Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
143
Responses
to
Perspectives
on Koinonia
Editor’s Note: The publication
of the Final Reports of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal
Dialogue in Pneuma, and especially the tives on publication of Perspec-
a
Koinonia for the first time, providesaunique opportunity to solicit responses from variety of Christian leaders. Below, you will find thirteen such
Readers should bear in mind that these are to be
responses.
candid
responses
understood as the per- sonal, responses of those who wrote them. They are not intended to be read as
endorsements or criticisms of the Dialogue, and they are not to be understood as representing in any official capacity, the constituencies among whom each official
dent ministers.
respon-
were asked to be honest and forthright in their contributions. They were Respondents
encouraged to speak freely and openly. They were asked to look at the and weaknesses
strengths
of Perspectives on Koinonia and write what they saw reflected there. Has the dialogue team fairly represented Pentecostal or Roman Catholic thinking? Is it a useful document? How could this document be put to effective use? What tions could be raised that
ques-
might help further the discussion? It is
fair
to say that fewer than half of those solicited chose to respond. Some simply
could not
chose not to
respond
due to their work loads. At least one Pentecostal leader
respond because the Dialogue remains, in his
nized. But it is also
eyes, officially unrecog-
fair
to say that most readers were pleasantly surprised at what they found. Still, perspectives
on Perspectives do differ-viewed by Roman Catho- lics, Evangelicals, Oneness Pentecostals, Holiness Pentecostals, and others—-and those differences will surface below quite clearly. It is with great appreciation to those who responded to our invitation that we publish their reactionlresponses to tives on Koinonia.
Perspec-
They are published in alphabetical order according to the author’s s last name.
Response
to
Perspectives
on Koinonia
I will limit
my response
to issues for which Oneness Pentecostals can offer a unique
perspective.
It is important to note that the
report repeat- edly speaks of
the views of “Pentecostals,” but it does not
give signifi- cant discussion to the views of Oneness Pentecostals.
(It relegates
them to a footnote that does not
fully explain
their
views.)
If the
participants did not wish to include Oneness
views,
the
report
should have used the label “Trinitarian Pentecostals”; as it
stands,
the
report
is flawed in claiming
to present the views of all Pentecostals, for
historically, experi- entially,
and
statistically,
Oneness Pentecostals are a significant branch of the Pentecostal movement.
For
example,
several of the Pentecostal
groups
whose members
partic- ipated
in the
dialogue
have close historical connections to Oneness
pen- tecostalism. The founders of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada were Oneness. The first
general superintendent
of that
group,
the first
general chairman of the Assemblies of God, and the founder of the International Church of the
Foursquare Gospel
were all
baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ. Several of the founders of the Assemblies of God later founded
1
144
,
Oneness
organizations.
Oneness Pentecostals
experience
the same
bap- tism of the
Holy Spirit
with the
sign
of tongues that is the
distinguishing mark of Pentecostalism
generally.
And
according
to Vinson
Synan
and David
Barrett,
Oneness Pentecostals constitute about 20 to 25 percent of all Pentecostals in the United States. In
short,
a report on Pentecostal views is incomplete without
giving
serious consideration to the views of Oneness Pentecostals.
Perhaps
the reason
why
Oneness views were not discussed is revealed by
the
strongly
trinitarian basis of the entire
dialogue.
For
example,
the report states,
“Both Pentecostals and Roman Catholics believe that the koinonia between Christians is rooted in the life of Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (29).
“For the Roman Catholic Church, the basis of ecu- menical
dialogue
with
Pentecostals,
properly speaking,
is found in the Catholic
recognition
of the
baptism performed by
Pentecostals in the name of the
Father,
Son and
Holy Spirit” (54).
In contrast to the traditional doctrine of the
Trinity,
Oneness Pente- costals
emphasize
that God is absolutely one in personality and essence (Deuteronomy 6:4;
Isaiah 44:6-8, 24; Galatians
3:20). They
teach that God has revealed Himself as Father
(in parental relationship
to human- ity),
in His Son
(in
human
flesh),
and as the
Holy Spirit (in spiritual action);
and
they
further
explain
that these three titles describe manifes- tations or roles in God’s
plan
of salvation. In order to save sinful humanity,
God
provided
a sinless Man as a sacrifice of atonement- Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is the one God incarnate
(John 20:28; Colossians 2:9).
In begetting the Son and in relating to humanity, God is the Father. In
working
to transform and
empower
human
lives, God is the
Holy Spirit.
To Oneness Pentecostals, the
implication
that there is
fellowship
within the Godhead
just
as there is
fellowship between members of the church tends toward
tritheism,
not the mono- theism of the Bible.
From the view of the trinitarian
participants,
do the statements
quoted from the
report
exclude Oneness Pentecostals from the
body
of Christ and from salvation? Or can
they
see in the Oneness view of God an attempt
to affirm the central truths of God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture
and salvation
history
without
relying upon terms, concepts, and methods borrowed from Greek
philosophy?
If the traditional trinitarian doctrine and
baptismal
formula must be the basis of
dialogue,
then both Roman Catholics and Trinitarian Pente- costals should reexamine some of their own
history
and
practice
of fellowship.
For
example, according
to Hippolytus, a saint of the Roman Catholic
Church,
at least two Roman
bishops,
whom Catholics consider to be
popes, opposed
traditional trinitarianism in favor of a modalistic formulation-Zephyrinus (AD
199-217)
and Callistus
(AD 217-223). The
apostle
Peter,
from whom the
popes
claim to derive their
authority, clearly
advocated and
practiced baptism
in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 10:48).
