Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[Baron1710]

"My book documents that at UPCI merger 8/9s, or 89% held acts 2:38 to be essential to salvation." - DKB

Wonder what his need to assert facts that are deliberately skewed stems from? Perhaps Fudge's book?

[Praxeas]

Well we will have to wait and see what his documentation was, however I was always under the impression the 1steppers were a minority but not that much of one

[Baron1710]

Well we will have to wait and see what his documentation was, however I was always under the impression the 1steppers were a minority but not that much of one

He seems to have a vested interest in making that number as small as possible, even going so far as to say that one could not effectively hold that view in the UPC today.

[Sam]

"My book documents that at UPCI merger 8/9s, or 89% held acts 2:38 to be essential to salvation." - DKB

Wonder what his need to assert facts that are deliberately skewed stems from? Perhaps Fudge's book?

I doubt if anyone really knows how many were one-steppers and how many were three-steppers at the merger. The UPC was formed about 30 years after Jesus Name baptism began to be preached and the schism in the AoG over the "new issue." I'm sure there were still plenty of ministers around who knew they were saved before they got baptized in Jesus' name and who were still preaching and practicing that.

[Sam]

He seems to have a vested interest in making that number as small as possible, even going so far as to say that one could not effectively hold that view in the UPC today.

Even with the fundamental doctrine statement being revised in 1973, a one-stepper could say he agreed with it. The motion to accept the revision was proposed by a three-stepper and seconded by a one-stepper. The fundamental doctrine statement was written as ambiguously as it was in order to accommodate both one-steppers and three-steppers.

[houston]

"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies."

[Baron1710]

Even with the fundamental doctrine statement being revised in 1973, a one-stepper could say he agreed with it. The motion to accept the revision was proposed by a three-stepper and seconded by a one-stepper. The fundamental doctrine statement was written as ambiguously as it was in order to accommodate both one-steppers and three-steppers.

Not according to Bernard.

[houston]

The fundamental doctrine statement was written as ambiguously as it was in order to accommodate both one-steppers and three-steppers.
It was written like that to give the PCI time to correct their doctrine. JK, JK

[Max Cosme]

He seems to have a vested interest in making that number as small as possible, even going so far as to say that one could not effectively hold that view in the UPC today.

He has documentation coming from his book, History of Christian Doctrine Volume 3. David Bernard makes this footnote:

138- David Gray, youth president of the Western District of the
PCI at the time of the merger and first youth president of the UPC,
estimated that two-thirds of the PCI and practically all the PAJC
held this view. (Telephone interview, 29 March 1993.) This number
would represent about five-sixths, or eighty-three percent, of the
merged body. J. L. Hall suggested that ninety percent may be more
accurate.

E. J. McClintock said he could not give statistics but
agreed that Gray’s estimate is reasonable, and he pointed out that
most PCI members who did not hold a firm view of the new birth
were concentrated in a few districts.

Ellis Scism, who served as
superintendent of the Northwestern District of the PCI at the time
of the merger and who was elected to the same position for the
UPC immediately after the merger, stated, “A minority in the PCI
did not believe that water baptism or a tongues experience was
essential to salvation.” Ellis Scism with Stanley Scism, Northwest
Passage: The Early Years of Ellis Scism (Hazelwood, MO: Word
Aflame Press, 1994), 227.

Scism would not have called this group a “minority” unless it was clearly less than one-half of the PCI, and thus probably no more than one-third or one-fourth. His district was a major area of concentration for this minority. - page 372

[Max Cosme]

The first "source" David Gray is a telephone interview where Gray only gives an estimate, while say "practically" all held this view.

He then creates his own percentage based on what Gray says, while giving Hall's guess at it.

The second is McClintock. Who insists on giving NO STATISTICS while simply calling Gray's guess "reasonable.

The final source is the best example of Bernard's shoddy methodology. He borrows a quote from an Ellis Scism book where Scism says a "minority" held that view. Bernard then takes the liberty to decide that Scism would only make this observation if it was about 1/3 to 1/4 of the PCI.

This type of statistical methodology would be laughed at by any serious scholar.

But, Bernard recently remarked these were PCI officials who were his friends.

[Barb]

It was written like that to give the PCI time to correct their doctrine. JK, JK

I know you are joking, but see, here's what I don't understand about the merger and those who strongly hold that the PCIers were in the minority...

If the PAJCers out numbered the PCIers, and knew or felt they believed and taught an incorrect or wrong doctrine, as some truly claim, why align with them at all? It just doesn't make sense.

No, I think the PAJCers believed there was enough in common to form a bond of agreement. Why else would they merge, even going as far as making a PCIer the first GS...

No, I'm sorry, but I don't see why they would do all of that with folks they didn't truly believe to be saved and sanctified.

And then to name this new alignment the UNITED Pentecostal Church, Inc. If I'm going to take your hand and form a bond of working under a banner of unity, I have to trust that we are more alike than we are different.

This just makes sense...

[Sam]

The first Gen. Supt (Bro. Goss), first foreign missions supt (Wynn Stairs), first Sunday School supt (Bro. McNatt) were one steppers. Some gen board members (Brother Yadon and Bro. Greer) were one steppers.

[Max Cosme]

The final one is the best example of Bernard's shoddy methodology. He borrows a quote from an Ellis Scism book where Scism says a "minority" held that view. Bernard then takes the liberty to decide that Scism would only make this observation if it was "PROBABLY" about 1/3 to 1/4 of the PCI.

This type of statistical methodology would be laughed at by any serious scholar.

[Sam]

The final one is the best example of Bernard's shoddy methodology. He borrows a quote from an Ellis Scism book where Scism says a "minority" held that view. Bernard then takes the liberty to decide that Scism would only make this observation if it was about 1/3 to 1/4 of the PCI.

This type of statistical methodology would be laughed at by any serious scholar.

He's trying to prove that his position is the "right" one and believed by an overwhelming majority back in 1945. He and others have redefined what they consider to be Apostolic or Pentecostal.

[Max Cosme]

He's trying to prove that his position is the "right" one and believed by an overwhelming majority back in 1945. He and others have redefined what they consider to be Apostolic or Pentecostal.

He must have gone to the same school as David Barton.

[Sam]

There are still some one-steppers around.

I am not UPC but I am a one-stepper.

[houston]

I know you are joking, but see, here's what I don't understand about the merger and those who strongly hold that the PCIers were in the minority...

If the PAJCers out numbered the PCIers, and knew or felt they believed and taught an incorrect or wrong doctrine, as some truly claim, why align with them at all? It just doesn't make sense.

No, I think the PAJCers believed there was enough in common to form a bond of agreement. Why else would they merge, even going as far as making a PCIer the first GS...

No, I'm sorry, but I don't see why they would do all of that with folks they didn't truly believe to be saved and sanctified.

And then to name this new alignment the UNITED Pentecostal Church, Inc. If I'm going to take your hand and form a bond of working under a banner of unity, I have to trust that we are more alike than we are different.

This just makes sense...

Right. Was something like "not contending to the disunity of the body" written back when, or is it more recent?

[houston]

We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.

[Sam]

Right. Was something like "not contending to the disunity of the body" written back when, or is it more recent?

only thing that has changed in the statement as written in 1945 was the addition of the words "for the remission of sins" added in 1973.

The person who moved that the fundamental doctrine statement be revised was S.G. Norris who believed that "for" the remission of sins meant "in order to obtain" remission of sins.

The person who seconded the move that the words be added was W.M. Greer who believed that "for" the remission of sins meant "because of" the remission of sins.

Bro. Greer was asked by Nathan Urshan to second the motion and was assured that he would not have to change anything he believed.

This information is from pages 155-164 of Christianity Without The Cross by Thomas Fudge, copyright 2003

[houston]

How did things hold up under the leadership of Urshan? Was it similar to Price's leadership of the Western District?

I never heard a bad word against Urshan. Haney was a different story.

