like this: so that we can balance each other out to ensure that the information on both sides is presented in the fairest way possible.
With that in mind, I would like to discuss another section of the article that we may have some conflict on. As it stands currently, the passage I want to discuss says, "Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Trinitarian doctrine is a "tradition of men" and is neither scriptural nor a teaching of God, citing the absence of the word "Trinity" from the Bible as one evidence of this. They generally believe the doctrine was gradually developed over the first four centuries AD, culminating with the Council of Nicaea and later councils which made the doctrine as believed today orthodox,[51][76] though most mainstream Christian scholars have rejected these assertions.[77][78][13]" Now, I don't have any problems with the wording as it is now up until the last part. From what I have read from Oneness sources, the current wording accurately depicts Oneness beliefs. The only problem I have is with the last section, "though most mainstream Christian scholars have rejected these assertions." Here are my thoughts:
The last citation, Reference #13, is not from a scholarly source, so it should not be used to support a statement contending that scholars support any viewpoint. Additionally, it doesn't even support the statement given, as it only states that mainstream denominations affirm the trinity. It barely addresses the history of the doctrine and does not attempt to reject any of the assertions that are put forth by Oneness theologians regarding the doctrine.
This statement feels like it's just stacking the deck in favor of people who reject the Oneness belief. By adding the word "mainstream," it’s only including scholars who believe in the Trinity, and who might therefore have a theological motivation for looking at historical facts in a certain way to support their beliefs (just as Oneness scholars have a theological motive to look at the same historical facts in a different way to support their beliefs). Now, I'm not saying that they are doing this, but it has to be considered. The original wording (just "scholars") is better (in my opinion) because it allows for outside sources (such as from secular institutions), which may have less of a motivation to conclude a certain result.
I have found multiple sources, both from secular institutions and from scholars within "mainstream" Christianity, who would agree with the Oneness belief on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Here are some examples:
From secular sources:
"The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the Bible; the concept was finalized at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE after years of debate." "Trinity," World History Encyclopedia
"Elaborated over three centuries before reaching its mature form in the ecumenical councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), the doctrine of the Trinity represents an attempt to organize and make sense of the Christian conviction that God created the material world, sustained it and acted within history, most particularly through Christ and in his Church." "The Trinity," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." "Trinity," Britannica
From "mainstream" Christian scholars:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century." The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, vol. 14
Additionally from the same source: "When one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century."
"The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out gradually over a period of three centuries or more… In 381 the bishops convened again at Constantinople and set forth the orthodox doctrine in its final form." A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature
"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon … While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do." The Oxford Companion to the Bible
"the trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." The Dictionary of the Bible (John L. McKenzie)
"Gradual Evolution of the Fourth-Century Dogma: It will be convenient first to trace the gradual development of a Trinitarian consciousness from the end of the NT period to the late 4th century and relate this evolution to the elemental Trinitarianism of the primitive sources" The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003, vol. 14
With all this in mind, I don't think that it's an accurate statement to say that "most scholars" or even "most mainstream Christian scholars" reject the Oneness assertion. In fact, there are many who support it. So, I would suggest that the wording be changed to "and this view has received support from some scholars." or something similar to accurately present the information in a fair way.
Thank you for your continued work on this page!
