Is it Better to Call Ourselves Simply “Christians”?

Mar 27th, 2018

Bobby Killmon



by Bobby Killmon

A new convert asked, if the Pentecostal movement has only come into existence in the past two centuries, why should we call ourselves Pentecostal? Wouldn’t it be better to call ourselves simply Christians?

First of all, there has always been an Apostolic Church. Further, the NT Church was started on the day of Pentecost (this is why we use the term Pentecostal) and was led by the Apostles whom Christ chose (which is why we say we are Apostolic). You cannot be “of Christ” without following the Apostles doctrine.

There are a few great resources to show there’s always been a Church that stood for what the Apostles defined as necessary for anyone to be saved (repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Spirit evidenced initially by speaking in tongues). From Jerusalem to Great Britain shows this well, even citing three Popes that endorsed Jesus name baptism. Marvin Arnold’s Apostolic History Timeline shows the same type of evidence. Thomas Weisser’s book After the Way Called Heresy is a short but good resource as well. History clearly shows multiple examples of this. For example, Martin Luther, in his work the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, discusses some baptizing in Jesus name. Or when we see multiple times where Catholic leadership is trying to “reign in” monks who dare to “baptize in the name of Jesus only” throughout the Middle Ages. This clearly shows the truth of God having an Apostolic witness throughout Church history. There is always a faithful remnant somewhere, even if it got down to just eight souls in Noah’s day.

Stone with Jesus written on it

It really is true that other man-made doctrines came later and are not original to the Bible (the trinity, being saved at repentance only, infant baptism, sprinkling as opposed to immersion, praying to Mary, communion as necessary for salvation, etc.). Many have rejected salvation which God gave us on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and “do church” in a way foreign to the way the Apostles did. This is why we define ourselves as Apostolic Pentecostals. It simply means we are biblical Christians. There are others who reject reading and implementing the Bible in a way that’s true to Jesus and the Apostles, and even their name gives this away (Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc.).

The term Christian is so widely used today; even other groups define themselves by other terms. It helps identify what’s important to them, and this enables us to state beliefs clearly when we share our beliefs with friends. Even non-denominational means something as a term. There is a criterion to call yourself that. So these are short-cut ways to define ourselves theologically. They’re helpful to start meaningful conversations about what each person who uses the term Christian believes. If the term Christian wasn’t misused to represent views that remove people from what Jesus endorsed and the God-ordained Apostles taught, then the term Christian would be enough. It was in biblical times but that’s because they were Apostolic in doctrine and Pentecostal in experience.

We Will Become One Thing Or The Other

Mar 7th, 2018

Paul Mooney



by Paul Mooney

Abraham Lincoln, kicking off his campaign for the United States Senate on June 16, 1858, presented a radical statement. The speech is noted in Donald T. Phillips recently authored book, Lincoln on Leadership for Today. Lincoln had chosen an expression from Mark 3:25 to describe the state of the Republic at that moment. His campaign managers were advising him against the possibly inflammatory remarks. With conviction, he responded to their hesitancy: “The proposition is indisputably true, and I will deliver it as written.”

“‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.Lincoln memoral It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.”

Phillips described Lincoln’s address as “bold, morally courageous” for the time. I believe there is a possible application to Lincoln’s remarks that we need to consider. I am hoping that our dear readers will take my thoughts as an appeal to contemplate the consequences of disunity as a matter that determines our ability as a body to succeed together. “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation” (Matthew 12:25).

The Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out the devil by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Jesus responds by saying, do you really think the devil is divided against himself? “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you” (Matthew 12:28). Therefore, there is no cooperation with the devil’s agenda. The objectives are incompatible. Bible commentator John Phillips says on this passage, “(Jesus) argued that what the Pharisees had just said in their jealous rage was inconceivable, inconsistent, and incongruous.”

