Talk:Phillips, Craig and Dean

Oneness?

I remember hearing some criticism of the group because at least one of the members (I believe it was Randy Phillips) had been accused of teaching a "Oneness" doctrine.

Should this be mentioned? WAVY 10 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the theology of phillips or dean but, Shawn Craig definitely was (and maybe still is) oneness when I knew him personally in the mid-1980's. Shawn Craig was the music minister of a United Pentecostal Church located in St. Louis Missouri which at the time was in transition from a "traditional - holiness" pentecostal church to a church similar to charismatic yet to my knowledge retained the oneness doctrine. This church is now know as "South County Christian Center" The transition was influence by Steve Munsy the son in law of the former pastor "Roy Gerald" whom Craig suceeded as pastor. I don't know what more to say about this beloved brother other than he was mighty in faith and love for Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 21:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think that http://aomin.org/PCD.html should be included in the links with a mention about Oneness. Any entry on Phillips, Craig and Dean as Christian artists should make their beliefs (or lack of) about the Trinity clear. See John MacArther's book, The Truth War, for a more eloquent discussion on this issue. Finally, consider that groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have a love for Christ but do not believe that Christ is their sole means of salvation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.184.157 (talk) 16:23, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, but oneness christians do believe in Christ as their sole means of salvation. I have a question for you who are dogmatic about the "trinity" Have you ever seen the GodHead...? Personally, I dont know what the configuration of the GodHead looks like I never seen it. Furthermore, every bit of my personal doctrine is as a result of exhaustive study on any particular subject. I have yet to study the scriptures concerning the GodHead and I most certainly will not be dogmatic about the configuration thereof just because "my church" teaches it. That is called brain washing. Here is another one to chew on. Do you really believe, I mean really believe that those 3,000 jews that were added to the church on the day of pentecost immediately realized that Jesus was God and that the GodHead was a trinity...????? Or, was it sufficient for their salvation to accept that the man, Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah..??? The didache and the apostles creed is not scripture it is garbage. Do the work necessary to develope your own creed or be brain washed. Those are your alternatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they knew. Your assumption is just that... an assumption that decides what they did or did not know at the time. It also ignores Acts 2:36 where Peter specifically tells them that God had made Jesus "both Lord AND Christ". Also, you ignore Acts 2:40 where the account tells us that "with many other words he warned them". It is a huge leap of logic to declare that the doctrine of the trinity was certainly not among those "many other words" that Peter shared... especially after Thomas had called Christ, "My Lord and my God!" [John 20:28] and Peter himself had told Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." [Matt 16:16] Also present was the Apostle John, who in his gospel declared that, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." [John 1:1-2] These passages of Scripture point to the "garbage" that was explained more clearly in the later works of the Church. Anti-trinitarianism is contrary to Scripture. It denies the words of Christ when he says, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," [Matt 28:19] where Christ clearly presents three persons, but mentions only one name. In the NAME [Singular, not names] of... Father... Son... Holy Spirit. One God. One name. Three persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.211.192 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good Article on Trinitarianism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.26.41 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oneness also goes back to the heresy propagated by Arius, which is now called Arianism, that is embraced by the Jehova Witnesses, Mormons and the old World Wide Church of God to name a few. Read about Athanasius vs. Arius and the Council of Nicea. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Daddysapp 19:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]] comment added by 129.9.26.41 (daddysapp) 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone of you ever gets a chance to actually see the Godhead, Tell me what it looks like, how is it configured? I think then the arguement will be resolved. Until then I think it is somewhat foolish for the finite mind to puport they can comprehend the configuration of the Godhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.186.244 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, then why do their churches have a statement of faith where they implicitly deny the doctrine of the Trinity? It is one thing to say that you don't know what the "GodHead" looks like. It is another thing to say that you have a specific concept of God, and that what the historic Christian church believes has been wrong on that account. This is not saying that these are bad men. But an article on them should mention that they break with the historic understanding of God held by the Christian church, and even if you yourself do not have a firm belief that God has revealed His structure (at least, what we can understand of it) in the Bible, they clearly have that kind of understanding. Remember, these are not simply uninformed lay members of their churches. Fool4jesus (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I believe that this information is important for people to know (and I would think the members would agree, seeing as how they are not reticent in making their beliefs known), I have added a reference to their beliefs which I believe is written in a perfectly NPOV way. If you have information that this is incorrect, please correct it, but don't delete it just because you don't think it's important. Fool4jesus (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to the site, and just noticed this section. First of all, I don't think there should be a section for Controversy at all on Wikipedia -- and especially when it comes to politics and religion. It could be mentioned (briefly) under History. To answer the original question in this discussion, no, I don't think the subject of Oneness