Fox News Questions Mormons

Thank you to Between Two Worlds for making me aware of this FoxNews.com article, 21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith, and that Rob Bowman responded to the article here.

U Believe in the Trinity? Prove it!!!

This is the only illustration of the Trinity I know of that does not lead to or directly teach heresy.

I spoke on this topic tonight, and I'll post here what I gave the people at the 20s ministry of Compass Bible Church. I tried to summarize the Bible's teachings that, when combined, become the doctrine of the Trinity. Here is what I gave them:

The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity

Definition: “God eternally exists as three persons--Father, Son & Holy Spirit--and each person is fully God, [yet] there is one God” (Grudem).

Three Step Proof / Argument

1. There is Only One God – Deut 4:35, 39; 6:4; 1 Kgs 8:60; Isa 43:10, 45:5-6; Mark 12:29; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 1:17; James 2:19
2. The Bible Identifies 3 Persons as Equally God
1. The Father is God: 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 1:2
2. The Son is God: John 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:3-8; 2 Pet 1:1
3. The Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor 3:17-18
   
3. The 3 Persons are Distinct from Each Other: Matt 28:19
1. The Father is NOT the Son: John 14:23, 17:24; 1 Cor 8:6
2. The Father is NOT the Spirit: John 14:26; Rom 8:26
3. The Son is NOT the Spirit: John 14:16, 15:26

The Trinity is simply an attempt to summarize the biblical data above without contradiction:
1 God (1 what), 3 Persons (3 who’s)

It seems to me, although I'm no expert, that every heresy denies at least one of the three proofs. Either someone posits more than one God (e.g., Mormons, JWs, Hindus, etc.), denies the deity of one Person (JWs, Islam, Judaism, Mormons, etc.) and/or combines distinct Persons into one Person (oneness Pentecostals, modalists, etc.).

I printed this on little cards that I hope they'll keep it in their Bibles so that when they get that knock on the door they'll be ready to engage rather than retreat.

Cults Are Invading Russia!!!

I spent my evening at a fund raiser for the Russian arm of the Centers for Apologetics Research (CFAR). We heard about the dozens and dozens of western and eastern cults (many of which were "born" here in the U.S., which the founder, Paul Cardin, called the greatest exporter of error on the planet today) that are flooding the former Soviet Union.

Having come home from Ukraine two months ago, I was truly moved, even to tears, when Mr. Cardin told us about this invasion and then told us that CFAR is the first and ONLY evangelical countercults ministry in the former Soviet Union. And, I spoke with the Russian brother Pasha who heads up the ministry in St. Petersburg who told me that the cults are MORE active in Ukraine than Russia because Ukraine has more freedom (for instance, the Mormons are building their first temple in the former USSR in Kiev, Ukraine's capital city).

Ron Rhodes, noted author, scholar and countercult evangelist, was the keynote speaker who gave us "10 Keys to Witnessing to the Cults," and I want to share them with you here. These keys come from his many years of evangelism to cultists:

1. Don't Assume All Cultists Believe Exactly the Same Thing -- for example, all Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree so instead of telling them what they believe and why you disagree (which I've done), ask them what they believe and THEN dialogue.
2. Know Your Bible -- and, keep taking them back to it over and over again
3. Know that Cultists Are Trained to Answer Your Objections
4. Always Check Their Scripture References -- and NEVER take their interpretation of a passage as true
5. Always Define Your Terms -- because they use the same words we do, but with totally different meanings
6. Ask Strategic Questions -- force them to think (just like Jesus did with His questions)
7. Be Loving -- Arrogence always undermines your right answers, and make sure you love the cultist after God saves them because they'll likely loose all community
8. Demonstrate Jesus' Deity -- know what the Bible teaches on this (e.g., Isa 43:11 --> Titus 2:13-14 = Jesus is Savior and God)
9. Emphasize God's Awesome Gospel of Grace -- in a works-righteousness religious systems where people are earning their salvation, they are often overcome with guilt, frustration & despair, and need to hear of the grace only found in the biblical Gospel
   
10. Give Your Testimony -- and focus on God's specific grace to you
    

As I sat there, my heart was further breaking for the church I went to in Zhitomir, and knowing what I do about the conditions in that church, I know it is just ripe to be decimated by a cult.