JParksT2023 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it is our purpose to be understanding. As for me believing the Nicene Creed, I care less for Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian personal viewpoints, meaning I give equal weight to all Christian traditions just as I would Democratic and Republican-based articles here on Wikipedia; if you cannot remain impartial, this is not the place to be. Therefore, this assumption can be characterized as unequivocally false, though thought in good faith. Anyways casting all of that introductory clarification aside to the betterment of collaborative editing, that reference is removed from that portion, following personal disagreement which is applicable contextually; as for the statement, mainstream references all the majority of Christendom as has existed before 1913-1914 (which means the referencing of Trinitarian Christendom). Without mentioning the Trinitarian rebuttal, couldn't that be considered undue weight? As for agreeing with Oneness development on the doctrine of the Trinity, that first secular source is as flawed as the citation removed, especially considering nowhere does the Nicaean Council refer to establishing the Trinity inasmuch so as some Seventh-Day Adventists and others of Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian variety claim (using sources) that Constantine compiled the Bible. The Britannica sources are mentioned frequently enough in this article too, which could be citatitive overkill, respectfully writing (particularly considering the whole article consists of mainly pro- or pro-leaning Oneness sources). Regarding the dictionary source published in 1992, that information evokes the same outdated information as it solidified the Holy Spirit's role in a Christian's life and the world, not proclaiming, "we finalize the creation of a new doctrine called the Trinity, huzzah." These are suggestions focusing on a mere word and its lack, yet neither is the suit and tie worn by many mentioned in the Bible among other things. The so called, source of The Dictionary of the Bible appears to be deliberate misquotation and apparent advocacy due to rebuttals from those of the institution they came from and heralded, the Catholic Church (example: Jehovah’s Witnesses: Masters of Misquotation). When presenting sources, this is about verifiable, contextual accuracy, not something that merely supports one point of view over another (thereby being balanced). Therefore, I would suggest in return that quotations out of context are no longer used, out of context. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


### Oneness Pentecostalism
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for WP:FA; however, the page has been plagued by WP:NPOV issues for basically its entire existence. I would like for comments to particularly focus on any NOPV issues remaining in the article, but generalized feedback (especially any pertaining to FA standards) is also welcome!
Thanks, JParksT2023 (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen, let's use this space to discuss.
I am very confused as to why you seem intent on simply reverting over 14,000 bytes of added and carefully edited content (including grammar, typos, and content with sources from academic sources from research journals and reputable publishing companies), rather than addressing any apparent WP:NPOV issues you or any other editor see. You refer to WP:CONSENSUS, but I don't see any lack of consensus other than one editor who was clearly being disruptive and not bringing WP:GOODFAITH to their complaints. If you have issues with the NPOV in this article, you are welcome to discuss it here and/or revise the article as it stands, but wholly reverting the article and wiping away dozens of changes, including those following WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V seems, at least, improper. JParksT2023 (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

A deep conflict of interest is highly susceptible, as the conversations held upon your personal talk page give deep-POV pushing. As you have professed yourself publicly as a Oneness Pentecostal, and upon further review of this article, the sources are overly one-sided and from Oneness Pentecostal standpoints. No alternative understandings are promoted, and the information has gone unchallenged from a least-biased yet perhaps offensive understanding. This article is currently full of what seems spurious, one-sided advocacy. That is why those reverts were created as a red alert. This article will be reverted until further review, to maintain the integrity of this encyclopedia. There were also signs of contentious contributions regarding Restorationism as well. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@TheLionHasSeen, I appreciate your engagement, but I must object to your rationale.
Being a member of the faith discussed is not a conflict of interest. As per WP:COI, a COI applies to editors promoting themselves, paid work, or editing without disclosure. That does not apply here. Editors from religious, ethnic, or cultural communities are encouraged to participate, so long as edits are verifiable and neutral, which I assert that mine are. With specific regards to the conversation held on my talk page, this demonstrates thoughtful engagement, not advocacy. I participated in a theological discussion with another editor in an attempt to clarify commonly misunderstood doctrinal distinctions between Oneness and Trinitarian theology. At no point did I reject the inclusion of opposing views in the article. I advocated for accuracy, not for promotion, and that’s exactly what Wikipedia expects from good-faith editors. I’m allowed to discuss theology on my user talk page. That conversation does not inform my article edits, which are written from a neutral point of view with reliable sources. No content in the article is asserted as true; doctrinal statements are properly attributed. If any content in the article is biased, please identify it specifically.
