Did Michael Servetus and Oneness Pentecostals have the same beliefs about the Trinity? Edit: I did some additional research and this came up on Copilot: >In summary, while there are similarities in their rejection of the Trinity, Oneness Pentecostals have a distinct set of beliefs that go beyond Servetus’s unitarian perspective. They emphasize the singular nature of God and the personal manifestations of that oneness.

John 14:10 > Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. My father and pastor, who is an advocate for the Oneness position stated: >Jesus' divinity is what we call "the Father." That's why Son can say "the Father living in me does the works," since the term "Son" is used to denote the flesh or humanity of Christ. Jesus is then, both the Father and the Son." How do Trinitarians explain the meaning of this passage? How is the Father "in" Jesus yet distinct from Jesus?

From the Wikipedia article on [Oneness Pentecostalism](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism) , >Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. It equally proclaims that God is not made of a physical body, but is an invisible spirit that can only be seen in theophanies (such as the burning bush) that he creates or manifests, or in the person of the incarnate Jesus Christ. In the person of Jesus, one sees the last, best, and complete theophany of God. Is there any existing church writings by church fathers, reformers, or Christian scholars pre-dating Oneness Pentecostalism that speak of a doctrine of Christ as a _theophany_, using as a comparison the burning bush or other manifestation of God's presence in a similar vein, either supporting or condemning the teaching?

**New International Version** >To the one who is victorious, I will give > the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and > sat down with my Father on his throne. **New Living Translation** >Those who are victorious will sit with me on my > throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne. **English Standard Version** >The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit > with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father > on his throne. From what I can gather, there are two thrones spoken of here. How do modalist sects explain this verse?

Matthew 24:36 (NIV) > 36“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, **nor the Son, but only the Father.** If the Father and the Son are expressions of the same God, how come the Son does not know "the day or hour" but the Father does?

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." - Colossians 2:9

[Oneness Pentecostalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism) is a movement within the broader Pentecostal movement which rejects the Trinity [and is essentially a revival of Modalism](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/33133/6071) . Oneness Pentecostalism arose shortly after Pentecostalism itself. In the USA in 1916 the newly formed Assemblies of God fellowship officially affirmed the Trinity, and ["a third of the fellowship's ministers left to form Oneness fellowships"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism#Beginnings_of_the_Oneness_movement) . Throughout the twentieth century Pentecostalism spread quickly throughout the world, so that [there are now](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism#Statistics_and_denominations) close to 300 million Pentecostal Christians, 13% of all Christians, and 4% of the world population. Oneness Pentecostalism is much smaller, with only an estimated 24 million adherents, but there are still a lot of Oneness denominations: based on [stats from Barrett, Kurian, Johnson's *World Christian Encyclopedia*](http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm) there are at least 414 Oneness Pentecostal denominations.1 What is an overview of how Oneness Pentecostalism spread and grew during the twentieth century? What sort of mission strategies did the movement have? Did the American Oneness churches start foreign mission efforts immediately, or only after some time? Were there united mission agencies, or did each American denomination work independently from the others? Did they generally focus on evangelising to non-Christians, or did they also aim to convert Trinitarian Christians to the Oneness doctrine? --------- 1. Their methodology counts each counts each country's denominations separately, so that there are 242 Catholic "denominations" and 168 Anglican "denominations", so all such denomination numbers may seem much larger than expected.

[T. D. Jakes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._D._Jakes) is a popular American pastor and speaker who was ordained within [Oneness Pentecostalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism) , a modern [modalist group](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/33133/6071) which denies the Trinity. Jakes has in recent times moved towards Trinitarian Christianity. Wikipedia [records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._D._Jakes#Beliefs) that in 2012 he affirmed the trinity, but "did not affirm the eternality of the individual persons." Jakes has been invited to popular Protestant events such as the Hillsong Conference. His lack of clarity on whether he fully endorses the doctrine of the Trinity has concerned many people (and led them to say that his conference hosts have lacked discernment.) Has Jakes clarified since 2012 whether or not he fully endorses and believes in the Trinity as defined in the Nicene, Athanasian, and/or Chalcedonian creeds?

As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: **Do Oneness Pentecostals disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?** Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the [Apostles' Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#English_translations) is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox. But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox. This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed? Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it? Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't? Here, I'm most interested in how notable Oneness Pentecostal theologians view the creed (in overview style, if there is disagreement). Related: Same question for [Christadelphians](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62507/21576) , [Jehovah's Witnesses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/21576) , [Mormons](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62340/21576) , and [Swedenborgians](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62395/21576) .

I've watched a few Youtube debates on trinitarianism vs unitarianism and the trinitarian apologists invariably try to prove Jesus "backwards" eternality (that he existed before the incarnation). But I don't get why this is so important? Why do trinitarians go after this argument so often, and why do oneness adherents resist it? That is, if it was hypothetically proved that Jesus was pre-existent, then what does that say about oneness godhead?

There are a number of denominations that are labeled as being Modalist, such as the United Pentecostals, and others associated with [Oneness Pentecostalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism) whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness. However, although some Oneness theologians indicate that the doctrine of Oneness and Modalistic Monarchianism are *essentially* the same, and that Sabellius–from whom the concept of modalism originates–was basically correct, I've yet to discover any churches that identify *themselves* as being Modalist by definition. Are there any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist? Or is it a term used only by Trinitarians to label Oneness denominations as heretical?

Both Oneness Pentecostals and Swedenborgians could, it seems to me, be described as "modalist " in contrast with "trinitarian ." Obviously there are plenty of _general_ differences between the two church families. But are there differences between their respective brands/flavors of modalism (if that's even what it is)?

[**Matthew 3:16-17 NIV**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3:13-17&version=NIV) >16 As soon as **Jesus** was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the **Spirit of God** descending like a dove and alighting on him. > >17 And a **voice from heaven said**, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” If there is no distinction between the Father and the Son, as Oneness adherents believe, how do they explain the voice from heaven?

> But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, > namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of > death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. > (Hebrews 2:9 ESV) If there is no distinction between the Father and the Son, as Oneness adherents believe, how could God who "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3 ESV) die without the universe falling apart?