So did the rest of the
early
church
(Acts 8:16; 19:5;
2
145
.
22:16;
1 Corinthians
1:13). Stephen, bishop
of Rome in the third century, argued strongly
for the
validity
of baptism in the name of Jesus only,
even
among “heretics,”
as did the
anonymous
author of the Treatise on
Rebaptism
from the same time. Others who
accepted
the validity
of the Jesus Name formula were Ambrose
(AD 340-98),
Bede (AD 673-735),
the Council of
Frejus (AD 792),
and
Pope
Nicholas I (AD 858-867).
On the Trinitarian Pentecostal side, I have
already
alluded to several leaders who were
baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ. In addition. Charles Parham, the first Pentecostal leader,
baptized
in the name of Jesus for a time. There is evidence that C. H.
Mason,
founder of the Church of God in
Christ,
was
baptized
in the name of Jesus in 1930. The list of early Pentecostal
preachers
who were
baptized
in the name of Jesus from about 1913 to 1920 includes
many
of the most
prominent leaders, pastors,
and
evangelists.
For
some,
their
baptism signified
that they
no
longer
embraced trinitarianism. Others retained or returned to trinitarianism but were never
rebaptized
into the
Trinity,
and
yet they were an
integral part
of later Trinitarian Pentecostalism. In
addition, some Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals continued to have
fellowship with each other for decades after the formal doctrinal and
organizational split
in 1916.
Oneness Pentecostals can offer
insight
on two
points
that divide
Roman Catholics and Trinitarian Pentecostals: water
baptism
and the
the
.
baptism
of
Holy Spirit.
Most Oneness Pentecostals
emphasize
that water
baptism
is part of the
new birth and not
merely
a symbol of the new
birth,
appealing
to many
of the same
scriptural passages
as Roman Catholics
(e.g.,
John
3:5;
Acts
2:38; 22:16;
Titus
3:5;
1 Peter
3:21).
But
they
maintain that water
baptism
is effective
only upon
the conscious faith and
repentance
of the
candidate and that its
efficacy
results from the work of God and not the
work of human
beings.
In other
words,
when
repentant
believers are
baptized scripturally, they respond
to the
gospel
in obedient
faith,
and
the Lord honors that faith
by washing away
their sins. Since this view
gives
full
weight
to the
scriptural teaching
on the
significance
of baptism
(as
Catholics
do)
and
yet
maintains the
priority
of faith and
repentance
(as
Trinitarian Pentecostals
do),
it could form the basis of a mutual
understanding
on the doctrine of water
baptism.
The
report acknowledges
that Catholics and Pentecostals “have differ- ‘
ent
understandings
of the role of the
Spirit
in Christian initiation”
(65)
but does not
clearly
describe these differences. Most Oneness Pente-
costals believe that the
baptism
of the
Holy Spirit
is
part
of Christian
initiation, appealing
to
passages
such as John
3:5,
Acts
2:38, Romans
8:9-17,
1 Corinthians
12:13,
and Titus 3:5.
They
further maintain that people do not
automatically
or unknowingly
receive the
Holy Spirit
with a
sacrament, ceremony,
or
profession
of
faith; rather,
the
Spirit
comes with
life-transforming power
and is accom-
3
146
panied miraculously by scriptural
evidence.
They point
out that within the Book of Acts itself all the terms which describe the
reception
of the Spirit
are used
interchangeably, showing
that there is one distinctive reception
of the
Spirit
rather than two.
Moreover,
the accounts of the reception
of the
Spirit present
it as an integral part of the total conversion experience
and not as a
separate
event that follows conversion. Since this view
gives
full
weight
to the
scriptural teaching
on the
significance of
receiving
the
Holy Spirit,
maintains the
unity
of the
Spirit’s work, and
yet
retains the
scriptural experience
of receiving the
Holy Spirit,
it could form the basis of a mutual
understanding
on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
.
David K. Bernard, Associate Editor United Pentecostal Church International 8855 Dunn Road
Hazelwood, MO
63042
Reflections on
Perspectives
on
Koinonia
. 1. Intent of These Reflections
It is with interest and
pleasure
that I have read
Perspectives
on Koinonia. In these
pages
I would like to
highlight
some of the
things
I have found most
significant
in the
report,
mention some
experiences which enable me to identify with some
parts
of it in a personal way, and suggest
a question or two which
may
be worth
considering
in further reflections on the themes of the report.
2. Points I Find
Significant
As I hope many other
people
will,
I found the
very
fact of the
ongoing series of the
dialogues reported
to be exciting and
hope-giving.
I like the
starting point: Jesus, perfect
Word of God
(14-15).
I was
pleased
to read Section 33, with its
acknowledgement
that our different
emphases
are not
mutually
exclusive but
complementary: i.e., we have much to learn from each other.
Very important
is the line in Section 38 about the reason
why
division among
Christians is
wrong:
we are called to give witness to the
world, and our
oppositions
to each other are scandalous.
The
experience
of life in the
Spirit following Baptism (64-69)
is inter- esting
but seems
very
brief for such a significant topic. This is an area where we have learned
something
but can learn much more from Pente- costals. But Catholics also need to talk with each other more about our own
experiences
of the
gifts
of the
Spirit;
attitudes
among
Catholics toward these
things vary greatly.
“The Church of koinonia”
(73-80)
struck me as a
good example
of mutual
critique
and
acknowledgement
of need for
growth.
4