needs to be mentioned on the PCD page. Why should it? So, they have a belief that is not shared by most Christians. It's not like they don't believe in the deity of Christ, or that they preach from another book besides the Bible. They just have a different interpretation from others. Why should this be singled out more than any other Christian artists' beliefs? The contribution says, "Some Christians express caution regarding the group since its members hold Oneness Pentecostal beliefs..." The word "caution" would imply that there's danger or risk involved -- as if listening to their music could corrupt the listener's mind or soul, and make them believe something they don't want to. "...which deny the historic understanding of God's nature expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity." It's "historic" that people have been taught this doctrine of "trinity" for hundreds of years, but that doesn't make it true. And to use the word "doctrine" doesn't make it any more true either. This paragraph is "a bit" biased. Don't you think? And the link given is highly biased. Except for the letter from PCD, it doesn't give the other side. It's neither impartial nor neutral. It's one person's opinion. But, even the writer on that page says that most of the people who know that they have this doctrine aren't concerned about it. So, why would this be such a big controversy warranting a section? I'm sure the contributor meant well, but I really think that something needs to be done. Now, my personal view is that the doctrine of the trinity is not biblical. It was started by the catholic church around the 4th century. That's why Oneness believers are called Apostolics - because that's how the early Christians believed. The Bible clearly shows that God is one. It doesn't mention trinity or 3 persons. If anything, it should be called "triunity." However I don't agree with "the position that water baptism is necessary for salvation." They get that from the King James Version that says to be "baptised for the remission of sins." But, that was old English, and the word "for" meant because. And according to the Bible you can either be baptized in the name of Jesus or in "the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" but that doesn't mean that that needs to be mentioned on their page. Musdan77 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the changes made are satisfactory. I feel I have made the right changes because I really don't think that the PCD page is the place for a Oneness v. Trinitarian discussion. That should be done on this page or on a page on theology. I did leave the reference link - for the opposing viewpoint.Musdan77 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to revive an old topic, but it appears all mention of PCD's doctrinal distinctions (and in fact any mention of them being Oneness Pentecostals) have gone missing from the page since 1 August 2009. With no Talk leading up to that deletion, I would suggest something be reinstated. My purpose isn't to revive a Trinitarian debate on this page or edit-war, but I can't think of any reason not to (at the very least) include something about their denominational affiliation, and perhaps to mention the criticism of (and their own response to) their (non-)trinitarian beliefs. I think it can be done in a way that simply lays out the objections and responses without rancor or bias. Any objections? --Motley Fool 04:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the reason why it was removed (not by me) was mainly because it became too controversial and combative. I think it would be fine to mention that their churches are affiliated with the UPCI. But other than that, the way the article is now is fine. There is no need to (in fact shouldn't) have any mention of a singer's or group's personal theological beliefs in a general encyclopedia. If a reader wanted to know what their churches beliefs are they can go to the church's website. And it has not been an issue (with most people) when it comes to PCD. And because of that, I don't think you could find a reliable and neutral source anyway. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My purpose, as I said, is not to argue the validity of PDC's modalistic beliefs. Still, I think the topic deserves a mention in the article for a number of reasons. First, an article on celebrities should discuss their distinctives. There is no problem distinguishing PDC as a "Christian" music trio (as opposed to a generic pop/rock group), and their Sabellianism further distinguishes them within the category of "Christian". Also, it's common for most Wikipedia articles on celebrities to consist more than just a bare list of facts strictly limited to the subject's professional work. (see Bob Dylan ("Religious Life"), Neil Diamond ("Personal Life"), Miley Cyrus ("Controversies", "Relationships") and pretty much any article on any other musician). Finally, it is appropriate for an article to present issues surrounding a controversy, so long as the article does not take sides (For instance, see the lengthy discussion of Tom Cruise's Scientology, which includes a number of links to critical articles.) So as long as we're sticking with WP:CONTROVERSY rules and not making moral conclusions about their beliefs, I see no problem adding information to the PDC article indicating that they are Oneness Pentecostals, what the response to that has been, and what their response to their critics has been. (And of course none of this is "secret" information - PDC are presumably unashamed of their beliefs and not trying to hide them.) --Motley Fool 23:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, an article can mention an artist personal life (as it does for PCD—though it's lacking citations) and if it's newsworthy (something that was in the news) it should be noteworthy (like legal issues—which has been put in some Christian artist's bios). But when it comes to religion, that's on a whole different level (much trickier). You say "celebrities should discuss their distinctives." (I think you mean distinctions or distinctiveness. There's no such word as "distinctives".) All denominations (and non-denominational churches) have some belief or teaching that makes them different from others—otherwise there wouldn't be different denominations. So we would have to do that for every Christian artist. But very few Christian artists reveal what church they belong to because they simply want to be known as Christian artists. It would be the same for PCD if it wasn't for the fact that they are pastors of their own churches. And if the fact that their churches are a part of the United Pentecostal Church is mentioned, that in itself would say that they are Oneness doctrine believers. 'Nuff said.