In the WD I didn't hear a word against Price. After Price was out of office the holy sanctified ministers FILLED with God's Spirit drew blood.

[Sam]

How did things hold up under the leadership of Urshan? Was it similar to Price's leadership of the Western District?

I never heard a bad word against Urshan. Haney was a different story.

In the WD I didn't hear a word against Price. After Price was out of office the holy sanctified ministers FILLED with God's Spirit drew blood.

I am not part of the UPC.
I was baptized in water (October 27, 1955) and in the Spirit (May 20, 1956) in UPC churches; went to one year of a UPC Bible School (1956 - 1957); and attended UPC churches in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio from 1955 until 1963 or 1964. I was never licensed or ordained in the UPC.

I really don't know anything about the morality or integrity of Brother Urshan or Brother Price.

[Pressing-On]

The final one is the best example of Bernard's shoddy methodology. He borrows a quote from an Ellis Scism book where Scism says a "minority" held that view. Bernard then takes the liberty to decide that Scism would only make this observation if it was "PROBABLY" about 1/3 to 1/4 of the PCI.

This type of statistical methodology would be laughed at by any serious scholar.

Hey, DA! :heeheehee

[houston]

Hey, DA! :heeheehee

Really?

[Pressing-On]

Really?

Just surmising.

[houston]

Just surmising.

Riiiight

[Aquila]

Religion will not stop at any deceiption or injustice to justify it's existence.

[Steve Epley]

I have no desire to impugn Elder Bernard but trying to rewrite their history to fit this equation is like the Southern guys saying the Civil War was not about slavery. Nearly half of the first general board did not believe the ew birth message. Goss was very vocal about it and Morgan was a silent as a tombstone on the issue in public. Stair-McNatt-Gurley-Hansford-the Yadon clan-Greer-Reed-Brown-Kidson-were all PCI that did not believe the new birth message. Nearly the entire Atlantic District and the Northwest did not believe the new birth message. North Ms., West Tn, East Ark, Southeast Mo., large pockets of Ill and Ohio did not believe the new birth message. He is relying on most guys who knows are dead or dying. I never joined the UPC for this very reason.

[ILG]

"My book documents that at UPCI merger 8/9s, or 89% held acts 2:38 to be essential to salvation." - DKB

Wonder what his need to assert facts that are deliberately skewed stems from? Perhaps Fudge's book?

:shocked::uhoh:jaw

That is blatantly false.

[rgcraig]

Bro. Greer's nephew was my pastor as a child and lives in Memphis. If anyone is really interested, he might be up to a phone call to give a few facts as he knows them.

I know my former husband interviewed him for a paper while we were in JCM - - wish I had it because I know a lot of you would really enjoying reading the research that he did on the merger.

[Steve Epley]

Bro. Greer's nephew was my pastor as a child and lives in Memphis. If anyone is really interested, he might be up to a phone call to give a few facts as he knows them.

I know my former husband interviewed him for a paper while we were in JCM - - wish I had it because I know a lot of you would really enjoying reading the research that he did on the merger.

Gurley was the spiritual father of all these guys. The Western Tennesee, North Mississippi, Northeast Ark, Southeast Mo was heavily influenced by him.
Greer-Hansford-McNatt-Reed-Brown all prominent men in that area and none of them believed the new birth message. It is amazing anyone would have the nerve to try to spread this?

[Chateau d'If]

To the victor goes the spoils.

Some will call this revision but it's really just good old fashioned lying.

[StillStanding]

Gurley was the spiritual father of all these guys. The Western Tennesee, North Mississippi, Northeast Ark, Southeast Mo was heavily influenced by him.
Greer-Hansford-McNatt-Reed-Brown all prominent men in that area and none of them believed the new birth message. It is amazing anyone would have the nerve to try to spread this?

Your facts are right on target! :thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

Your facts are right on target! :thumbsup

It was men outside the UPC that preached the new birth message in that area. Rex Dyson, A. T. Surratt, Don Johnson to name a few.

[Scott Hutchinson]

It's hard to tell about things that happened a long time ago. But alot of ministers in the UPCI years ago did not hold to ACTS 2:38 being the new birth ,I understand the merger allowed for both views to held as long as other tenants were agreed on,it's really none of my business but I would say leave history as it is.

[Max Cosme]

Any doubts that Bernard now seeks to overturn the merger agreement and define the New Birth very soon can now be debunked. Bernard writes in one of the Facebook comments on his wall:

"Isr*** *****, stating the merger policy doesn't necessarily say what we should do today. The people at the merger hoped that God would lead everyone in to unity of faith if they would go ahead and join on the basis of Acts 2:38 as plan of salvation. The details could be sorted out later.

In that sense, there is still room for diversity. For example, a ministe today could affirm that Acts 2:38 is NT salvation but think that others who are in process may have a destiny on the new earth. But fundamentally, the analogy I would give is the Declaration of Independence, which says all men are created equal. At the time, some people were slave owners, so they did not fully apply this principle. To form the US, they agreed on the principle but agreed to disagree on the application. But almost everyone knew this meant the ultimate extinction of slavery, even the slave owners. That's why the Constitution indirectly allowed slavery but stated that the importation of slaves would end by a certain date. Ultimately, Lincoln appealed to the Declaration to oppose slavery. He said don't confuse the compromises of the Constitution (now amended) with the principles of the Declaration, but implement the latter. We did. Although we understand this history of our founding as a country, no one wants to go back to the time of slavery. We have grown into a more consistent understanding and implementation of our founding principles. (Again, this is in my booklet, "Understanding the Articles of Faith.")".

Only problem is that the Fundamental Doctrine agreement never states Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation but rather the FULL BIBLE STANDARD OF SALVATION. Words carefully chosen to placate all sides of the issue.

http://www.facebook.com/davidkbernard/posts/456017051087299?comment_id=5533502

[Barb]

I have no desire to impugn Elder Bernard but trying to rewrite their history to fit this equation is like the Southern guys saying the Civil War was not about slavery. Nearly half of the first general board did not believe the ew birth message. Goss was very vocal about it and Morgan was a silent as a tombstone on the issue in public. Stair-McNatt-Gurley-Hansford-the Yadon clan-Greer-Reed-Brown-Kidson-were all PCI that did not believe the new birth message. Nearly the entire Atlantic District and the Northwest did not believe the new birth message. North Ms., West Tn, East Ark, Southeast Mo., large pockets of Ill and Ohio did not believe the new birth message. He is relying on most guys who knows are dead or dying. I never joined the UPC for this very reason.

Elder, I understand what you mean by "did not believe the new birth message," as you hold to a PAJC form of doctrine, and so do I.

But I keep going back to this point because I think is is so important...

Bro. Goss and others were certain they DID believe the New Birth message, and for the PAJC brethren to merge there had to be an alignment of thought that went deeper than the Oneness of the Godhead.

The saving message is belief, repentance, baptism in the Name, and the Spirit infilling...something they ALL believed.

Their differing opinion was at what point the New Birth took place, however, this did not prevent them from calling each other "brother."

If it were only so today...

[Scott Hutchinson]

History is what it is,leave it alone.

[returnman]

I agree with this. It is easy to think that the PAJC thought like today's camp which can't be based on the well expressed statements below.

I know you are joking, but see, here's what I don't understand about the merger and those who strongly hold that the PCIers were in the minority...

If the PAJCers out numbered the PCIers, and knew or felt they believed and taught an incorrect or wrong doctrine, as some truly claim, why align with them at all? It just doesn't make sense.

No, I think the PAJCers believed there was enough in common to form a bond of agreement. Why else would they merge, even going as far as making a PCIer the first GS...

No, I'm sorry, but I don't see why they would do all of that with folks they didn't truly believe to be saved and sanctified.

And then to name this new alignment the UNITED Pentecostal Church, Inc. If I'm going to take your hand and form a bond of working under a banner of unity, I have to trust that we are more alike than we are different.

This just makes sense...