Ministries like CFAR, and there aren't ANY in the former USSR but CFAR, need our help. Please, please, please think about supporting them by clicking here.

Cults in Ukraine & Russian

If you're Russian or Ukrainian, please take note of the Centers For Apologetics Research. I met the executive director of this ministry a few years ago though very good mutual friends, and he is a solid brother.

The reason I bring them to your attention is because anti-Christian cults, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, are infiltrating your country in LARGE amounts and having a devastating effect. You need materials that will train you and others to fight them off your family, friends, neighbors and maybe even yourself.

Bookmark their page here. Now, I tried to link all their separate pages on their Eastern European ministry on this blog, but their website was not done well. So, to find out what they're doing in Ukraine, you'll have to search around their site a little bit. I did find this Russian language page though, which I'm sure will be helpful.

Mohler vs. Mormonism

Dr. Al Mohler debated Orson Scott Pratt (LDS author) on the subject Are Mormons Christians? here.

If you have a chance, you should also read the comments here. They are very interesting.

Witnessing to Mormons (Pt 2)

It is very common today for people to say "All religions are the same" or "All religions are talking about the same thing." Sadly, this is usually made by people who has no clue at all about what religions actually say about themselves.

When anyone says "All religions are the same" there actually has to be things that are the same, and that go beyond lowest common denominators. It doesn't count to say something like "All religions believe in a higher power so they're all the same."

First, all religions don't believe in God, but for religions to be the same their conception of God has to be the same, not to mention how they conceive of human beings, the human problem, the solution to our problem, what happens at death, if ethics exist and where they comes from, and the real kicker, who is Jesus?

This is where Mormonism comes in. LDS are pushing hard to be considered evangelicals (interesting, as they're doing this many who call themselves evangelical, like me, want to abandon being identified by that name), and "many laypeople in the Mormon church insist that the God they worship is the same God worshiped by millions of Christians" (23).

However, while we may have many things in common (e.g., pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage, etc.) we cannot be considered the same, or even similar, just because we are both pro-life, or both "believe in God," or "believe in Jesus," or "honor the Bible," or seek to spread something called "the gospel."

This is what McKeever and Johnson mean when they write:

"If two people hope to consider themselves of the same faith, they need to agree on their definition of the Almighty God. If they cannot agree on this vital point, they would be deceiving themselves and others to say that their faiths are the same" (23).

There is NOTHING about our conceptions of the Bible, God, Jesus and the gospel that are similar, and these are NOT peripheral issues. This is the heart of Christianity. You disagree with these things, and you can call yourself an evangelical, but doing so is the same as me calling myself an iguana just because we both have superficial similarities (e.g., eyes, skin, nose, finger nails, legs, etc.).

This is critical when talking to Mormons. Make sure from the beginning that LDS realize we are not the same in any meaningful way. We have to start there, or evangelism cannot take place.

In fact, if we're the same, as they insist we are, do they really need to evangelize me then? It seems to me that if they really believed we were the same that they'd just leave Christians alone. They don't because they know we're not the same.

A Mormon & An Evangelical in Conversation

I went to an event at Mariners Church in Newport Beach last night called Conversation: A Mormon/Evangelical Dialogue, and need to mention it here.

Rev. Greg Johnson, evangelical pastor in Utah, and Dr. Bob Millet, BYU professor of Ancient Scriptures, were very clear that this was NOT a debate, but a dialog for the purpose of getting to know each other -- they called it "convicted civility," which is people with convictions being civil and compassionate with each other. These two have developed a friendship over the past 10 years and this was the 50th time they'd done one of these dialogs together before a group.