Kingdoms divided against themselves fall. Division destroys all kingdoms, all nations, all churches, all businesses, and all families. However, Lincoln’s fear was not that the country would be dissolved necessarily, but that it would unite under slavery.American Flag on a fence As he put it, “It will become all one thing or all the other.” Because, only in some position of unity or agreement could the nation go forward. Unity was and is necessary to survive. Allowing disunity, especially as it pertained to this issue, was an accommodation of evil, and a half-free America was not a free America at all.
To ignore the division or the division’s cause was a step closer to destruction.

Note Jude’s admonition: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). Contend for that “one” faith. Lincoln might put it this way — if we don’t stay unified under that “one” faith we will unify as something else. Eventually, if we haven’t already, our movement will decide – we will either be unified as Oneness, holiness, believers of the essentiality of Jesus’ name baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost or it will cease to unite us — and we will be something else.

One of Lincoln’s most profound quotes, in my collection, is this:  “Pulling people back from the extremes is one of the most difficult jobs a leader can undertake, Presidents in particular.” As a pastor, friend and an organizational servant, I have found that the possibility of pulling someone back from an extreme position doctrinally or ethically is exceedingly difficult. Often to my sorrow and failure. The spark of disunity must be addressed immediately or we risk the flame of destruction. We cannot accommodate dualities for too long in our thinking, our expressions of faith – we won’t pull it back.

We do indeed “become one thing or the other.” On the command of Acts 2:38, holiness, worldliness, the matter of the Godhead and so on, we become one thing or the other. The prophet Amos put it another way: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3)

Raising Counter-Cultural Kids

Mar 6th, 2018

Jaye M. Rodenbush



by Jaye Rodenbush

Youth culture is incredibly fast moving. The news, trends, fashion and the digital media that accompanies it all are purposely fluid and difficult to track. Even the most dutiful researchers, parents and pastors are behind before they even realize it. It is a moving target of influence that is molding and shaping the minds and hearts of our children and young adults.

Discussing current events can be difficult as the 24-hour news cycle and a content-obsessed society moves from one crisis to the next so quickly that it makes events seemingly irrelevant before they can even be properly processed. For example, in January of 2018, six teenagers took their own lives in one small rural school district in Ohio. It has been labeled “suicide contagion,” and the phenomenon is a growing concern.

It seems we are witnessing the act of suicide becoming contagious among young people. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that since 2007 the rate of suicide has doubled among children ages 10 to 14. The CDC also states that overdose deaths among teens doubled between 1999-2015, and this number is only predicted to rise. But . . . the news cycle passed, America shed a collective tear and returned to its media obsessions.Monochromatic picture of man looking out window

Instead of examining the social factors at work in many of these tragedies, it seems that television, media, celebrities in movies and music are dedicated to normalizing “alternative” lifestyles. A great number of Americans are determined to push ahead the extreme social experimentation with an arrogant bias that assumes and dismisses the potential for destruction that will accompany it. So transgenderism, polyamory, homosexuality, multi-sexuality are portrayed to our children as equally valid and morally equivalent to the Judeo/Christian values our country was founded on, despite evidence that these social groups suffer greatly from depression, mental illness and are at great risk for suicide.

Lest we think these things are just a passing fad, or over-dramatized topics that won’t really change our culture, a recent survey found that young people are moving toward the middle when it comes to sexual attraction and nearly a third of young Americans now see themselves somewhere in between 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual (Time, March 2017).

This generation is being offered few counterbalances to the digital and social status quo. There is a deep sense of powerlessness against this revolution and it is likely why so many leaders and parents simply choose to ignore the crisis altogether. We ignore the devastation and the immorality. We try not to see the desperate emptiness found in the hollow eyes of the teenagers who mutilate their bodies with tattoos and piercings. All the while, Satan keeps us distracted and distressed by the cares of life, luring us into obligations that don’t really matter until we are consumed by our own business and busyness.

What frightens me most is the possibility that we will assume that these issues won’t affect “our” kids. I fear that the desire for our kids to stay current, trendy, and not perceived as too “Pentecostal” will lure us into complacency. So…our kids will be exposed to these same influences, offered unguarded access to social media, secular music and movies and we will foolishly expect that the enemy won’t use this opportunity to sway them from the altar to the alternative.

