Apostolic Pentacostal beliefs?

I saw a fella on facebook recently whose Faith is “Apostolic Pentacostal”. Anyone familiar with that faith and what they believe? What common ground is there between them and Catholics? So far all I have gleaned from this person’s response to a random post is that they think Catholics worship Mary…but I’d like to know what similarities we share.

I did find this:

I’m not certain if this is representative or not though. I see some similarities to Catholicism there in the moral area, and in the fact that we have free will to reject God’s grace after we have been saved. It’s hard to tell whether they believe in a Triune God or not though…and if they do, it almost sounds like they believe that ALL of God (the Trinity, as it were) is present in the form of Christ?

“Apostolic Pentecostal” is the preferred name of a sect of Pentecostals often called Oneness Pentecostals or Jesus only Pentecostals.

“Apostolic” refers to their beliefs that they are following the Bible exactly and therefore their faith is “Apostolic.”

It does not refer to Apostolic Succession or Tradition.

Oneness Pentecostals are best categorized as Unitarian Protestant fundamentalists.

Pentecostals, whether they are Trinitarian or Oneness, are Arminians. This means they believe in free will and the possibility of losing salvation. In that sense, there is some similarity with Catholicism. Pentecostals of all types will also believe in the continuation of the miraculous, so in that sense there is some commonality.

“Apostolic” or Oneness Pentecostals do not believe in the Trinity. They reject the doctrines expounded by the Church councils at Nicaea and elsewhere as man made traditions.

Oneness Pentecostals are modalists. This is the heresy of Sabellianism that was condemned by all Nicene Christians. What modalism says is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead. The name of this one God is Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead dwells fully. The Father is an aspect or mode or manifestation of Jesus Christ, the Son is an aspect/mode/manifestation of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit is an aspect/mode/manifestation of Jesus Christ.

For this reasons, Oneness Pentecostals do not use the Trinitarian baptismal formula, but baptize “In the Name of Jesus Christ.”

There is a Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue conducted between the Catholic Church and Trinitarian Pentecostals. Some documents from that dialogue can be found here at the Vatican’s website for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Itwin, thank you very much for the in-depth information. This may be very helpful if he decides to take me up on the offer to discuss the Catholic Faith. :slight_smile:

You are welcome.

I will say that Oneness Pentecostals tend to be more antagonistic or hostile toward Catholics than Trinitarian Pentecostals tend to be (especially since much of the hostility within Trinitarian Pentecostalism has abated in recent years).

I will also point out a difference between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostal soteriology.

Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that salvation is received by grace through faith. Repentance must accompany faith. These are the only “essential” acts we believe are required to become a Christian: faith and repentance.

Oneness Pentecostals, however, believe that 3 essential elements are necessary to become a Christian and gain salvation:

  1. Faith and repentance
  2. Water baptism in the Name of Jesus
  3. Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

I point this out because this differs from the standard evangelical soteriology.

It amazes me how ignorant Trinitarians are in there attempt to define what Oneness or even the ancient modalist as you put it believe. You people argue that everybody is wrong based on a doctrine that isn’t even actually written in scripture. Yet you people have always been so quick to throw around the word heresy. When in fact the notion that The Divine Essence that we call God is shared between 3 hypostasis is heresy itself. There is absolutely nothing in scripture to suggest that the Almighty creator of all things very being is shared. From a oneness perspective the idea that God’s very nature can be shared is impossible let alone actual. We oneness will disagree with the Trinitarian belief on that basis alone.

The scriptures are crystal clear that there is but One God our father and one Lord Jesus Christ- You Trinitarians can argue all day long that implies 2 people and I will tell you that it doesn’t.

I was raised in a church called the Apostolic Pentecostal church. The women don’t wear jewelry, make-up, jeans, they don’t cutt there hair, and they wore dresses that covered the ankles. The men are not allowed to wear shorts or expose there chest. The gift of speaking in tongues was highly preached.

Many times as a child, I was picked on and people called us a cult or devil worshippers, but in reality, they read the normal king James bible or the NIV,
they preach acts chapter 2. This seems to be the foundation of the religion…

It’s an oxymoron. The Roman Catholic Church is Apostolic, I would even
say, I’m not sure, that the Orthodox Churches are Apostolic, pretty sure
most (if not all) the Old Churches are Apostolic.