At the beginning they stressed that before telling someone they're wrong, it is imperative you know exactly what that person believes -- this means studying the publications of your "opponent," really listening and trying to understand them when they talk so that you don't misrepresent them in any way.

All of this is meant to fall under the rubric of loving your neighbor and loving your enemy -- no matter who you're talking with you have to love them. The idea behind the event is that evangelicals and mormons can talk about the similarities and differences between their respective systems without getting belligerent.

First, let me relay the positive. I agree with all of their goals.

For over a year, I used to talk to unbelievers every Friday night at Santa Monica's 3rd Street Promenade, and my goal was to be communicate the gospel clearly AND compassionately. Now, this was my goal, but I did not always accomplish it. I messed up many times, either being unclear or being too harsh.

However, more often than not I had Christians and unbelievers tell me that I was both clear and kind, with many unbelievers coming every week to talk to me, and one even calling me and asking me if I could come out.

I don't say this to "toot my own horn" but to say this, while I was friends with these unbelievers and we always left shaking each other's hands, I did not water down sin and hell and that they'd be there if they rejected Christ.

This leads me to my difficulty with last night. I purposely didn't write about this last night because I wanted to sit on it for 24 hours. After doing so, I have to say I do not believe Johnson or Millet when both of them says their goal is friendship and not evangelism.

If love is the goal than keeping the gospel from a person for the sake of friendship is not friendly, but an unloving sin called the fear of man. The most unfriendly, unloving thing I can do is not try to evangelize unbelievers.

I have no problem with dialog or even dialog with a purpose, but when the purpose is friendship or "love" and not evangelism than I'm really not being friendly or loving am I?

Next, after listening to Dr. Millet it seems to me that mainstream Mormonism, at least publicly, is drifting farther from their founders and closer to evangelicalism. I may be wrong about this, but it seemed that way to me when I was listening to him.

Finally, Millet went on an extended diatribe where he berated evangelicals for calling Mormons a cult and telling them they're going to hell and that they don't believe in Jesus, and objects to this tactic because it offends Mormons and stops all dialog.

The response of the crowd is what I want to mention. When he was finished, the crowd cheered. Now, I know a lot of Mormons were in the crowd, but I sat in front of Christians and they were clapping too.

I got to thinking about this, and I think there is a masochistic strain within evangelicalism. We like it when non-evangelicals tell us we and/or other evangelicals have sinned against them, and we like agreeing with them so that we can distance ourselves from the ones who did sin.

If you've told a Mormon they're wrong, mistaken, following a false prophet, believing another gospel about another Jesus, inspired by another spirit just like Paul did (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4) than you're wrong, and our clapping shows our disapproval of your evangelism.

In the end, I think there is a lot of good that can be done as a result of these dialogs. The idea of befriending unbelievers must happen if we're to fulfill the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20). However, I don't think being mean to Mormons or other non-Christians is the problem with most evangelicals.

We've imbibed so much of the postmodern, ecumenical, sloppy and sappy mindset that being belligerent is not our problem. Our problem is silence, equivocation, and just plain being ashamed of the gospel.

I like what Johnson and Millet are modeling in their friendship, but I cannot believe evangelism is really not at the heart of why they're doing what they're doing. However, I'm afraid THAT will be the legacy of these conversations, Christians befriending unbelievers who never hear the gospel because it would ruin the friendship, further perpetuating the fear of man, which so characterizes evangelicalism today.

I guess what I'm saying is that there can ultimately be no love unless there is confrontation with falsehood. The moderator, Dr. Craig Hazen, said we must be "speaking the truth in love" (Eph 4:15), but truth confronts and contradicts and combats everything that is false.

Now, that confrontation must be gentle, loving and kind, with wisdom, grace and love, but if there is no confrontation there is no evangelism, and in the end, there is no friendship or love either.