[returnman]

Some poster has a quote from a pentecostal herald back in the late 40's I believe that states that "all articles concerning the new birth will be accepted regardless of ones position on before or after baptism."
That speaks volumes to me.

[Scott Hutchinson]

My question is,if a organization was formed,to allow both views,why did this have to be changed later on ?

[Steve Epley]

Elder, I understand what you mean by "did not believe the new birth message," as you hold to a PAJC form of doctrine, and so do I.

But I keep going back to this point because I think is is so important...

Bro. Goss and others were certain they DID believe the New Birth message, and for the PAJC brethren to merge there had to be an alignment of thought that went deeper than the Oneness of the Godhead.

The saving message is belief, repentance, baptism in the Name, and the Spirit infilling...something they ALL believed.

Their differing opinion was at what point the New Birth took place, however, this did not prevent them from calling each other "brother."

If it were only so today...
In truth they did not believe that. I have the 75th Anniversary Book of the First Church at Corinth, Ms. it has a record of their services in their early years and their own records state such a number got saved, others baptised and a number for HGBs. Nearly the whole PCI bunch taught salvation at repentance and mocked the idea Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5! Witherspoon had to play word gymnastics to find a meeting ground on the fundamental doctrine.
FULL NT salvation is??????????????????
However PCI men did fervently preach baptism in Jesus Name and the Holy Ghost baptism something their decendants do not do.

[ILG]

My question is,if a organization was formed,to allow both views,why did this have to be changed later on ?

As Bernard states the INTENT (in his opinion) was that eventually the 1 step view would be come extinct. This is what I was taught and I was taught that it had, in effect, become extinct as was planned. Of course, I disagree that the 1 steppers ever agreed to become extinct especially since there are still one steppers in the movement.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I'm not trying to stir confusion,but if a view and those that held it,were good enough to be merged with,then things should have stayed that way.

[Barb]

In truth they did not believe that. I have the 75th Anniversary Book of the First Church at Corinth, Ms. it has a record of their services in their early years and their own records state such a number got saved, others baptised and a number for HGBs. Nearly the whole PCI bunch taught salvation at repentance and mocked the idea Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5! Witherspoon had to play word gymnastics to find a meeting ground on the fundamental doctrine.
FULL NT salvation is??????????????????
However PCI men did fervently preach baptism in Jesus Name and the Holy Ghost baptism something their decendants do not do.

Elder, respectfully, if they "fervently preached" baptism in Jesus' Name and Spirit baptism then they believed the whole message...at what point initial salvation takes place is another point, one which did not prevent them from merging.

[Max Cosme]

And yet, now Bernard, wants to compare the godly men who gathered in 1945, with the founding fathers who knew that evils slavery would be extinguished. As if, those held held bible based views ... views, held throughout their lives, one steppers, along with light doctrine believers, entered the merger with the intent of seeing there views extinguished.

Bernard now finds himself, not only as the chief apologist, but now as the chief revisionist.

His agenda of complete uniformity has been the most divisive in the organization's history.

[ILG]

I'm not trying to stir confusion,but if a view and those that held it,were good enough to be merged with,then things should have stayed that way.

Should have been but 3 steppers contended for their own views to the disunity of the body instead.

[Chateau d'If]

I am no longer a part of the movement so I feel no angst.

However, I find the entire situation ironic.

Bernard denies the existence of the very men who created his platform.

That seems very wrong.

[crakjak]

Should have been but 3 steppers contended for their own views to the disunity of the body instead.

As they still do, for the most part.

[Barb]

I don't think it is wrong to ask the hard questions:

1. Was it truly the intent of the PAJCers to tolerate the PCIers until such time as they either changed their view or left?

2. Did Bro. Witherspoon have to scramble to find the rights words for the FD, and if so, where is the evidence of this? As he was alone in that room, does anyone have documentation in his own words that this was so?

3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are "yes," then why did the PAJCers bother in the first place? Were there not other Oneness Pentecostals they could have aligned with? Were they not strong enough in number to form an organization on their own merit?

OR...

1. Did the fact that they all, PAJC and PCI, baptized folks in the Name and spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came make them one in Body? Is this the common bond that allowed them to merge?

2. Is this the reason they voted or appointed Bro. Howard Goss GS, even though he was PCI in doctrine?

3. The words, "until we all come into the unity of the faith" lead some to think that perhaps Bro. Witherspoon was saying he hoped the PCI brethren would grow into a more and perfect way. But is that not a careless act on the part of the PAJCers, for if they believed the brethren were in error, was there not the possibility of the PCI view becoming the accepted view?

4. As there may have been some in both camps who may not have favored a merger, could not the above quote from the FD mean that until we can agree to disagree we will not contend for our differing views?

All of this is conjecture on our part, yours and mine, for we will never truly know what was in the hearts and minds of these men of God. The only thing we do know is that they thought of each other as men of God or they would not have formed this union of fellowship.

And for 70+ years it worked... :nod

[rgcraig]

I believe the PCI brethern were the more tolerant of the brothers and the others were more vocal, so eventually, the louder voice won out.

[returnman]

I would like to see the proof where they mocked Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5.

In truth they did not believe that. I have the 75th Anniversary Book of the First Church at Corinth, Ms. it has a record of their services in their early years and their own records state such a number got saved, others baptised and a number for HGBs. Nearly the whole PCI bunch taught salvation at repentance and mocked the idea Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5! Witherspoon had to play word gymnastics to find a meeting ground on the fundamental doctrine.
FULL NT salvation is??????????????????
However PCI men did fervently preach baptism in Jesus Name and the Holy Ghost baptism something their decendants do not do.

[ILG]

I think one thing that needs to be remembered is that things were culturally different. The Jesus name people had common enemies....those who rejected the "new issue" as heresy. I think they put aside their differences for this reason but in time, those differences became more of an issue. I think the common enemy was more a binding force that what they presently believed. All the Jesus name people were being persecuted by the trinitarians of the day.

[Light]

Elder, I understand what you mean by "did not believe the new birth message," as you hold to a PAJC form of doctrine, and so do I.

But I keep going back to this point because I think is is so important...

Bro. Goss and others were certain they DID believe the New Birth message, and for the PAJC brethren to merge there had to be an alignment of thought that went deeper than the Oneness of the Godhead.

The saving message is belief, repentance, baptism in the Name, and the Spirit infilling...something they ALL believed.

Their differing opinion was at what point the New Birth took place, however, this did not prevent them from calling each other "brother."

If it were only so today...

The bolded was only true when they were at general conf. In a one on one PRIVATE conversation they would say a person didn't nedd the Holy Ghost to go to heaven.

[Esaias]

I have no desire to impugn Elder Bernard but trying to rewrite their history to fit this equation is like the Southern guys saying the Civil War was not about slavery.

Actually, it WASN'T "about slavery". Slavery was simply part of the equation. There were other issues which dwarf the slave question which drove the southern states to secede from the Union, like their forefathers had done when they seceded from England.

Just pointing that out.

[Praxeas]

Elder, respectfully, if they "fervently preached" baptism in Jesus' Name and Spirit baptism then they believed the whole message...at what point initial salvation takes place is another point, one which did not prevent them from merging. Amen

[Esaias]

"My book documents that at UPCI merger 8/9s, or 89% held acts 2:38 to be essential to salvation." - DKB

Wonder what his need to assert facts that are deliberately skewed stems from? Perhaps Fudge's book?

Do you have facts that counter his claim?

[Esaias]

I believe the PCI brethern were the more tolerant of the brothers and the others were more vocal, so eventually, the louder voice won out.

Of course, the ones who hold YOUR view are the more 'tolerant' and the 'others' are just loud.

Makes perfect sense!

[Steve Epley]

I don't think it is wrong to ask the hard questions:

1. Was it truly the intent of the PAJCers to tolerate the PCIers until such time as they either changed their view or left?

2. Did Bro. Witherspoon have to scramble to find the rights words for the FD, and if so, where is the evidence of this? As he was alone in that room, does anyone have documentation in his own words that this was so?