PROTESTANTS are Christians who have broken away from the Apostolic
traditions, most (if not all, not sure about Lutherans) don’t believe that the
Apostles taught by Scripture “AND Tradition.”

“Apostolic” is a word thrown around a lot by some Christian groups because it sounds
right, like when Mormons say “We’re not Mormons, we are the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints
,” as though “Jesus Christ” in their name makes them “Christian.”

If your Apostolic, after the traditions of the Apostles, GREAT! but you can’t be a
Protestant at the same time. ARGUABLY one can identify as Apostolic moving
out of Protestantism, but Protestants broken away from the Apostolic Church.

Now that’s just off the top of my head, REALLY SMART Catholics please correct me if I am in error there.


What bible verse do they refer to in support of 3 above, that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?


They largely rely on Acts. Coming from a Trinitarian Pentecostal background, I find their interpretation novel, since Trin. Pentecostals use Acts to support the separation of conversion/new birth from Spirit baptism.

This is from the United Pentecostal Church’s (a large Oneness denomination) belief statement, which you can find by googling if you are so inclined:

The doctrine of salvation: We enter into the New Testament church through faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, repentance from sin, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of tongues. (See Acts 2:1-4, 36-39; 11:13-17.)

Welcome Aeg071-

On the subject of baptizing in the name of Jesus only, would you mind sharing with us how you reconcile that practice with the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Verse 20 is important too because as Christ taught his apostles, the apostles taught their descendants. We can read the following from the early Church and both before and after this time we can read about the practice of baptizing infants.

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Here we can read The Church debating what day to baptize infants, not what year.

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

Do you have any quotes from the early Church writers that they were baptizing in the name of Jesus alone?


God is eternal and existed before time.
God is Love.
Love is only possible in relationship.

I would say that I understand your apparent hostility here, as anti-Trinitarians, such as yourself, are often attacked quite harshly. However, that doesn’t mean that everyone you encounter is ignorant of what you teach and believe, in fact, as you can see from the info in this thread, it is a fairly ancient “conversation.” There is plenty of scripture to back up the idea of the Trinity, where any other view becomes illogical and contradictory.

This thread is on apostolic pentacostals that Itwin has nicely explained to us. But the issue of the apostolicity of the Church is viewed much broader than you have stated.

Per the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue:

On the church’s apostolicity, the dialogue works within the horizon of the Lutheran-Catholic consensus on justification by the grace of Christ and agreement in confessing the work of the Holy Spirit in gathering believers into the church. From this basis and notwithstanding remaining differences, Lutherans and Catholics agree at a basic level on what makes a church apostolic and they acknowledge, each with characteristic accents, the true apostolicity of each other’s churches.

YIKES! Totally misread “Pentacostal!” :blush:
In which case, perhaps disregard what I said.

They would baptize in the name of Jesus and argue that its just the same thing as the trinity. You could also get baptized more than once just so you can be cleansed of your sin.

We would sometimes have church for a whole month straight with no days off , twice a day and they would preach until midnight or sometimes 2 am, this is called a revival. Yelling, shouting, screaming with joy and loud music was all a part of normal life as well as speaking in tongues…

I didn’t like that they would condemn other churches, they would tell a JW or Mormon that they would burn in the Netherworld if they didn’t repent and get baptized in Jesus name. As for my Apostolic Pentecostal Church, they would preach that the Catholics have gone astray but that they would return to there right ways in the end times.

It would really hurt my feelings when they talked bad about Catholics because my sweet grandmother was a Catholic, it was just kind of emotional…

How did they feel about Pentecostals who believed in the Trinity? In my online interaction with Oneness Pentecostals, I’ve been accused of believing in man made creeds rather than the Bible simply because I explained to them, by means of a line by line analysis, that the Nicene Creed’s language was biblical. :shrug:

Also, I corrected them on the historical falsehoods they were perpetuating about the Constantinian era (even pointing out to them that Constantine did not “invent” the Trinity and in fact had Arian tendencies). I’m not sure how widespread this historical narrative is, but I found it disturbing.