The Bible's Understanding of the World

David Wells writes these helpful words about what the Bible means when when its writers use the word "world" in Above All Earthly Pow'rs:

"we need to be redeemed...from "following the course of this world"--our embeddedness in culture at the point of its fallen horizons, false belief structures, and misdirected devotions--all of which are kept in place by the powers of darkness (Eph 2:1-3). This is what gives to all culture its curiously ambiguous quality for it is an extension both of human life made in the image of God and of human life now fallen. In the Christian scheme, then, we have to be redeemed from sin and uprooted from what is dark in culture, from what in the Bible is called "this world," for Satan's captivity is exercised through the instrumentality of sin and that of "the world." It therefore becomes a matter of no small moment to be able to discern what in our culture is good, what is simply innocent, and what is neither" (23-4).

I italicized that last sentence because that is the goal of these posts on A.A.E.P. I want to be able to do this for the glory of God, the sanctification of His church, and it's witness to the world.

Can Mormonism Survive Into The Future?

I just got done watching part 2 of the PBS special on Mormonism (watch part 1 here, part 2 will be up on Wednesday).

There was a segment devoted to one particular family during the last half of the show when a girl diagnosed with PPH (which she said gives a person 2-5 years to live) takes comfort and hope and peace from the idea that she will see her family again, and exist with them for all eternity.

As she spoke I cried. If the Jesus in the New Testament is the real Jesus, she will never see them again. I cried and cried, praying for God to destroy Mormonism, to unleash a Spirit of repentance and true faith and sound doctrine and revival on them like He did the Worldwide Church of God in the mid-90s.

The last line of the show wonders if Mormonism will be able to survive the future. I pray and will continue to pray that it does not for the sake of God's glory and for the sake of the millions who are deceived into believing in Satan's false prophet Joseph Smith.

Witnessing To Mormons (Pt 1)

For my personal studies I decided that among other things I'd devote the first six months of the year to a cult and the last six to a world religion. Mormonism is my cult until July 1st, and I just finished reading the truly excellent Mormonism 101. Click here to read why I think it's sooooo good.

In my first installment of witnessing tactics gleaned from Mormonism 101 I give you this famous quote from Brigham Young:

"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. The doctrine that we preach is the doctrine of the Bible, it is the doctrine the Lord has revealed for the salvation of the children of God, and when men, who have once obeyed it, deny it, they deny it with their eyes wide open, and knowing that they deny the truth and set at naught the counsels of the Almighty" (Discourses of Brigham Young, 126).

Ask the Mormon if they've followed this command from their prophet. Ask them to demonstrate whether what he says here is actually true. Ask them to demonstrate how what they believe about God, Jesus, sin, the gospel and salvation compare with what the Bible says about these critical topics.

If they avoid this, and punt to their "burning in the bosom" or some other supernatural "experience" for proof that Mormonism is truth, should they even be listened to at the outset?

Mormonism 101 by McKeever & Johnson

I just finished Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson (of mrm.org), and now can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is wondering about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Each chapter of the book "compares the teachings of the Mormon leaders, both past and present, with those of the Bible" (9) with the purpose of showing that in opposition to all claims to the contrary, Mormonism is NOT Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.

When trying to learn about a rival religion, all too often Christians rely on Christian sources that do a poor job of explaining their opponents. As a result, the refutations they offer end up refuting no one but the person who naively relies on that faulty source (for instance, Norman Geisler wrote a book called The Reincarnation Sensation that does a very poor job of explaining and refuting the worldviews surrounding reincarnation).

Thankfully, this error is greatly reduced by authors when they spend a lot of time quoting their opponent's sources, and this is exactly what Mormonism 101 does.

The authors utilize dozens of Mormon sources to explain Mormon doctrine. They give the quotes with references in the end notes and challenge anyone to prove where they misquoted or took the words out of context.