3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are "yes," then why did the PAJCers bother in the first place? Were there not other Oneness Pentecostals they could have aligned with? Were they not strong enough in number to form an organization on their own merit?

OR...

1. Did the fact that they all, PAJC and PCI, baptized folks in the Name and spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came make them one in Body? Is this the common bond that allowed them to merge?

2. Is this the reason they voted or appointed Bro. Howard Goss GS, even though he was PCI in doctrine?

3. The words, "until we all come into the unity of the faith" lead some to think that perhaps Bro. Witherspoon was saying he hoped the PCI brethren would grow into a more and perfect way. But is that not a careless act on the part of the PAJCers, for if they believed the brethren were in error, was there not the possibility of the PCI view becoming the accepted view?

4. As there may have been some in both camps who may not have favored a merger, could not the above quote from the FD mean that until we can agree to disagree we will not contend for our differing views?

All of this is conjecture on our part, yours and mine, for we will never truly know what was in the hearts and minds of these men of God. The only thing we do know is that they thought of each other as men of God or they would not have formed this union of fellowship.

And for 70+ years it worked... :nod

1. No I don't think that was the intent at all.
2. It was said by many present he presented several drafts that were rejected.
3. This is difficult but the politicians in the group put politics over conviction.
the next set
1. Yes
2. He was the best politician they had and was a link all the way back to Parham and was highly visible and many did not have a clue he didn't believe the new birth.
3. The clause simply was a cushion to help facilitate the merger without it there would be no merger this was added after the original had be tenatively approved.
4. You must remember Oneness Pentecost was under attack by Trinity Pentecost and the other denominations and their view of the only Biblical baptism was in Jesus Name and Jesus was the Only God was their message thus this aove their differences was the common bond.

[Steve Epley]

I would like to see the proof where they mocked Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5.

Have you ever talked to any of them or their decendants? I have.

[Baron1710]

Have you ever talked to any of them or their decendants? I have.

What?? Steve and I agree?

Mark it down this is probably the first time on AFF.

[Michael The Disciple]

My question is,if a organization was formed,to allow both views,why did this have to be changed later on ?

My guess is that the three step doctrine of Acts 2:38 was accepted by more people as time went by. I can see why that would happen. I was a one step Trinitarian at one time and from that perspective I came to see the same thing.

[Baron1710]

The first generation Oneness men who wrote, as far as I am aware, all accepted other Christians as saved, and did not consider themselves unsaved prior to their revelation of Oneness theology, such as it was.

It is hard for me to believe that one generation later 90% held the view that the rest of the Christian world was lost and they alone held the keys to salvation. It is not surprising that 4 generations later that 90% of them would hold this view but highly unlikely that would be the case one generation later.

[Michael The Disciple]

I believe they saw it as "full salvation". When one repented that was the beginning. The process had begun. At least my copy of Frank Ewarts book presents it that way. He forsook all and turned to Christ but many years passed before he said he was in a "full relationship" with him.

Phenomenon Of Pentecost Page 13.

[Hoovie]

One steppers were a very significant and influencial minority. And official writings outside of the AOF clearly and explicitly show that they were very welcome in the new organization.

See my signature, for example.

[Hoovie]

The first generation Oneness men who wrote, as far as I am aware, all accepted other Christians as saved, and did not consider themselves unsaved prior to their revelation of Oneness theology, such as it was.

It is hard for me to believe that one generation later 90% held the view that the rest of the Christian world was lost and they alone held the keys to salvation. It is not surprising that 4 generations later that 90% of them would hold this view but highly unlikely that would be the case one generation later.

Agreed. And even today, when Water and Spirit is nuanced as two parts of one new birth, there is great hesitation to denounce nor embrace the spiritual standing of 98% of Christianity. Why? The truth of the matter is that many (I believe most) of today's UPC constituency has by default embraced a form of the Light Doctrine.

[Baron1710]

Agreed. And even today, when Water and Spirit is nuanced as two parts of one new birth, there is great hesitation to denounce nor embrace the spiritual standing of 98% of Christianity. Why? The truth of the matter is that many (I believe most) of today's UPC constituency has by default embraced a form of the Light Doctrine.

Do we need the light doctrine if we believe in saved at Repentance?

[AreYouReady?]

Actually, it WASN'T "about slavery". Slavery was simply part of the equation. There were other issues which dwarf the slave question which drove the southern states to secede from the Union, like their forefathers had done when they seceded from England.

Just pointing that out.

I was hoping somebody else would point that out. I did not want to be contentious about this issue since it has no bearing on the topic here. But ... most people do not know that the civil war was NOT about slavery.

[Hoovie]

Do we need the light doctrine if we believe in saved at Repentance?

Maybe for the unbeliever, but not as it pertains to those who believe and confess Jesus Christ.

[Baron1710]

Maybe for the unbeliever, but not as it pertains to those who believe and confess Jesus Christ.

Ahhh...so you are using it for the guy in some jungle that has never heard the Gospel at all?

[Hoovie]

I was hoping somebody else would point that out. I did not want to be contentious about this issue since it has no bearing on the topic here. But ... most people do not know that the civil war was NOT about slavery.

See, I think that over simplifies it, and sort of diminishes the awefulness of slavery. It was IN PART about slavery.

[AreYouReady?]

EDIT:

In was "in part" slavery indeed. Unfortunately, it was a small part in the minds of the leaders of that day. They did not give a care about the slaves. Their only concern was to destroy the economics of the South and they used the degree to "free the slaves" to do that. Then they came down here and restructured the south. Propaganda is older than slavery itself in this country.

But...it does not "diminish" the awfulness of slavery, I agree... nor does it diminish the terrible prejudice of the black race by many people that permeates today. Cracks made about Obama's ethnicity by some is still derogatory here --today-- in 2012.

I agree that slavery, both black and white should have never been allowed in this country. But the leaders did allow it...what's more, they used the bible to justify it.

They said all men are created equal in our Declaration of Independence, then some went about declaring a black man to be just so much of a percentage of human.



But the war was NOT about stopping the awful practice of slavery. The propagandists used the black race as yet another pawn to hide the actual reason for the war. They had to in order to keep their agenda quiet lest the people of that day threw out those working to further advance that agenda.

[Baron1710]

See, I think that over simplifies it, and sort of diminishes the awefulness of slavery. It was IN PART about slavery.

I let the first one pass, and the second, I can't do it...ahhh

As awful as slavery was, Lincoln himself didn't care as much about slavery as he did about saving the Union.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abe Lincoln

The economic policies of taxing the south and building up the North with those tax $ to the exclusion of the south was a major issue.

Slavery was on its way out, importation had already been outlawed and the pressure within the states was beginning to mount.

Grant was a slave owner, while Stonewall Jackson violated the law to teach slave children to read and write under the guise of religious classes.

[AreYouReady?]

I let the first one pass, and the second, I can't do it...ahhh

As awful as slavery was, Lincoln himself didn't care as much about slavery as he did about saving the Union.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abe Lincoln

The economic policies of taxing the south and building up the North with those tax $ to the exclusion of the south was a major issue.

Slavery was on its way out, importation had already been outlawed and the pressure within the states was beginning to mount.

Grant was a slave owner, while Stonewall Jackson violated the law to teach slave children to read and write under the guise of religious classes.

:thumbsup

And more...

[Baron1710]

Back to the point of this thread...

What is the motivation of DKB to skew history like this, there is no way he can honestly believe that these statements are true.

[AreYouReady?]

Self importance?

[Hoovie]

Back to the point of this thread...

What is the motivation of DKB to skew history like this, there is no way he can honestly believe that these statements are true.

Well, that's harsher than I would say it, but I do believe he has a vested interest in preserving and promoting a systematic "three step" theology.

A unified voice is usually stronger voice, and if you have written extensively on the matter and are spearheading an organization, and their newly formed graduate school, it makes sense that one hopes divergent views are given minimal credibility.