You have not pointed to any specific section, sentence, or source that violates neutrality. The version I submitted includes academic and denominational sources, documents major historical controversies, and attributes doctrinal claims properly. If any content seems unbalanced, I'm more than willing to revise it alongside consensus, but that requires specific critique, not blanket accusations. Please specify which parts you believe are spurious or non-neutral. Without specific examples, a wholesale revert of 14,000+ bytes of cited content is not consistent with WP:CONSENSUS. Reverting to a previous version repeatedly without engaging on the Talk page also violates WP:BRD-NOT, WP:OWN, and WP:DR. If you believe alternative views are underrepresented, please propose content, sources, or revisions instead of blanket rejection.
If concerns persist, I propose we open a formal Request for Comment (RfC) to gather broader community input on the balance and sourcing in the revised version. This would allow neutral editors to weigh in constructively. Let’s work together to make this article accurate and balanced.
P.S. The edits to Restorationism were a genuine mistake, I missed sources in my haste and should not have done what I did, that was my bad and I never went back to change the article in a similar fashion after being alerted.
JParksT2023 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I am also providing an explanation for my changes here to review. I believe I have acted appropriately with the content I have added, but please feel free to comment if you disagree.
1. The lead for the article was clunky with too much granular information and including too many citations, some of which were poor quality (see MOS:LEAD). All I did was simply condense it into the important material and use appropriate (and sparing) WP:RS citations. Additionally, rather than using space focusing on describing OP beliefs in the negative (OPs reject xyz... or OPs believe xyz... in contrast to xyz...), I described them simply by themselves (OPs believe xyz...) to better help with clarity in standalone, encyclopedic terms specifically in the lead. The specific details (for example, Finished Work Pentecostals vs Holiness Pentecostals differences on holiness standards) are meant to be drawn out deeper in the article, not the lead. Rather, the lead is designed to be a simple breakdown of the important information for a casual reader.
2. The History section of the article was good, but I felt like it could be expanded with more historical information. I added substantial amounts of material that was backed up by citations from academic sources, and added appropriate subsections to maintain sectional flow and aim.
3. The Oneness theology opened with a sentence containing an inaccuracy, so I fixed it (Modalistic Monarchism is from the second and third centuries, not the fourth).
4. The "Characteristics of God" section title could be improved for clarity, so I changed it to "Doctrine of God" to better reflect what is discussed in that section in a NPOV way.
5. The placement of the "Accusations of Modalism and Arianism" subsection felt misplaced under the "View of the Trinity" section, since OPs being accused of ancient heresies is not necessarily related to what OPs view about the Trinity, so I moved the section to be placed underneath the "Doctrine of God" section, since the accusations are related to OP doctrine about God, not the doctrine of the Trinity. I also moved the second and third paragraphs of the "View of the Trinity" section to the "Doctrine of God" section because they dealt more with the OP perspective of God than its opposition to the Trinity. (As a side note, I am realizing as I am writing this that those paragraphs should not be in the "Accusations of Modalism and Arianism" subsection as I had originally placed them, but rather placed at the ending of the "Doctrine of God" section.)
6. I slightly edited—and added some academically-sourced content to—the second and third paragraphs of the "View of the Trinity" section and the "Accusations of Modalism and Arianism" subsection to preserve proper clarity on what OPs claim and how it contrasts with others. I think this version is clearer and more precise.
7. One of the most significant portions of my edits other than the lead was found in the "View of the Trinity" section. I thought that there were substantial issues with this section, so this was one of the largest overhaul of the article that I attempted. Here are the issues I saw:
1. It placed OP arguments as being essentially equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments, but that is not necessarily the case (and I argue it is WP:OR to combine them together in this way). Using sources arguing against JW teachings to rebut OP teachings is clearly WP:SYNTH.
2. It created a false dichotomy between mainstream Christian scholars and Oneness Pentecostals. These are not the only two groups that exist, and each group is not a monolith, but they are presented as such. Secular scholars and Trinitarian scholars have ranging views, some of which support OP claims and some of which go against OP claims.
3. It used POV language such as "alleged", which is a violation of MOS:DOUBT and has the effect of making OP arguments seem completely unsubstantiated when that may not be the case.