If you want to know what Mormonism teaches on such topics as God, Jesus, the Trinity, human beings, the Fall, the Bible, atonement, grace and works, heaven and hell, communion and baptism, the word of wisdom, the temple, dark-skinned peoples, Joseph Smith and church leadership you can read Mormon leaders in their own words in this book. The only thing better is taking the bibliography and reading the Mormon sources yourself.

In my mind, this fact alone makes this book indispensable. However, I also recommend this book for three other reasons.

First, their explanation of Christian doctrine is clearly orthodox (except when it follow Leon Morris by calling justification an "process" [161, 163] though they do separate it from sanctification and describe it as "instantaneous" [166]; I think this may have just been a poor choice of words), but the value comes when the authors contrast Christian doctrine with Mormon understandings of those same doctrine.

Second, unlike many Mormon sources I've read, this book stays away from the sensational and like Dragnet gives "just the facts." While it makes for a little less interesting reading, bringing up the sensational never gets far in evangelism.

Third, for the observant reader Mormonism 101 is absolutely filled with witnessing tips and helpful tactics. These appear not just at the end of each of the book's 6 sections, but are riddled throughout. I think this is so helpful that I will begin to add these tactics regularly to this blog.

If you're wondering about Mormonism, which I heard this weekend is the second fastest growing religion behind Islam, or if you have a friend or family member who is a Mormon or is considering Mormonism, or if you're just curious you cannot find a better entry-level resource than Mormonism 101.

Read Mormonism 101

Because my grandpa's girlfriend is a Mormon and I want her to be saved, I've taken a short break from my regular reading to reacquaint myself with Mormonism.

In order to do this, I know of no better book than Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever (founder of the best Mormon evangelism ministry I know of called Mormonism Research Ministry, mrm.org) and Eric Johnson. For more excellent resources than just this book, click here.

The book is easy to read and McKeever and Johnson spend the bulk of their time quoting Mormon sources on every point. This means they do a very good job of not beating up straw men with their arguments.

I've read about 100 pages so far and am reaffirmed in my conviction that despite all the PR to the contrary, Mormonism and Christianity are exact opposites. It has a completely different God, completely different Jesus, completely different Bible and completely different gospel.

With that, I am stunned that Apostle Bruce McConkie writes in Mormon Doctrine: "Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same" (513).

They use all the same words, but give them radically different and even contradictory meanings. If you say "I know Jon B." but when asked to describe him you tell of him being an R&B singer you've got the wrong guy.

In the same way, Mormons may say "I believe in Jesus" but when asked to describe Jesus they directly oppose the idea that He is God in the flesh, second person of the Trinity whose death on the cross paid the debt for ALL our sins, and that the benefits of His death are received by faith alone.

Call Mormonism what you want, but you cannot honestly call it Christian when it's Christianity's opposite. If you want to know more, get this book and read it.

Oneness Pentecostals & Personal Holiness

Aside from the previously mentioned heresies, Oneness Pentecostals also have distinctive beliefs about personal holiness.

For instance, all forms of worldly entertainment, including secular music, movies, TV shows, sports are strictly forbidden along with smoking, drinking, dancing and mixed bathing.

Former OP, Gregory Boyd recalls being told by his UPCI pastor that “anyone ‘caught’ in a bowling alley when the Lord returned would be left behind” (Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992] 217).

On top of that, it is considered ungodly for women to wear any kind of makeup, jewelry or pants, and to ever cut or dye their hair. Therefore, in most United Pentecostal Church International (the largest oneness denomination) churches, women must wear their uncut hair in buns and in many southern UPCI churches, women wearing long-sleeved shirts or blouses or any bright colored clothes in general are sinning.

Aside from these rules, individual congregations are known to develop their own rules for their parishioners.

Often times, a person's pastor will need to be consulted and even asked permission to do certain things, like whether or not he or she can move and what kind of sexual activity married couples can have.

In the end, the overarching principle behind these standards is, “If the sinner has to forsake sin in order to be saved, the Christian must live free from sin in order to stay saved…. Salvation is maintaining fellowship with Jesus Christ, and when that fellowship is broken there is no salvation” (Boyd 215 quoting a Oneness tract entitled Why?).