We're talking about more than simple denominational differences, however. The difference between Trinitarian and Modalist views of God cut much closer to the heart of what is definitional about Christianity than the differences between, say, Presbyterians vs. Baptists vs. Anglicans. Again it's not our place to assert whether PCD or their critics are right or wrong, but when a genuine controversy exists (with multiple sources of criticism and multiple responses by PCD), then it's appropriate to document it. Please feel free to correct any factual errors within the article. --Motley Fool 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you didn't really care if there were "any objections" when you asked. You were going to do it anyway (as I thought you probably would). I disagree that the 'trinity vs. oneness' disagreement is more important than other theological differences. A person could find critics who criticize anyone for just about anything if he looked hard enough. We (Christians) are supposed to come together in unity. Phillips, Craig & Dean have appeared (together and separately) on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. And there are other oneness believers who have been on TBN. If a network with "trinity" in their name doesn't care, why should anyone else? But, you and your critics probably think that TBN is "heretical" too. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take offense where none was intended. I understand that for some the distinctions between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian beliefs are minor quibbles, while to others they are matter of foundational significance. I have done my best to accurately represent both PDC's belief's, their critics, and PDC's response to their critics. Furthermore I note that you have removed one of the critical links, and upon reflection I think that was the right decision - a TV show is more of an entertainment platform rather than a scholarly critique. I accept your edits in the spirit of WP:AGF, and I appreciate that you've done the same for me. (And I'm not sure if I've ever seen anything on TBN, so I have no opinion about the network, although I would greatly enjoy watching a PDC performance if they were on.) --Motley Fool 03:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with believing God is God?

What's wrong with oneness? I mean ask a Jew if he believes that God is one person and he or she would tell you yes, ask if God is three persons that make up one God they'd find that against the word of God and entirely false. If the Jew's being God's original chosen people deny God as three persons then how much more should we. The Jews don't know or except the Lord Jesus at this present time, because they have covered by a veil, they know there is just one God, one person so to except the idea that Jesus is a second person in the Godhead would completely go against their faith. When the Jews accept Jesus, then the veil will be torn for then and only then would they get the revelation that Jesus is the Almighty God manifested in the flesh. The idea of the trinity is compromise the Catholic church had will with the paganistic ideas and theologies of that time that has spread through the "christian"church. I quote the word christian for the idea of trinity is in no way christian. It takes a revelation to see the oneness of God. Trinity is taught, Oneness is divinely revealed through faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.42.206 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't place for debate outside of Wikipedia. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? Awayforawhile (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for not contributing to the article, as your understanding of the Trinity needs a lot of correction. Further, if you want to say "the idea of trinity is in no way christian," I suppose that is your right, but that's equivalent to saying "the idea of Mohammed and Allah is in no way Muslim." In other words, you are taking what has historically been the very defining element of the religion - that which has been defended by every one of its most acknowledged and foundational leaders throughout history, including among many others MacArthur, Sproul, Graham, Spurgeon, Wesley, Edwards, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, and Augustine (and, I believe, Jesus) - and saying the two have nothing to do with each other. No religion in the world teaches at once multiplicity and at the same time unity - in other words, the Trinity. This doesn't prove the Trinity is true, of course... but your statement is astounding for its historical ignorance. Fool4jesus (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phillips, Craig and Dean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722150738/http://www.doveawards.com/10winners.php to http://www.doveawards.com/10winners.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)