[Hoovie]

Self importance?

No.

[AreYouReady?]

No.

Heh.

[pelathais]

Agreed. And even today, when Water and Spirit is nuanced as two parts of one new birth, there is great hesitation to denounce nor embrace the spiritual standing of 98% of Christianity. Why? The truth of the matter is that many (I believe most) of today's UPC constituency has by default embraced a form of the Light Doctrine.

I think that's always been the case, Hoovemeister. I'm thinking of S.G. Norris's views on the matter - views that have been propagated greatly by his student Lee Stoneking over the past few decades.

The move to become "harder" on doctrine seems to have been more politically motivated; and here I'm thinking of T.F. Tenney's famous interjaculation questioning whether the UPC FM department was baptizing in Jesus' name and the surrounding uproar. That move really kicked TFT's career into high gear.

Though, as has been argued for years on these pages, the vast, vast majority of OP's have been and probably always will be "One Steppers" at heart - to deny that plain fact will get you appointed to positions of honor and help fill your speaking calendar.

It's a puzzling part of the OP culture - and almost certainly has parallels in other subcultures as well - if not the entire human race.

Even Steve-a-rino (he of hat fame) has admitted that he can't judge the destinies of human souls. DKB and others of his mindset appear to want to ignore this fact (that they employ practical variants of the "Light Doctrine") and hammer out sterner creeds demanding that all dance the "Three Step" or perish.

[pelathais]

:thumbsup

And more...

It was a complex cultural war as well. The anti-slavery issue was an important tool for the new Republican Party to use to rally their "base" - though it was also an important economic issue for their predecessors (the Whigs) especially in the border states and Mid-South.

[Jason B]

It was a complex cultural war as well. The anti-slavery issue was an important tool for the new Republican Party to use to rally their "base" - though it was also an important economic issue for their predecessors (the Whigs) especially in the border states and Mid-South.

Does DKB dare tell the next General Conference that those who are promoting a one step oneness theology want to "put y'all back in chains!" ?

[Hoovie]

Somewhere I missed that these topics were so intertwined! LOL

[Jason B]

Somewhere I missed that these topics were so intertwined! LOL

:toofunny

[AreYouReady?]

Elder Epley mentioned it.

[Sabby]

He has documentation coming from his book, History of Christian Doctrine Volume 3.

Ellis Scism, who served as
superintendent of the Northwestern District of the PCI at the time
of the merger and who was elected to the same position for the
UPC immediately after the merger, stated, “A minority in the PCI
did not believe that water baptism or a tongues experience was
essential to salvation.” Ellis Scism with Stanley Scism, Northwest
Passage: The Early Years of Ellis Scism (Hazelwood, MO: Word
Aflame Press, 1994), 227.

Scism would not have called this group a “minority” unless it was clearly less than one-half of the PCI, and thus probably no more than one-third or one-fourth. His district was a major area of concentration for this minority. - page 372

This is hearsay, at BEST! I mentioned this on FB, but why doesn't Bernard source Loren Yadon. I think his hearsay is as valid as Stanley Scism's.

[Hoovie]

Ahhh...so you are using it for the guy in some jungle that has never heard the Gospel at all?

I did not say I am. Only acknowledging that many do in various denominations. That is an easier thing to accept, I think.

[Praxeas]

i think that's always been the case, hoovemeister. I'm thinking of s.g. Norris's views on the matter - views that have been propagated greatly by his student lee stoneking over the past few decades.

The move to become "harder" on doctrine seems to have been more politically motivated; and here i'm thinking of t.f. Tenney's famous interjaculation questioning whether the upc fm department was baptizing in jesus' name and the surrounding uproar. That move really kicked tft's career into high gear.

Though, as has been argued for years on these pages, the vast, vast majority of op's have been and probably always will be "one steppers" at heart - to deny that plain fact will get you appointed to positions of honor and help fill your speaking calendar.

It's a puzzling part of the op culture - and almost certainly has parallels in other subcultures as well - if not the entire human race.

Even steve-a-rino (he of hat fame) has admitted that he can't judge the destinies of human souls. Dkb and others of his mindset appear to want to ignore this fact (that they employ practical variants of the "light doctrine") and hammer out sterner creeds demanding that all dance the "three step" or perish.
he's alive!!

[UnTraditional]

OK, I think that we all need to take a step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath. Most of you on here are not even UPC. I am not UPC. My question is, why in the world do you care? I mean, you are not part of a UPC church or a minister in that organization. Why do you insist on downing the organization right and left? You left, those of you who did. Good. Now, go on with your life. Many post as if their venting will change something. It will not.

Did DKB rewrite UPC history? Don't know and really don't care. Truthfully, I am sick of people who leave something hammering it as if they were still in there. Folks, let it go. It's over. Regardless of whether you agree with their standards or not, the truth of the matter is this, that for all the whining and complaining about things, a bunch of disgruntled people will make not one bit of difference. Be holy as He is holy, cry a river, build a bridge, get over it, and if you have to, burn your own bridge. Our time here is too short to be fussing over something none of us have a part of.

[Steve Epley]

This is hearsay, at BEST! I mentioned this on FB, but why doesn't Bernard source Loren Yadon. I think his hearsay is as valid as Stanley Scism's.

I seriously doubt that Scism's dad believe the necessity of the new birth message?

[Baron1710]

Well, that's harsher than I would say it, but I do believe he has a vested interest in preserving and promoting a systematic "three step" theology.

A unified voice is usually stronger voice, and if you have written extensively on the matter and are spearheading an organization, and their newly formed graduate school, it makes sense that one hopes divergent views are given minimal credibility.

Perhaps that is why a mutual friend of ours found himself out on his ear, once they no longer needed his credentials. He told me personally he explained to DKB before he was hired he held the PCI one step view. Was to his thinking at the time well received, maybe not so much.

[Barb]

OK, I think that we all need to take a step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath. Most of you on here are not even UPC. I am not UPC. My question is, why in the world do you care? I mean, you are not part of a UPC church or a minister in that organization. Why do you insist on downing the organization right and left? You left, those of you who did. Good. Now, go on with your life. Many post as if their venting will change something. It will not.

Did DKB rewrite UPC history? Don't know and really don't care. Truthfully, I am sick of people who leave something hammering it as if they were still in there. Folks, let it go. It's over. Regardless of whether you agree with their standards or not, the truth of the matter is this, that for all the whining and complaining about things, a bunch of disgruntled people will make not one bit of difference. Be holy as He is holy, cry a river, build a bridge, get over it, and if you have to, burn your own bridge. Our time here is too short to be fussing over something none of us have a part of.

UT or whoever you are, please allow me to set some things in order here...

First, because some in this discussion may not be UPCI affiliated does not mean they do not have an interest in the past or present of an organization they so fervently worked to establish. Be it great or small, they took an active role...in other words, leaving does not mean they don't care. And for someone like Elder Epley, who is not now nor has he ever been UPCI, his knowledge and opinions are invaluable in discussions like this.

Second, I have not read one "venting" post...this is called "discussion..." like you know, you have your opinion and I have mine and someone else has another. This is a forum and discussion is what we do. I have witnessed venting on other subjects and it does sometimes get tiring, but "venting" is not happening in this thread.

Third, if anyone, be it a department head or ordinary Joe rewrites the history of a thing...it matters not if it is in business, politics, or the Church, then yeah...it is a big deal. If that revision is done so as to heighten the credibility and awareness of an idea or theology then it is a huge deal.

Fourth, how did 'standards' get into this mix? This thread and the posts which have followed have nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. Your thinking here is way off base.

Fifth and final, healthy discussion is good. It is needful. It often brings things to light and puts them in a perspective of another man's point of view. Looking at all sides of an issue should not breed contempt...that is, if there is nothing to hide.

Let's discuss it and bring it all out and see if we can learn something in the process.