Oneness Pentecostals & Salvation

When it comes to how salvation is understood in OP, there is a little truth mixed with a lot of error. For instance, OP's believe in the imputation of Adam’s sin, total depravity, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, salvation by grace through repentance and faith, which leads to heaven for those who do and hell for those who don’t.

However, OP’s reject salvation by grace alone through faith alone, teaching instead that the new birth is achieved by (1) repentance and faith, (2) water baptism and (3) Spirit baptism. In OP, salvation is a three-step process.

Their first great error is with baptismal regeneration. Water baptism must be (1) accompanied by saving faith, (2) done by immersion and (3) performed in Jesus’ name to be efficacious. They use the typical “proof texts” for baptismal regeneration (e.g., Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; 1 Pet 3:20).

Also, they unbendingly insist that water baptism be in a Jesus name formula (= “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” or “in the name of Jesus Christ,” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” or “in the name of Jesus,” or “in Jesus’ name”) based on (1) the singular “name” in Matt 28:19, (2) no Trinitarian but many Jesus name formulas in Acts and other places (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13; Gal 3:27; Col 2:11-12), and (3) “Jesus’ name” being the baptismal formula of the early church (This is where they get the name “Jesus Only,” though they do not like this label [Bowman 23]).

Their second great error in salvation is the third step, namely, that “baptism in the Holy Spirit is essential to salvation and never occurs without the ‘initial evidence’ of speaking in unknown tongues” (Beisner 54).

Their argument that baptism in the Spirit is absolutely necessary for salvation, not an optional, post-conversion experience for the gifted, first, based on texts like John 3:5 & Titus 3:5.

Second, they teach that all five accounts in Acts of receiving the Spirit were to the Jews, then Samaritans, Gentiles, Paul and John the Baptist’s disciples demonstrating that the baptism in the Spirit is for everyone and accompanied by tongues (explicit: Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-48; 19:1-7; implicit: 8:8, 12-19; 9:17).

Finally, when the event that told Peter the Gentiles had received the Spirit was their speaking in tongues, this proves for OP’s that tongue speaking is the initial evidence of a person’s reception of the Spirit (Acts 10:46).

Therefore, if a person has not spoken in tongues, they have not been baptized in the Spirit and if they do not have the Spirit, that person is certainly not saved. If you do not speak in tongues you are “not yet salvation worthy” (Boyd 198).

As an aside, when I've talked with OP's, I've been told I'm not saved because I have not spoken in tongues, and I've heard those who do not "have the Spirit" really question God and weep and complain and feel very forsaken by Him for not blessing them with tongues so that they can be saved.

* For the names of the resources quoted in this post, please refer to the previous posts where they're named.

Oneness Pentacostals & the Trinity

Oneness Pentecostalism (a.k.a. Jesus Only or the Apostolic Church) is ruthlessly monotheistic. To demonstrate the centrality of this issue for OP’s, one of their own advocates, Wilbur King, writes “Please don’t let Old Satan deceive you any longer with His 3 person 3 god teaching” (“Let Use Make Man in Our Image, After Our Likeness” tract).

In fact, this is such a defining issue that the very name of their movement, “Oneness,” derives its name from their theology of God. In fact, they have no problem calling the Trinity (1) an illogical and pagan idea that the early church fathers opposed, (2) an imposition of the apostate Roman Catholic Church on the purity Christian doctrine, and (3) an entirely unbiblical notion since both “Trinity” and “person” are not biblical words (neither is "oneness" or "pentecostal" though).

In the end, they openly call the Trinity a demonic lie. Only the Oneness understanding of God “upholds biblical Christianity” as they are vehement that the trinity unavoidably devolves into tri-theism (see E. Calvin Beisner, “Jesus Only” Churches, 28-30 and Robert M. Bowman Jr., “Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity,” 26 [article found here]).

