Reading Review: Denials of Orthodoxy: Heretical Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity

The following post is a "reading review" assignment that I had to complete for my Theology 1 class at Central Baptist College, Conway, Arkansas. Being the "token Pentecostal" of the class meant that there were many lively discussions concerning the Godhead, Deity of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit today. It was very beneficial for a Oneness Pentecostal to engage in dialogue with Trinitarian professors concerning theology, mostly because their presentation of Oneness Pentecostals beliefs are not simply biased, but incorrect. For example, my professor charged Oneness Pentecostals with denying the "200 references" to a distinction between the Father and the Son, to which I corrected him that we fully acknowledge a distinction between the Father and Son -- but not a distinction in person. I informed my professor on more than one occasion, that although he claimed to believe in the Trinity, he in fact was not a Trinitarian in that he did not accept the standard definition of "person" as "a self-conscious, self-rational being." (NOTE: Webster's 1828 Dictionary referred to a "person" as an intelligent, thinking being that possesses rational nature). Instead my professor chooses to define "person" as "personality" which are not synonymous terms. One of our assignments was a one-page "reading review" of an article entitled, Denials of Orthodoxy: Heretical Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Below is my assignment that I turned in for class. I did receive a 95% A on my paper. Most college professors will not give a grade higher than 95--97. I'm sure he counted some points off for "doctrinal differences."

 

Jason L. Weatherly

THE3311-24

Dr. ______ Smith

Article—Trinity

September 29, 2016

             Since this reading report of Gregg Allison, Denials of Orthodoxy: Heretical Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity is limited to one page, I will keep my source citations brief and reserved for either my essay paper or Power Point presentation.

            In looking at the very title of this article, the term orthodoxy does not necessitate something that is “biblical,” rather it refers to something that conforms to the doctrines “represented in the creeds of the early church” (dictionary.com). In addition, the primary meaning of the term heresy is “the choice of an opinion contrary to that usually received,” (Vincent, Word Studies, 2 Peter 2:1) and does not necessitate that the doctrine is unbiblical. For example, early Christianity was deemed a heresy by the orthodox Jewish religion (Acts 24:14), yet it actually represented the biblical system of belief. Likewise, many sects or bodies of believers were persecuted as heresy simply because they rejected the creeds and hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Even Protestant Reformers persecuted Lollards and anti-Trinitarian Anabaptist, such as Michael Servetus, as heretics for not conforming to Protestant theology.

            Allisson paints anti-Trinitarianism with a broad stroke when he lumps Oneness Pentecostals (who affirm the deity of Christ) together with Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses (who deny the deity of Christ) and Mormons (who are essentially polytheistic). Such a comparison is unwarranted to say the least.

             Allison equally illustrates his misunderstanding of Karl Barth’s view of the godhead by saying that “Barth used ‘mode of being’ in a way that was synonymous with the traditional word ‘person’.” Barth clearly expressed that he preferred the term “modes (or ways) of being” in order to “avoid the term ‘person’” because “the injection of the modern concept of personality into the debate achieved anything but fresh confusion” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, 355).

            In addition, Allison cannot truly find support in his appeal to prominent Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner. Rahner, in agreement with Barth, stated that “the use of the term ‘person’ in the doctrine of the Trinity becomes increasingly problematic” and suggested that it might be more appropriate to describe God as “three modes of subsistence” which “involves fewer dangers of what is in the last resort a tritheistic misunderstanding of the Trinitarian dogma” (Rahner, Theological Investigations, 18:).

            Allison’s assessment of Oneness Pentecostalism is equally flawed or misunderstood given that his source material is from the prejudiced view of D.A. Reed, a former Oneness Pentecostal turned Anglican priest! Allisson’s explanation of Oneness Pentecostalism as “the only distinction in God is that of transcendence and immanence” and “in Oneness terms, the Father (deity) indwells the Son (humanity)” does not at all accurately describe Oneness doctrine. Finally, Allison’s conclusion that “This truth [belief in the Trinity—JLW] is also why baptism into the name of the Triune God (Matt 28:19) is so important, as it distinguishes Christians from everyone else” contradicts the historical evidence of the book of the Bible. No Christian in the book of Acts was ever baptized “into the name of the Triune God.” Every account of baptism in the book of Acts, or alluded to in the Epistles, describes baptism as taking place “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 3:27).