[Max Cosme]

Bernard's response to the assertion made that the UPCI has no official view in their manual as to what constitutes the New Birth. The lawyer comes out and refers to a Global Missions manual for missionaries that now makes them affirm the 3 step view on the New Birth:

"Mu (sic) comments don't deny that, so not sure why you comment on every post at great length. Actually the UPCI Fundamental Doctrine is a clear statement of soteriology, of what constitutes NT salvation. The UPCI Global Missions Manual states that all missionaries must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth."

See Thurday's post: http://www.facebook.com/davidkbernard/

[Baron1710]

Bernard's response to the assertion made that the UPCI has no official view in their manual as to what constitutes the New Birth. The lawyer comes out and refers to a Global Missions manual for missionaries that now makes them affirm the 3 step view on the New Birth:

"Mu (sic) comments don't deny that, so not sure why you comment on every post at great length. Actually the UPCI Fundamental Doctrine is a clear statement of soteriology, of what constitutes NT salvation. The UPCI Global Missions Manual states that all missionaries must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth."

See Thurday's post: http://www.facebook.com/davidkbernard/

I am not sure that confirming Acts 2:38, is the same as 3 step. The PCI men who held to one step would affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

The problem with DKB is that he feels the need to force his views on an entire movement. One of my frustrations is that men who have different views are sidelined if they dare to speak against him. Minimizing the numbers who held the PCI viewpont is just part of the greater plan of erradicating the one step view from the UPC. He has out right said it would be difficult for a minister to operate in the UPC today with a one step view.

[Sam]

I am not sure that confirming Acts 2:38, is the same as 3 step. The PCI men who held to one step would affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

The problem with DKB is that he feels the need to force his views on an entire movement. One of my frustrations is that men who have different views are sidelined if they dare to speak against him. Minimizing the numbers who held the PCI viewpont is just part of the greater plan of erradicating the one step view from the UPC. He has out right said it would be difficult for a minister to operate in the UPC today with a one step view.

Yes, I agree with both points by Baron here

[Sam]

Some of us in this group are still with the UPC.
Some of us in this group have family and friends in the UPC.
Some of us in this group believe that many of the people in the UPC are saved, children of God and part of the Bride of Christ.
Some of us are saddened to see the rewrite of UPC history over the years and this latest discussion here and on facebook by a person of Bro. Bernard's stature.
I don't know Bro. Bernard and certainly can't say why he is so dismissive of those who have or still hold the "one-step" opinion. I don't know if he is sincere in what he is writing, if he is mistaken in his information, or if he is deliberately lying.

[CC1]

I believe the percentage of the PCI folks at the time of the merger who were "one steppers" regarding salvation was 28.7%.

However they believed very strongly that baptism was a command in the Bible and that all people were to desire and seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues.

[ILG]

I am not sure that confirming Acts 2:38, is the same as 3 step. The PCI men who held to one step would affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

The problem with DKB is that he feels the need to force his views on an entire movement. One of my frustrations is that men who have different views are sidelined if they dare to speak against him. Minimizing the numbers who held the PCI viewpont is just part of the greater plan of erradicating the one step view from the UPC. He has out right said it would be difficult for a minister to operate in the UPC today with a one step view.

DK said "must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth"

You said "affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation"

Apples and oranges.....

[Baron1710]

I believe the percentage of the PCI folks at the time of the merger who were "one steppers" regarding salvation was 28.7%.

However they believed very strongly that baptism was a command in the Bible and that all people were to desire and seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues.

28.7%...

:smack

[Baron1710]

DK said "must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth"

You said "affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation"

Apples and oranges.....

Do you mean that he uses the terms differently?

[ILG]

Do you mean that he uses the terms differently?

I think saying Acts 2:38 equals the new birth means three step. And Acts 2:38 equals the plan of salvation could be interpreted either way.

[Baron1710]

I think saying Acts 2:38 equals the new birth means three step. And Acts 2:38 equals the plan of salvation could be interpreted either way.

Never thought of it like that...not sure I really see a difference.

[ILG]

Never thought of it like that...not sure I really see a difference.

I think there is a subtle difference. The new birth means you are not born again until you complete Acts 2:38.

The plan of salvation means this is the way to be saved....

PCI expected people to complete the plan....but did not say they were not born again without completing it (the light doctrine). 3 steppers say the "plan" must be completed or a person was not born again. I say this after spending a great deal of time around 3 steppers (I was spiritually "raised" in a 3 step church).

Anyway, I think there is a subtle difference.

[houston]

I think there is a subtle difference. The new birth means you are not born again until you complete Acts 2:38.

The plan of salvation means this is the way to be saved....

PCI expected people to complete the plan....but did not say they were not born again without completing it (the light doctrine). 3 steppers say the "plan" must be completed or a person was not born again. I say this after spending a great deal of time around 3 steppers (I was spiritually "raised" in a 3 step church).

Anyway, I think there is a subtle difference.

Um, like the statement that tongues are essential but not salvational, baptism essential but not salvational????? Like that makes sense.

[ILG]

Um, like the statement that tongues are essential but not salvational, baptism essential but not salvational????? Like that makes sense.

Well, there are a number of things like that, I think. Kind of some double speak. But I am saying that when I hear "new birth" vs "plan of salvation" I do hear a subtle difference just from hanging around a long time. I automatically think new birth PCI view and 3 step views are different, but plan of salvation is the same. Maybe someone else can chime in with their opinion too.

[Baron1710]

How many have heard the phrase, "Saved, sanctified and filled with the HG"? Popular saying amongst Pentecostals and the PCI viewpoint held on to that. A clear distinction between salvation and the infilling.

[Max Cosme]

I think saying Acts 2:38 equals the new birth means three step. And Acts 2:38 equals the plan of salvation could be interpreted either way.

Exactly. You've nailed it ILG. You obviously speak Bernard. He is subtle. He is speaking of affirming Acts 2:38 as the New Birth.

He also suggests that the Fundamental Doctrine speaks of a plan of salvation, when it does not. It may be nuanced, but it speaks of a "standard of full salvation". This phrase was a game changer in the merger even happening.

I've notice another phrase used to placate the differences is the phrase New Birth EXPERIENCE when linked to Acts 2:38.

A game of semantics of which Bernard has mastered. Sometimes.

[Max Cosme]

And that's the tip of the iceberg concerning how Bernard uses the phrase "plan of salvation".

Bernie Gillespie suggests he uses it as an "accordion phrase". Often, confusingly and inconsistently, depending on whether he is speaking about restorationist vs. remnant impulse.

In this paper, Bernard is quoted multiple times using the term "plan of salvation" with elasticity:

http://www.inchristalone.org/PDFiles/PlanSalAccordion.PDF

[HolyFire]

How did things hold up under the leadership of Urshan? Was it similar to Price's leadership of the Western District?

I never heard a bad word against Urshan. Haney was a different story.

In the WD I didn't hear a word against Price. After Price was out of office the holy sanctified ministers FILLED with God's Spirit drew blood.

I think Haney did as good of a job as he could have in the circumstances. A lot of inner turmoil he had nothing to do with was already under way, it just manifested in his four years. It was very much like Andrew Johnson's presidency after Lincoln's assassination. Haney was a good man, an honest man, who possibly wasn't acclimated to the political nature of Hazlewood. Bro. Urshan rubbed elbows with the like of Yassar Arafat, the U.N., Russian leaders during the U.S.S.R. years...you get the point. As to those who followed after bro Price...Dunno. Never been familiar with Western Dist.

[ILG]

Exactly. You've nailed it ILG. You obviously speak Bernard. He is subtle. He is speaking of affirming Acts 2:38 as the New Birth.

He also suggests that the Fundamental Doctrine speaks of a plan of salvation, when it does not. It may be nuanced, but it speaks of a "standard of full salvation". This phrase was a game changer in the merger even happening.

I've notice another phrase used to placate the differences is the phrase New Birth EXPERIENCE when linked to Acts 2:38.

