I reply, "Well, Matthew did quote Jesus as saying to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the day of Pentecost--"

"I see, Brother Smith, you believe like the 'Oneness' people.  We don't believe that way here.  You prefer Peter's word to that of our Lord. If you have time after the service,  I'll be glad to straighten you out, but  please don't enter into the discussion in Sunday School.  You might confuse some of my people with this 'Oneness" doctrine. We're strictly Trinitarian here," Pastor
Thomas informs me.

Feeling rather rejected, I sit through a very interesting and enlightening Bible study and, aside from possibly one aside thrown in for my benefit about the Trinity, the rest is strictly Bible and completely right. The sermon, too, is a great exposition from the Bible, and not one flaw can I find in the pastor's doctrine except that as he wound up to begin, knowing I'm there and have a "dangerous" doctrine, he did warn people to beware of getting tangled up in "oneness" doctrine. 

 After the service, I take a few moments to speak with the pastor, having carefully avoided saying more than "Praise the Lord," or "God bless you," as I shook hands with his people. 
"You know, pastor, I really enjoyed your teaching and preaching and believe just as you about everything except --" 

 "Yes, I lcnow you just believe In Jesus and we believe like the Bible teaches, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." He then sets out to "Straighten out" my doctrine. He is surprised to find out that I do not deny the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Ghost and that perhaps one of the greatest differences is my stand on holiness and the absolute necessity of being baptized BOTH in water in Jesus' name and in the Holy Ghost. Those points, he fairly readily admits, except that he insists that since Jesus said Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that is it.

 The following Sunday, I look up the apostolic Pentecostal Church in Somewhere, U. S. A. and again introduce myself as Brother Smith, an independent Full Gospel minister. 
 

"Yes, I have, praise the Lord!"

"Where? " "By whom? " "Is he with our organization? " "How long have you believed in baptism in Jesus' name?" The questions go on.  That I was raised in a Trinitarian church -- at least in name -- raises questions in the good pastor's mind and, like the Trinitarian the week before, I am advised to keep quiet in discussion and that the pastor would like to inquire of me more fully as to what I believe. Again, I agree with the Sunday School lesson completely except for a few asides about the "Three God" people. Here I notice a much higher standard, as a whole, among the people. Longer haired women with longer skirts and less jewelry and makeup, and men with neater hair and less
flashy shirts and suits. I feel a little more at home here, but for the digs at the "Trinitarians".

 What's this argument all about? Is there One God or Three Gods? Is Jesus in the Godhead or the Godhead In Jesus?  I have yet to hear any Trinitartan Pentecostal preacher, from the pulpit say anything to deny that "In Him,  (Jesus) dwelleth ALL the fullness of the Godhead Bodily^1. nor yet have I ever heard any Oneness Pentecostal deny that "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One."^2. In fact, most Trinitarians I've ever heard praying, pray to God in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ just as do most Oneness, and all Oneness use Matthew 28:19 as a basis
for saying baptism in water was commanded by our Lord.

Who was right, then? Pastor Thomas, the Trinitarian or Pastor James, the
Oneness? Was I all mixed up in being in both churches? I don't know of any Trinitarian Pentecostal who will say that there are Three Gods if you express it in that way, nor any Oneness who deny that God has manifested Himself as Father, as Son, and as the Holy Ghost. So, if there is no real difference, 
why then the argument?

In the Third Century, A.D. at the time of Pope Stephen (an anapope) and Constantine, there was a church council meeting called the Council of Nicea (325 A. D.)  and there it was deternined that no longer would the practice of the
Apostles (baptism in Jesus ~Name) be acceptable, but that it must be done in the 
 
 

But are the Oneness wholly right? Doctrinally, perhaps yes, but one thing BOTH seen to lack --  The AGAPÉ Love of God.  Time that should be spent telling the world that Jesus Saves,
Heals, and Fills with the Holy Ghost Comforter is spent instead in the argument of One or Three. On more occasions than one, I've felt a strong leading to visit a particular church with a message of Bible deliverance burning in my heart only to become involved in this doctrinal squabble and not allowed to open my mouth
in the service. And the pastor, so aware that he had to be especially strong on his doctrinal view in that service that he could scarcely preach about repentance, conversion, baptism, the Holy Ghost, holiness, faith, or anything else.

Can you deny the earnest seeker who has  repented of his sins and read only Matthew 28:19 that he has obeyed God's will when he is baptized according to what appears in that passage? Can you deny the new convert who has been shown only Acts 2:38 that he has complied with God's divine will? "By their fruits ye shall  know them."^3.  "Man looketh on the outward appearance,  but God looketh upon the heart."^4.

While in a strict sense, the person has followed the  Matthew passage alone has not USED the actual Name in immersion he has still acknowledged that Jesus IS that Name when he said, "Lord Jesus, Save me!"

What then? Shall we draw our swords and do battle with  with those who don't have quite the full revelation or shall we preach the unsearchable riches of Christ^5. Shall we challenge them to the boxing or wrestling arena, knowing we are bigger, stronger, faster, or shall we take them aside as younger brothers and instruct them lovingly, more perfectly.^6. You seldom win love with a clenched fist, but compassion draws love in kind. Who will be on the Lord's side?
 

Phillip did not tell the  Ethiopian eunuch that because his skin was black, he could not receive the Gift of God, nor did he demand circumcision.^8.
Peter and Philip both simply preached the Love of God and salvation through Jesus Christ in a complete form and let less important matters take care of themselves. In none of the Gospels, as Christ gave the Great Commission, did He command that we display any hatred or malice or that we dispute nor argue with those who do not quite understand the kingdom of Cod, nor ridicule them. His command was LOVE, Make Peace,   be Merciful, be Meek (not know-it-alls), Poor in Spirit, (not considering ourselves to "have it all").^9.

What do I believe? "In Him dwelleth ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily."^10.
"There is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby we MUST be saved."^11. "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,"^12.  But to cap all this and to relate this to myself, I believe, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."^13.
All my Theology  is of no value if I cannot obey
God. Just because my brother doesn't understand how the Father can be the Son or the Holy Ghost, I don't knock him down. I just seek the opportunity to deal with him more fully about the blessed revelation of just who Jesus is.

Who will be on the Lord's side?