They didn’t discriminate against other Pentacostals because speaking in tongues was something that we all shared but the dress codes was more important. Sometimes when we would visit other churches our pastor would ask us to over look the way people dressed. We was not allowed to have the women cut there hair or wear jeans, make-up or jewelry. The men had to be clean shaved with hair cuts and no shorts. But other Pentecostal churches didn’t have the same dress code as we did, they could wear whatever they wanted…

Let me just say I am not totally hostile like most Apostolic Pentecostals come across…I went to and graduated from catholic school.Whenever we genuflect I always said in the name of Jesus Christ , because it is the name given where by we must be saved. I am of the mind that Christ actually said to baptize in My Name(Jesus Christ). in the book of Matthews but for the sake of argument we will say the title reference is authentic.Now what is believed Christ said and what the Apostles actually did no doubt has to be one in the same. If as it is believed that Christ said to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and the Apostles turn around in the book of Acts and baptize in Jesus name. That could not be two separate things.Using Matthews as it relate to baptism is in all accounts not a very good scripture to argue for the trinity even tho it is the most reference. Logically speaking as Christ came to reconcile us to God by becoming obedient to death,why would we not be baptized in His name after all it is the saving name and , being that he is in fact God incarnate and the fullness of the Divine is resident in Him. What has apparently escaped us as Christians in reading of God’s word is that the Almighty God has manifested (revealed) Himself by His Logos and His Spirit. To the orthodox tradition of men God’s Logos and His Spirit somehow are the second and third hypostasis of the triune God .To Apostolic Pentecostals God His Logos and His Spirit is just that Himself and by His Spirit, His Logos took to Himself the form of a servant and came in man’s likeness. Where by we get the only begotten of the Father the God/Man Jesus Christ. The Orthodox traditions of men say that is two Divine beings well not beings perse but two hypostasis/prospon/personae . To Apostolic’ Pentecostals that is still just One God/One man. Now I will concede what most Apostolic Pentecostals wouldn’t dare say, is that the ancient original Greek/Latin translation prior to Nicene of One Ousia in three hypostasis/prospon/personae does amount to the Apostolic Pentecostal view of God’s being. .

P.S the idea that God exist in three hypostasis ie triune first,second and third hypostasis could in fact be modes of God being. that is to say as you trinitarians do that within God’s being exist 3 hypostasis/prospon/personae.so I would suggest not calling others modalist when you are as well.


I still do not understand how you reconcile Jesus words in Matthew 28, to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Despite your saying this below,

I am of the mind that Christ actually said to baptize in My Name(Jesus Christ).

that is not what Jesus says in scripture to do.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

So what are we to do Aeg when we disagree on scripture? We go to The Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, that which Christ promised to lead to all truth (but that is another thread now is it not).

Per post 10, do you have any evidence, any writings from the early Church or Church councils that shows that they were baptizing in the name of Jesus alone?

Originally Posted by ggarcia19

Also, I corrected them on the historical falsehoods they were perpetuating about the Constantinian era (even pointing out to them that Constantine did not “invent” the Trinity and in fact had Arian tendencies). I’m not sure how widespread this historical narrative is, but I found it disturbing.

Aeg071 says:
Nobody should say that Constantine invented the Trinity you are right he had Arian tendencies and ultimately did not care what the council of Nicene came up with just as long as they all agreed on God’s being…

When I stated I was of the mind, means I am incline to believe that Jesus did not say the Father Son and Holy Spirit and that He actually said In My Name and the titles we substituted at some point in history but for the sake of that argument, We say the titles quoted are authentic from Christ mouth.What Jesus said in Matthew and what the Apostles did in Acts has to be the same thing or the Apostle disobeyed the command,they were there when He said it so they would know what He actually said and what He actually meant . That is how I reconcile.You need to go research because the Catholic Church as already conceded that the early Church baptized in Jesus Name . I am not one of those that debate baptism in Jesus because however you choose to believe Christ said to go baptize, when they did baptize it was in Christ name. Seems like they did what He said END OF STORY.Besides God’s name is not Father Son and Holy Spirit. One may argue that is who He is, but that definitely is not His name.As for me I was baptized in Jesus name because there is no other Name I know because even if the notion God was a trinity was true His name would still be Yahweh/Jehovah my salvation ie Yeshua/Jesus.whichever name please you. .

Quotes from the so called Church Fathers after the Infallible Word of God was written may be Gospel to you but to me it is just what the so called Church Fathers thought based on what they were taught.(Not the inspired Word).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.