Their understanding of the Father, Son & Spirit is as follows:

There is only one God. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Spirit is God. Therefore, the Father is the Son is the Spirit. Or, Jesus = the Father = the Spirit.

This is nothing new. Throughout church history it’s gone by the names monarchianism, modalism or sabellianism (see Harold OJ Brown, Heresies).

In other words, God is one person with one nature who is “manifested” in three different ways. God is not three distinct persons, but three aspects, titles or roles for three different manifestations of one person, or three offices filled by one person. This is akin to an actor wearing three different masks to play three different roles on stage, or one man with three different roles he plays in life (e.g. father, husband, employee).

In OP that one person of the godhead is Jesus--as seen in the picture above.

Since Jesus is supposedly the called “Father” in Isa 9:6 and is alluded to being such in John 8:19, 12:45, 14:9 they conclude that Jesus is “the Father manifested in the flesh” (David Bernard, The Oneness of God, 68 [most consider this the book about OP by an advocate of OP]).

Also, Jesus is interpreted by OP as being the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor 3:17 so that the Holy Spirit is really Jesus in spirit-form.

Finally, they argue that the Bible clearly identifies the Father and the Holy Spirit as one and the same interchangeable person (comp. Acts 5:3-4 or 2 Cor 3:16 with 6:19).

Again, it is important to know what the person believes that you're talking to before trying to give them the gospel. In later posts, we'll seek to debunk their arguments, but for now, we're simply explaining what they believe.

Oneness Pentecostals & Jesus Christ

There is no denying that Oneness Pentecostal writers teach both monotheism and that Jesus is fully and truly God. They do not hesitate to go to all the proof-texts Christians would to prove His deity (e.g., John 1:1, 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1). At the same time, they also teach that Jesus is God in the flesh so that He is fully and truly man as well.

However, the orthodoxy of the statement “Jesus is God” is determined by how one defines the phrase "Son of God."

They affirm that “Jesus is the Son of God,” but that title refers exclusively to Jesus during His incarnation so that “the humanity of the Lord Jesus is the Son” (italics mine) (Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?, 32). Therefore, Jesus being the Son of God is a temporary role with a very distinct beginning and ending.

So, if Jesus is not the eternal Son of God, what was He before His incarnation? Answer: Jesus was the Father not the Son. In fact, during the Incarnation “the Father and Son are two natures in the one person, Jesus Christ” (Bowman, “Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity,” 25). In other words, for OP’s “to say Jesus is both the Father and the Son is to say that he is both God and man” (Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, 32).

When talking to OP's, one of the reasons they deny the Trinity is because it's too hard to understand. Well, rather than doing away with all mystery in their system, they instead transfer the mystery to the Incarnation. Their most respected author readily admits that people “cannot understand the dual nature of Christ and cannot correctly separate his two roles” (Bernard, The Oneness of God, 171).

Therefore, Bible verses that appear to reveal distinctions between persons (e.g., Jesus praying to the Father, loving the Father, doing the Father’s will, both Father and Son sending the Spirit, etc.) are actually the two human and divine natures interacting with each other. His human struggles (e.g., pain, thirst, not knowing information, etc.), two wills (Luke 22:42; John 6:38) and especially His death also demonstrate this—Jesus’ human body (the Son) died on the cross while His spirit (the Father) did not.

Why is this important? When speaking with an OP you must be careful because they will adamantly agree with you that “The Son of God died on the cross,” but again, “Son of God” means Jesus’ human nature not that He is God.

Be careful when doing evangelism to define your terms. Ask, "Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?" When they say "Yes," then ask "What do you mean by that?" If you don't, you’ll be “two ships passing in the night” during your conversation. You’ll get no where since you've been spinning your wheels in the mud of confusion as you talk past each other. Never assume. Always ask questions.

This is also a very good example of how important it is to know the view of the person you're trying to reach with the gospel. You may even leave thinking "This person's saved" because you didn't know the right questions to ask.