In the book, “How to Raise an American,” authors Myrna Blyth and Chriss Winston talk about a startling statistic. When asked, “one in four young Americans under thirty say they would rather live in another country.” In response, they quote Theodore Roosevelt, “We want to make our children feel that the mere fact of being Americans makes them better off…this is not to blind us at all to our own shortcomings; we ought steadily to try to correct them; but we have absolutely no grounds to work on if we don’t have a firm and ardent Americanism at the bottom of everything” (Random House, 2007).  Similarly, our kids must have a firm and ardent Apostolic Pentecostalism at the core of everything if we have a hope of making them want to continue to live an Apostolic life. We cannot merely assume they will love this way; we must do our best to teach them to do so.

Father walking toddlerWe have got to work every day to educate our children’s minds against the deluge of anti-Christian indoctrination that they are facing. The enemy has come in like a flood and it is our job as parents to start bailing the water from out of the minds and hearts of our kids. Nearly everything about living a Christian life goes against the politically correct mindset of America today. We are asking our kids to live completely counter-culturally.

This is no easy task. It means they have to reject most of the ideology that comes with public education. It means they have to reject the immorality and depravity of media and entertainment. It means they will not fit in. It means they will stand out. They will be different. They will be targeted for ridicule. They will face opposition. It’s a complete war for their mind. They need answers to hard questions. They need support and guidance.

We cannot wait until we are brought to our knees to get on our knees and pray. We’ve got to pray for our families, our children, and our nation. Pray a hedge of protection around them physically and mentally. Pray they can walk in peace, not in trepidation. Pray that they receive spiritual discernment, that they may see for themselves what is good and what is evil. Pray that they have the courage to reject the enemy’s attempt to define decency, modesty, morality completely downward until there is no decency, modesty, or morality at all. We must pray that they have a boldness of heart and passionate spirits that help them to indeed live counter-culturally, without embarrassment or shame. Pray they learn to love the Oneness doctrine, to love scripture, to develop their own commitment to holiness and separation from the world.

This will not be accomplished without great diligence. It will require us to guard our homes from carnality and worldliness. It will require that we put them into a church environment that allows them to really feel and be touched by the Holy Spirit. They need the power and anointing that comes with a true infilling of the Holy Ghost – this essential experience cannot be substituted for emotionalism. It cannot be manufactured or imitated. It cannot be fabricated by worship that glorifies personalities rather than Christ. It cannot be carnally replicated or contrived without repentance, conviction and conversion. That is our job: to teach, love, train, talk and to be sure we take them to where we know they can be spiritually fed, nurtured and led by spiritual authority. But, ultimately, we must remember it is their walk with God and we must yield our desires for their lives and their accomplishments to His direction and His calling.

“And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up” (Deuteronomy 6:7).

The Trajectory of “Better”

Feb 20th, 2018

Robert L. Rodenbush



by Robert Rodenbush

In Crisis Magazine, a Catholic publication, author and priest George Rutler laments the lack of strong church leaders in the Catholic faith. He quotes an English bishop that stated: “Wherever St. Paul went, there was a riot. Wherever I go, they serve tea.” Rutler’s concern over the loss of spiritual boldness and trajectory of the future warns against what should be avoided in our own ranks as Apostolics.

George Rulter

Our world has changed dramatically. A generation ago, pastors were expected to preach absolutes, express strong opinions, and offer moral standards for daily living. The world looked to the church for answers, and while they may not have liked or lived up to them, there was a certain comfort in knowing where to go to find the truth taught and preached. Today, the expectation has changed. Church seeking has taken on a new level of meaning.

No longer do people look to a church or denomination that corresponds to specific doctrines and tenets of faith, but they go from church to church looking for an experience that suits every family member. Is the Sunday school program exciting? Do they provide enough youth events? Is the pastor engaging, interesting and time conscious? So to meet these expectations churches today respond with “better” marketing, websites, social media and events focused primarily on time efficiency and catch-all theology. It’s not to say we shouldn’t focus on areas that can benefit from improvement, but we must make certain that the time and energy placed on becoming “better” does not restrict our spiritual effectiveness and anointing, or water down our commitment to our core doctrines.

