Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals And The Trinity. (Grand Rapids, MI Baker Book House, 1992). 234 Pp. $11.99 Paper

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

| PentecostalTheology.com

109

Gregory

A.

Boyd,

Oneness Pentecostals and the

Trinity. (Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Book

House, 1992).

234

pp.

$11.99

paper.

Reviewed

by David

K. Bernard

This book is the first volume on Oneness Pentecostalism to be offered

by

a

major publisher.

The movement’s size and historical significance certainly

merit a

scholarly analysis.

This

work, however, makes

only

a modest contribution to an

understanding

of the movement,

due to its

polemical

nature.

The author discloses that at

age

sixteen he was converted from a life of sin to the United Pentecostal Church International

(UPCI),

and he embraced the Oneness doctrine.

Shortly

thereafter he began to

question some UPCI

teachings.

In

college,

his

study

of church

history

convinced him that the Oneness

message

was

erroneous,

and he left the UPCI at age twenty. Eventually

he became a minister with the United Church of Christ.

The stated

purpose

of his book is to affirm the

third-century

doctrine of the

Trinity

and to combat Oneness Pentecostalism. The book concludes that the Oneness view is a “heresy” and

“sub-Christian,”

and suggests

that the UPCI

may

even be a cult.

The author states the basic Oneness doctrine

clearly

and

fairly, using representative

Oneness sources. Unlike

past

attacks

by

men such as Carl Brumback and

Jimmy Swaggart,

this book does not

misrepresent basic Oneness views nor make the erroneous

charge

of Arianism. Moreover,

the author excludes a number of

popular

Trinitarian arguments

that do not have

scholarly validity.

This section of the book provides

a service

by giving

readers a generally accurate overview of the Oneness

doctrine, although they

could

easily investigate

the

primary works for themselves.

In

refuting Oneness, Boyd presents

standard Trinitarian

arguments, particularly

those of Thomas

Aquinas.

His biblical

points

are not

new; they

are addressed in Oneness works such as The Oneness

of

God (1981). Boyd

relies

heavily upon

ancient church

history

and philosophical reasoning

to

prove

that Trinitarianism is both correct and necessary.

He does not

utilize, however,

the extensive

analysis

and reflection of

significant theologians

in this

century.

He devotes a chapter

to

asserting

that the

early postapostolic

writers were Trinitarian,

bur

curiously,

he does not interact with the most extensive Oneness work on this

subject,

Oneness and

Trinity,

A.D. 100-300 (1991), although

a

copy

was available to him. He revives

arguments against

the ancient modalists–such as the

allegation

that

they

had an abstract, impersonal

view of God–that do not

appear

to be relevant to modem Oneness Pentecostals.

1

110

Perhaps

the

strongest chapter

of the book is the

presentation

of scriptural passages

that

distinguish

between the Father and Jesus. This chapter

relies on biblical

argument,

which is the

only

valid basis for establishing

doctrinal truth. This section could

help

some Oneness believers

develop

more well-rounded

terminology

and

thought by causing

them to consider more

seriously the Sonship

of Jesus. Yet Boyd

does not seem to realize that a distinction between the Father and the Son

(not

of eternal

personhood,

but relative to the

Incarnation)

is at the

very

core of Oneness

theology,

and he does not

present

the more recent,

full-orbed discussion of Oneness authors on this

subject.

On other

subjects,

the author makes a number of

unsubstantiated, erroneous,

and

inflammatory charges.

For

example,

he accuses the UPCI of

“teaching salvation-by-works

to an extent almost

unparalleled in the

history

of

Christianity,”

of

teaching “baptismal regeneration,”

of teaching

that a

person

must be “salvation

worthy”

and must

“purify” himself to receive the

Holy Spirit,

of

being

“the most

legalistic ‘Christian’ movement in church

history,”

and of

believing

that no one holding

a Trinitarian view is saved.

What

prompts

these

charges

is the UPCI’s

teaching

that

repentance, water

baptism,

and the

baptism

of the

Holy Spirit

constitute the “Bible standard of full

salvation,”

and the UPCI’s

advocacy

of

practical holiness

teachings

such as

modesty

of dress and women’s

having long hair. On these issues the author’s

bias,

limited UPCI

experience,

and limited research

handicap

him. He does not interact with

major

UPCI works on these

subjects,

such as The New Birth

(1984)

and Practical Holiness: A Second Look

(1985),

that

expressly

refute salvation

by works, baptismal regeneration,

and

legalism.

Instead he relies on anecdotal

examples, secondary works,

and unofficial

sources, many

of which

clearly

do not reflect standard UPCI views or

practices.

In

trying

to establish that the UPCI is

grossly

aberrant on these issues,

he does not consider historical and

contemporary

evidence to the

contrary.

He does not seem to realize that the UPCI’s view of the role of water

baptism corresponds closely

to that of the first five centuries of

Christendom,

the Roman Catholic

Church,

the Eastern Orthodox

Church,

and the Lutheran Church. He does not consider contemporary

works

by significant evangelical

and charismatic

writers, such as

Larry Christenson,

Kilian

McDonnell,

James

Dunn,

and David Pawson,

who

speak

of water

baptism

and

Spirit baptism

as

part

of Christian initiation. And most of his

arguments against

the

baptism

of the

Holy Spirit

would

apply

to the Pentecostal movement

generally.

Boyd

does not

recognize

that the holiness standards

taught by

the UPCI have been advocated

by many

ancient

writers, Anabaptists, Quakers, Methodists,

Holiness

groups, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Trinitarian Pentecostals. For

example,

he states that “neither the early church,

nor the church

throughout

the

ages,

has ever held to the

2

111

very

eccentric notion that a woman should never cut her hair.” As Practical Holiness

documents, however,

advocates of women’s keeping

their hair

long,

based on 1 Corinthians

11,

include Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,

John

Chrysostom,

and earlier in this

century, most of the

groups

mentioned above.

The author clinches his

argument by attempting

to show that Oneness believers

inevitably

and almost

unconsciously

think in Trinitarian

categories.

This assertion seems to undercut his

attempt

to classify

them as heretics or

worse,

but it does

point

the

way

to a more fruitful

analysis.

That

is,

if Oneness believers

typically express themselves in ways that at least some Trinitarians find to be functionally Trinitarian,

is there more common

ground

than one

might suppose

from the tone of this book?

Instead of

focusing

on

philosophical arguments,

historical

opinions, creedal

formulations,

nonbiblical

terminology,

and

derogatory labels, perhaps

Oneness and Trinitarian

theologians

could

profit

from a dialogue

that could erase some

misconceptions,

correct some mutual imbalances,

and

encourage greater

attention to a more

strictly

biblical theology.

The difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism is more than

semantics, yet

those who share common

spiritual experiences

and values

may

also find some

surprising

commonalities of thought as well.

David K. Bernard is the associate editor in the Editorial Division of the United Pentecostal Church

International, Hazelwood, Missouri,

author of the books cited in this review, and

founding pastor

of New Life United Pentecostal Church in Austin, Texas.

3