In response to these issues, I rewrote it and added significant content from academic sources, including Trinitarian scholars that support a OP view that the doctrine of the Trinity developed over time and those that don't, alongside secular scholars and encyclopedic sources. This version removes substantial issues from the older one.
8. The "Oneness views on the early church" section was another area that I thought could use work. The phrasing was quite clunky in some places, which I attempted to fix, and I thought that some of it deviated away from Bernard's arguments related to the focus of the section, so I tried to refocus it onto the actual arguments he was making regarding the early church, rather than devolving into a book review.
9. In the "Baptismal formula" subsection, I simply added quotes that I could find directly from the source in two different encyclopedias and tweaked some wordings, with the exception of the paragraph on the Didache (see next point).
10. The paragraph on the Didache seemed to solely focus on refuting one (or at most only a handful) of OPs that support more fringe theories on the document, which could be read as dismissive of all OP perspectives (constituting WP:OR without the proper sourcing for such implications). I rewrote it to include OP arguments about the explanation for the text of the Didache, rather than making it all about the dating when it isn't while still mentioning the dating arguments that exist. I also added a Trinitarian scholarly viewpoint who did a summation of the topic to the mix too. (I do acknowledge that I overlooked a potentially-POV sentence in my version that should be changed to "However, the document also describes individuals being "baptized into the name of the Lord" (Didache 9:5), a construction that Oneness Pentecostals claim parallels references to baptism found in the book of Acts").
11. Finally, I felt that the last paragraph in the "Historical development" could use more clarification, so I reworded and added content with a scholarly source.
In all, I added (by my count) 35 scholarly sources and removed about 12 popular or denominational-level sources of marginal reliability (see WP:RS) while expanding factual information and scholarly analysis, including scholarly viewpoints that had previously been missing. I additionally restructured certain parts to make the structure more accessible and balanced. These edits are grounded in Wikipedia policy and guided by efforts to improve clarity, structure, and scholarly balance. I’m happy to collaborate on any needed refinements, but I believe the case is strong for restoring this version as the working base.
Thanks, JParksT2023 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
No response has been given in over three days since I provided a detailed explanation of the edits and invited constructive feedback. As per WP:BRD, I’m restoring the revised version pending further discussion. I remain open to collaboration and am willing to adjust specific points based on policy-grounded critique. If concerns persist, I also welcome an RfC to ensure broader community input. JParksT2023 (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi, @JParksT2023, forgive my absence. I was without internet. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I will be responding to your points, piece by piece, in a few hours. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi again, @TheLionHasSeen. Since it has now been over five hours since your comment stating that you'd respond "in a few hours," and no response has been given, I am reverting the article to the version that reflects the substantial improvements I made, backed by reliable scholarly sources and explained in detail above. This includes not only the original changes but additional content added since our discussion began, which was also removed without being addressed. The BRD process exists to encourage exactly this kind of discussion after a bold change and revert, and I’ve engaged that in good faith by providing a detailed explanation of the edits in question. Your new revert bypassed that dialogue and also removed new content added after the original version without addressing or acknowledging it. That kind of blanket reversion is not in line with collaborative editing norms or with policies like WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DISPUTE.
This reversion is not intended to shut down discussion, but rather to ensure that good-faith, policy-aligned contributions are not indefinitely held up while I await engagement. To reiterate: I remain open to any specific concerns about neutrality or sourcing and am more than willing to work together to revise or refine material in response to clearly stated issues. But wholesale reversions, especially in the absence of articulated policy-based objections, undermine the consensus-building process. I still welcome your promised response and hope we can find a constructive resolution moving forward. Let’s work toward improvement through discussion, not undo buttons. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
While I waited for your response, I worked to improve the article further by incorporating additional scholarly sources and clarifying a few points in response to possible concerns. These edits were reverted alongside the previous ones, despite being incremental and well-cited. I hope we can discuss these on their merits as well if needed, rather than treating the article as frozen until some undefined "review" is complete. JParksT2023 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I am going to review them. I just left the emergency room and hospital after a long, much-needed surgery and rest. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)