A game of semantics of which Bernard has mastered. Sometimes.

Yes, I think these semantics are used all the time and maybe unless someone has hung around solid three steppers, these nuances may get lost in the shuffle. When I read things I just read them a certain way and when Bernard said "New Birth" to me, yes that means something different than "plan of salvation" as subtle as that may seem. Bernard is a master.

[Michael The Disciple]

I can see why Bernard would strongly teach Acts 2:38 is the new birth. What if he told people they are born again without being baptized in water? Or in the Holy Ghost? Then if they did not follow through (this happens many times) and they died lost he would feel responsible. To me its not "harsh" to teach what the Apostles taught from the beginning. It is dangerous to NOT teach it.

[Baron1710]

I can see why Bernard would strongly teach Acts 2:38 is the new birth. What if he told people they are born again without being baptized in water? Or in the Holy Ghost? Then if they did not follow through (this happens many times) and they died lost he would feel responsible. To me its not "harsh" to teach what the Apostles taught from the beginning. It is dangerous to NOT teach it.

Your missing the point. This is a historical issue not whether the water and spirit interpretation is correct.

[Sam]

I think saying Acts 2:38 equals the new birth means three step. And Acts 2:38 equals the plan of salvation could be interpreted either way.

the fundamental doctrine statement said "full salvation" which means God's plan for your life
It had to have the word "full" in there or there would have been no merger.
If it just said "salvation" the PCI guys would not have agreed.

[Sam]

...A game of semantics of which Bernard has mastered. Sometimes.

he's a lawyer, isn't he?

[llambert]

I think that's always been the case, Hoovemeister. I'm thinking of S.G. Norris's views on the matter - views that have been propagated greatly by his student Lee Stoneking over the past few decades.

The move to become "harder" on doctrine seems to have been more politically motivated; and here I'm thinking of T.F. Tenney's famous interjaculation questioning whether the UPC FM department was baptizing in Jesus' name and the surrounding uproar. That move really kicked TFT's career into high gear.

Though, as has been argued for years on these pages, the vast, vast majority of OP's have been and probably always will be "One Steppers" at heart - to deny that plain fact will get you appointed to positions of honor and help fill your speaking calendar.

It's a puzzling part of the OP culture - and almost certainly has parallels in other subcultures as well - if not the entire human race.

Even Steve-a-rino (he of hat fame) has admitted that he can't judge the destinies of human souls. DKB and others of his mindset appear to want to ignore this fact (that they employ practical variants of the "Light Doctrine") and hammer out sterner creeds demanding that all dance the "Three Step" or perish.

What I want to know is why is it that the UPCI is so singled out for critique for believing that Acts 2:38 is the new birth. They aren't the only group that teaches this, COOLJC, PAW, True Jesus Church and a bunch of other groups believe and teach the same doctrine, but it seems like UPCI gets criticized and in some circles even called cultish far more than any other Oneness group.

And from the years that I've been reading this site, there seem to be way more dissatisified customers of the UPCI than of all those organizations put together. I'd say at least 1/3 of the threads on this forum are of people who have had some negative UPCI experience.

[Hoovie]

What I want to know is why is it that the UPCI is so singled out for critique for believing that Acts 2:38 is the new birth. They aren't the only group that teaches this, COOLJC, PAW, True Jesus Church and a bunch of other groups believe and teach the same doctrine, but it seems like UPCI gets criticized and in some circles even called cultish far more than any other Oneness group.

And from the years that I've been reading this site, there seem to be way more dissatisified customers of the UPCI than of all those organizations put together. I'd say at least 1/3 of the threads on this forum are of people who have had some negative UPCI experience.

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC - it is allowed within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as considering whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular, is the UPC constituency getting the full story of our formation and the tolerance that was once very prevalent among us? And why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a primary UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945"

[Barb]

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC, it is allowed - within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945":nod

[Steve Epley]

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC - it is allowed within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as considering whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular, is the UPC constituency getting the full story of our formation and the tolerance that was once very prevalent among us? And why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a primary UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945"

This was the problem. No amount of revisionism can change this error.

[llambert]

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC - it is allowed within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as considering whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular, is the UPC constituency getting the full story of our formation and the tolerance that was once very prevalent among us? And why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a primary UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945"
So now this is starting to make sense to me- because according to what you have posted here, the UPCI started as a combination of doctrinal positions for political reasons. Is it true that the merger of the different organizations had something to do with having enough strength of numbers so that brothers wouldn't have to be drafted into the military? Apparently, the founders didn't think the doctrinal issues were so major back in 1945 when there were common outside enemies, but with the passage of time, the differences are becoming more irreconcilable and the outside threats less so.

I had been wondering about why the UPCI is so villified in some circles and if it is perceived that they are less than honest about their own history for whatever reason then the fruit that comes out that will bear the tale.

I was in UPCI and am now in COOLJC. COOLJC has some pockets that are very hard core about divorce and remarriage (one spouse for life- in some churches they teach that the person who was already divorced and remarried at conversion is living in sin, needs to leave that partner and go be reconciled to the first). COOLJC is also more staunch against women preachers. Both of these doctrines are a response (from what I have read in histories and from founder RC Lawson's accounts) to PAW. But as strict as these teachings may be to some, I don't see people on here or other forums critiquing COOLJC anywhere near the extent that UPCI has been. There is a wide range of views/beliefs on these and many other doctrines, dress codes, etc. It seems like this organization is much looser and less controlling than UPCI, which may be both good and bad.

[llambert]

Thinking about it now, no disrespect intended, the Pentecostal look of the UPCI women seems almost like a registered trademark branding. One pastor's wife I knew said that when she went out to conferences, amusement parks, etc. she felt comforted seeing other women of like precious faith (in long dress, no jewels, etc) because they looked like her and she was able to identify who was who.

[Hoovie]

Thinking about it now, no disrespect intended, the Pentecostal look of the UPCI women seems almost like a registered trademark branding. One pastor's wife I knew said that when she went out to conferences, amusement parks, etc. she felt comforted seeing other women of like precious faith (in long dress, no jewels, etc) because they looked like her and she was able to identify who was who.

I know this is so and understand it to be the case. I don't think it's problematic in itself. It's rather benign I think. Can outer, physical identifying factors be misleading? Sure but that is true in both "standard" preaching churches and non. The cross necklace wearers, or the "Word of Faith" proclaimers might both be misleading to watchers concerning the condition of their hearts.

[Max Cosme]

Bernard has decided to close the discussion on some of the PCI and PAJC history. This was his last post last night. He has changed his previous tune about the Fundamental Doctrine indicating a "plan of salvation". There are various points in this last post by Bernard that are worth further analysis and examination:

*************, let's bring this to a close. I don't have time to keep arguing with you, yet you are distorting the point that I am trying to make to our constituents. The UPCI did not vote to dissolve our Fundamental Doctrine. We are fulfilling it. We allow diversity, but we are united on Acts 2:38 as "the Bible standard of full salvation." The unity clause doesn't change that, but it gave time for everyone to develop a better understanding of the theological significance of the three steps listed and to come into greater unity of the faith, which we have done. And the unity clause is not limited to soteriology; it holds true for various other matters, such as eschatology.

My point is a simple one: The basic view of salvation held by the UPCI today is what the overwhelming majority of Oneness ministers have held from the beginning. I mean the basic teaching of the new birth and the plan of salvation (not denying that there were also some doctrines of the new earth, friends of the bride, and so on, as explained in detail in my book). My book documents that the oldest Oneness group, the PAW, out of which the leaders of both the PAJC and PCI came, voted in 1919 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The PAJC, which was twice as large as the PCI, voted in 1936 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. In the PCI, the majority (roughly 2/3s) also held this view, as I documented by quotes from Gray, McClintock, Scism (all PCI leaders), as well as Urshan, Chambers, Hall, and Kinzie, all of whom I spoke to personally. The difference was that in the smaller group there was an official policy of toleration on the definition of "the new birth." The diversity wasn't really on Acts 2:38 as the standard NT plan of salvation but mostly centered on how to view people "in process." In other words, even those in the PCI who said one is "saved" at repentance also said people had a responsibility to continue obeying truth as it was revealed to them, and if they rejected it they would be lost. For example, one time after I preached on Jesus Name baptism, one of the minority-view PCI elders told me, "If someone didn't have enough light before your message, they have enough light now to condemn them if they don't obey." That is a far cry from simply preaching a Baptistic doctrine of salvation.

