Oneness Pentecostalism (Modalism)

Modalism - God is one Person, not three. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes, roles, or manifestations of the single divine Person, whose name is Jesus. Jesus IS the Father and IS the Spirit.

Their basis
They stand on the fierce monotheism of Deut 6:4 ("the LORD is one") and Isa 44:6 ("beside me there is no God"), and read the deity texts as identity: Isa 9:6 calls the child "Everlasting Father"; John 10:30 "I and the Father are one"; John 14:9 "he who has seen me has seen the Father"; Col 2:9 "in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." They argue three co-equal Persons amounts to three Gods, and that the Trinity is a later Greek philosophical import.

Scripture answers
Scripture shows the Persons distinct AND simultaneously present, which modalism cannot explain. At Jesus' baptism the Son is in the water, the Spirit descends as a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven - three at once (Matt 3:16-17). The Son prays to the Father (John 17:1-5), does the Father's will not His own (John 6:38), and says His testimony and the Father's are TWO witnesses (John 8:16-18). The Word was WITH God and WAS God (John 1:1) - "with" requires distinction. The risen Son sits at the Father's right hand (Acts 7:55-56; Ps 110:1). The Father sends the Spirit in the Son's name (John 14:26; 15:26). The one divine name is threefold (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14). Their identity texts do not prove modalism: "Everlasting Father" (Isa 9:6) names the Messiah's fatherly, eternal care over His people, not that the Son IS the Father; "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) is oneness of essence and purpose, spoken by a Son who prays TO that Father. And these distinctions stand in the text itself, long before Nicaea - so the triune God is read OUT of Scripture, not imported into it. One God, three Persons - not one Person in three modes.

Matthew 3:16-17John 1:1John 17:1-5John 8:16-18Acts 7:55-56John 14:26Matthew 28:192 Corinthians 13:14

In fairness: Their zeal to guard the oneness of God (Deut 6:4) is right and precious, and they rightly insist Jesus is truly God and that seeing Him is seeing the Father (John 14:9). The ancient modalists (Sabellius, Praxeas, Noetus) were also reacting against real tri-theism. The error is not too high a view of Jesus but too small a doctrine of the Godhead - the unity is real, but so is the eternal distinction of the Persons.

Salvation requires the "new birth" of Acts 2:38: repentance, water baptism specifically in the name of Jesus, AND the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues. Without these steps a person is not yet born again.

Their basis
They read Acts 2:38 as a saving formula ("Repent and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"), John 3:5 "born of water and the Spirit," and Mark 16:16 "he who believes and is baptized will be saved." Tongues as the required evidence comes from Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6, where Spirit-filling is accompanied by tongues.

Scripture answers
Scripture repeatedly grounds salvation in grace through faith, apart from added works: Eph 2:8-9; Rom 3:28; 4:4-5; Titus 3:5 ("not by works of righteousness which we have done"). The thief on the cross was promised paradise with no baptism and no tongues (Luke 23:43). In Cornelius' house the hearers received the Spirit - and spoke in tongues - while Peter was still preaching, as they believed and BEFORE any baptism (Acts 10:44-47; 15:7-9), reversing the Oneness order. Paul answers "what must I do to be saved?" with "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31), and Rom 10:9 rests salvation on confessing and believing. Paul explicitly asks "do all speak with tongues?" expecting the answer no (1 Cor 12:30), so tongues cannot be the universal proof of the Spirit. Baptism is the glad response of the saved, not the price of salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9Titus 3:5Luke 23:43Acts 10:44-47Acts 16:31Romans 10:91 Corinthians 12:30

In fairness: Repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit really are the normal marks of New Testament conversion, and they take Jesus' and Peter's words with a seriousness many churches lack. The error is turning the fruits and signs of salvation into prerequisites, and elevating one gift (tongues) into the measuring rod God never made it.

Water baptism must be performed ONLY with the words "in the name of Jesus." Baptisms done with the Trinitarian words of Matthew 28:19 ("Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") are held to be invalid, and converts are often re-baptized.

Their basis
Every baptism narrated in Acts is "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), never a recorded recital of the Matt 28:19 triad. They argue "name" in Matt 28:19 is singular, and that singular name is Jesus - so obeying Matt 28:19 actually MEANS saying "Jesus."

Scripture answers
Jesus Himself commanded baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19); no verse ever forbids those words or calls them invalid. "In the name of Jesus" in Acts describes baptism by His authority and INTO union with Him (Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27) - Luke is telling us whose baptism it was, over against John's baptism (Acts 19:3-5), not dictating a magic verbal formula. The single "name" of Matt 28:19 is the one shared name of the three Persons, which is exactly why it is threefold. Scripture nowhere pits the two against each other or commands re-baptism over wording.

Matthew 28:19Acts 19:3-5Romans 6:3-4Galatians 3:27Acts 2:38

In fairness: They are right that baptism is genuinely into Jesus and done in His authority - "in the name of Jesus" is thoroughly biblical language, and the apostolic church clearly did invoke His name. The overreach is making a particular spoken formula the test of a valid baptism, and unchurching everyone who obeyed Christ's own Great Commission words.

Strict outward holiness standards, especially for women: uncut hair, no makeup or jewelry, modest ankle-length dress, and separation from worldly entertainment; often treated as marks of true consecration.

Their basis
They cite 1 Cor 11:6-15 (a woman's long hair as her glory/covering), 1 Tim 2:9 (modest apparel, not braided hair or gold), Deut 22:5 (distinct clothing for men and women), and 1 Pet 3:3-4 (not outward adorning).

Scripture answers
God looks on the heart, not the outward appearance (1 Sam 16:7). Paul warns that man-made rules about "do not touch, do not taste" have an appearance of wisdom but no power against the flesh (Col 2:20-23), and that binding such regulations can smother the freedom Christ bought (Gal 5:1). True holiness and adorning are inward - "the hidden person of the heart" (1 Pet 3:4) - and Jesus rebukes cleaning the outside of the cup while the inside is unchanged (Matt 23:25-26). These are matters of conscience, not tests of salvation (Rom 14:1-6).

1 Samuel 16:7Colossians 2:20-23Galatians 5:11 Peter 3:3-4Matthew 23:25-26Romans 14:1-6

In fairness: Modesty, self-restraint, and a visible seriousness about consecration are genuinely biblical, and in a coarse culture their reverence and dignity can be admirable. The danger is turning conscience-level convictions into salvation-level laws, measuring holiness by hemlines and hair while the gospel of grace slips out of view.