-
The Oneness-Trinitarian Split
Think on these questions and share your responses:
- Given the early Pentecostal worldview and approach to theology, which side in the Oneness-Trinitarian debate do you believe was more consistent in their approach and argumentation regarding the doctrine of God? Regarding water baptism?
- Continuing from question one, which side in the Oneness-Trinitarian debate do you believe demonstrated a healthier approach to doing theology? Was the Oneness side correct to depart from the classical doctrine of God, or the Trinity, or did the doctrine’s defenders represent a more biblical view?
-
1 Reply
-
I believe that the Oneness side were more consistent in terms of historical creeds and practices, but I also believe that Trinitarians were more consistent in terms of pure Scriptural adherence. To me, it almost mirrors the literal vs. narrative approach to theology. With something like the Bible, that is so multi-faceted and so dense, with so much historical context, so many translations, so many church traditions attached, etc, I do understand where each side is coming from with their interpretations. Personally, I believe in the Trinity. I do not consider God existing in only one form at any given time to be Biblical, but that being said, I also don’t consider Oneness to be radically or shockingly unbelievable like some offshoots of Christianity can be. I’m a Oneness sympathizer, I guess you could say. I don’t consider them to be correct, but I can understand why they would draw the conclusion that they have, and I certainly still consider them to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Log in to reply.