Mainline Christianity has taken “better” to mean speaking in generalities, sticking to sermonic encouragement rather than conversion and a moral relativism that doesn’t intrude on lifestyle choices. If Apostolics head too far down this path, we will lose our purpose altogether. This generation is surrounded by relativism – our clarity, strength in doctrine and our reliance upon scriptural absolutes and the Holy Spirit to guide our lives, our churches and our services is what will set us apart from the noise of everything else. Why do they need to come to a 60-minute church service if they can watch a TED talk, or listen to motivational podcast for the same effect?

The world needs preachers to fill its pulpits and young people unafraid to reach those around them with a dynamic, powerful and anointed Apostolic message. “Where there are bishops of moral vigor, there will be an abundance of young men willing to take up the call of priestly service. Where the spirit is tepid and refreshes itself on the thin broth of a domesticated and politically correct Gospel, seminaries will be vacant. As C.S. Lewis gave account: ‘We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst’” (Rutler, Jan. 22, 2018, Crisis Magazine).

John 1 Is Not a Separate Person of a Trinity

Jan 30th, 2018

Bobby Killmon



by Bobby Killmon

How do I show someone that the Word/Logos in John 1 is not a separate person of a trinity?

This is often a text used by our trinitarian friends to “prooftext” their position. Oneness believers who are in the anti-trinitarian position can answer this rather easily. The question is one of hermeneutics. Should we use 2nd-4th century creeds and philosophical developments are how they understood the “Word” in Jn. 1? In order to do this we must dismiss the entire OT usage of the term word and all material outside of Scripture used by Jews of the time. Even a growing number of non-apostolics are admitting this is not the best approach.

Numbers 22:38 says, “…the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.” Jer. 23:9 says, “…because of the LORD, and because of the words of his holiness.” These references are clearly about the utterances of the prophet spoken by divine inspiration. Even though this “word” of the Lord is spoken of as independent of God, no one can seriously claim these show a second person. This is being readily admitted today by many non-Oneness scholars, such as noted Cambridge scholar James Dunn. Regarding passages that seem to show the Word being independent of God, Dunn states, “…that is more an accident of idiom than anything else.” He further argues, “But for the prophet the word he spoke under inspiration was no independent entity divorced from Yahweh.” Even Rudolf Bultmann says, “God’s word is God…” Dunn affirms this too stating, “God’s word is God’s act … the manifestation of his power, the real manifestation of God.”Bible with glasses

Scripture speaks clearly in Psalms and the Prophets of the Word being God Himself acting in creation, in judgment, and in salvation. This is simply OT language used in its right and typical function. Even G. F. Moore says, “It is an error to see in such personifications an approach to personalization. Nowhere either in the Bible or in extra-canonical literature of the Jews is the word of God a personal agent or on the way to come such.” Catch that. This isn’t about PERSONS! Further, NOWHERE in any Jewish literature of the time does saying it’s persons exit. Dunn further admits that, “…a considerable consensus has been achieved by the majority of contemporary scholars would agree that the principal background against which the Logos prologue (Jn. 1) must be set is the OT itself…” The OT, not later doctrinal development. We are against this interpretation. We are anti-trinitarian in this sense.

As one man poignantly said, “Right readers must read rightly.” Necessarily then, we must first approach the Bible correctly as the inerrant Word of God. Then, we must read rightly or interpret it correctly by not presupposing our own ideas and reading them into the Scripture. The “Word of the Lord” must be defined by the OT usage, not a post-New Testament invention. The only way one can see a trinity in the reference to the “Word” in John 1 is to presuppose it, ignore the OT usage, interpret it a new way, and disregard the first century usage as well. This is telling “eis-egesis” (reading your meaning into the Bible) not true exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text’s intention). Which approach is Christian? Which treats Scripture as the inerrant Word of God? The way we use Scripture tells on us. I want to not only say I love and revere His Word, but in my practice demonstrate this is true.

Sign up for Email Updates
Stay in the know with the latest from Indiana Bible College. Sign up for our newsletter below.