In short, it is untrue to the spirit of the merger, even of the minority in the PCI, if we do not preach Acts 2:38 as the salvation message that everyone today needs to obey. We leave exceptional situations in the hands of God, for He is the judge, but we must be clear about the message of salvation that we preach.

[Max Cosme]

Point 1: Bernard says, The UPCI did not vote to dissolve our Fundamental Doctrine. We are fulfilling it. We allow diversity, but we are united on Acts 2:38 as "the Bible standard of full salvation." The unity clause doesn't change that, but it gave time for everyone to develop a better understanding of the theological significance of the three steps listed and to come into greater unity of the faith, which we have done."

Here we find Bernard sticking to his guns. He believes the FD has be FULFILLED. He also believes that it only existed to give those with other views a chance to see things as he does. He believes this has happened. Somehow those with a different view have outgrown their error. A fait accompli, per se.

[Max Cosme]

Point 2: Bernard says, "My book documents that the oldest Oneness group, the PAW, out of which the leaders of both the PAJC and PCI came, voted in 1919 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The PAJC, which was twice as large as the PCI, voted in 1936 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. In the PCI, the majority (roughly 2/3s) also held this view, as I documented by quotes from Gray, McClintock, Scism (all PCI leaders), as well as Urshan, Chambers, Hall, and Kinzie, all of whom I spoke to personally. The difference was that in the smaller group there was an official policy of toleration on the definition of "the new birth."

A case of selective history.

Bernard in several posts continues to choose to want to only point out that the official policy of toleration only existed in the PCI. He will not openly say that the official policy of the UPCI is still the same. Also, he selectively omits facts about the policies and practical application of these in their predecessors, the PAW and PAJC.

For example, Bernard makes it seem that the PAW voted on making Acts 2:38 the New Birth. What does history really tell us at the founding of the PAW?

Let us look at what Bishop Tyson of the PAW tells us in his book which has the 1919 minutes of the PAW founding:

On Tuesday, October 14, 1919, the following resolution was
adopted: That on Thursday, October 16, 1919, at 10:30 A. M., this
Assembly should commence and determine by deliberation, the following Scriptural questions:
(a) That one baptism, as recorded in Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44-48,
Acts 19:1-6, is evidenced by the speaking in other tongues as the
Spirit gives utterance, its the initial evidence thereof.

(b) That the New Birth (being “born again”), includes a genuine
repentance, water-baptism in Jesus’ name, and the Baptism of the
Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit
gives utterance.

(c) That the Lord’s Supper, (blessing the bread and wine, and
partaking thereof), was continued by the Church after the Day of
Pentecost.

This not a vote for a statement of belief in the New Birth, rather a deliberation over questions, (a poll of sorts), about these questions.

[Max Cosme]

For those interested these PAW minutes of the 1919 founding are found in the appendix of Tyson's 20th Century Pentecostals. Minutes Book and Ministerial Record ... page 293. Specifically page 299.

On Thursday, October 16, 1919, this Assembly commenced
its deliberation on the three questions specified in the resolution of
October 19, 1919, which same were finished on Saturday, October
18, 1919, it being the opinion of a majority of this Assembly that the affirmative of these questions was correct.

This again states that the majority felt the affirmative to these questions was correct. Again, not a statement of belief. No affirmations. No creeds. No statement saying Acts 2:38 is the New Birth.

It can also be argued that the question in 1919 posed was that the New Birth includes these things -- not necessarily that one must do these things to be born again.

We also know that the PAW, then consents to one steppers having considerable influence in their leadership positions. Opperman, LC Hall, Clibborn-Booth, Frank Small, Goss, EJ Douglas and Kidson who would not have voted in the affirmative in this query. They were one steppers. However, they are accepted on the General Elder Board. Their inclusion and participation speaks volumes. At least 7 of the original 17 board members- one steppers.

[houston]

What Bernard has stated is what I was told yrs ago, the idea was to give the PCI time to make the necessary corrections. ROFLOL. If I was a PCI guy way back when, I would have been insulted. Ha. So, maybe the PAJC always planned to hijack the org. I can't imagine anyone signing on with an expectation to make those kind of doctrinal changes.

[Hoovie]

Max, Where exactly is/was this discussion taking place?

[Baron1710]

Max, Where exactly is/was this discussion taking place?

It has been taking place on both DKB's personal Facebook page and on his official page as well.

[Michael The Disciple]

It seems to me like modern Oneness is again dropping the ball. The very two issues that Oneness excels in more and more are being pushed to the side. The Oneness of God and the Acts 2:38 new birth teaching.

Modern Oneness seems to really admire Evangelical Protestant teaching. I guess it just seems so much easier. To me it seems like these two issues are really the great contribution Oneness brings to those who believe in Jesus.

[Max Cosme]

Houston, Bernard now joins the likes of JR Ensey and JL Hall in spearheading a campaign to revise the intents of all those who agreed to this compromise, with a supposition.

Further, it would seem Bernard is trying to make a case that somehow the PCI alone allowed for "official" diversity on the New Birth,subtly implying that the PAW voted on making Acts 2:38 the New Birth, as early as 1919. His facts, in this revisionist attempt, are lacking and are selective.

The minutes simply record a statement of "opinion". IT DIRECTLY STATES AS MUCH.

This is not same as saying we believe this as our creed. It's a glorified poll, with the results published.

Not a statement that speaks for the PAW as a whole. No attempts to make the constituents affirm this. Much less instituting or codifying a view on the New Birth.

And when we see that fellowship was not broken over this publicized tally --this goes to Bernard trying to imply that it was the PCI that solely tolerated a view on the New Birth when in praxis the PAW, decades prior, allowed for this diversity as is evident in their leadership, constituency make up AND IN NOT FORCING THEIR MAJORITY VIEW ON THE MINORITY, with ultimatums to comply to an opinion.

I'd add, that in the same year, 1919, the PAW tried to merge with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, of which Goss and Small were charter members along with various one steppers -- most being *gasp* Trinitarian -- as history bears out.

[Baron1710]

It seems to me like modern Oneness is again dropping the ball. The very two issues that Oneness excels in more and more are being pushed to the side. The Oneness of God and the Acts 2:38 new birth teaching.

Modern Oneness seems to really admire Evangelical Protestant teaching. I guess it just seems so much easier. To me it seems like these two issues are really the great contribution Oneness brings to those who believe in Jesus.

It is what makes them distinct from the rest of Christianity, and irrelevant to the historical revisionism that is taking place.

[Michael The Disciple]

It is what makes them distinct from the rest of Christianity, and irrelevant to the historical revisionism that is taking place.

Not sure what you mean but yes they are distinct from the rest of Christianity in the sense that they have been blessed by Elohim to restore two of the most important doctrines of it.

To me whatever revisionism has been done is not as important as the preaching of full New Covenant Christianity to the present world in which we live. This must include both Oneness doctrine and Acts 2:38 as the complete new birth.

I do not praise any Oneness org I am aware of. They all are sorely lacking in truth. Yet I do really appreciate those who are still holding onto these important truths. If they are allowed to be lost again it may be another 1000 years before they are re-restored.

[Baron1710]

It seems to me like modern Oneness is again dropping the ball. The very two issues that Oneness excels in more and more are being pushed to the side. The Oneness of God and the Acts 2:38 new birth teaching.

Modern Oneness seems to really admire Evangelical Protestant teaching. I guess it just seems so much easier. To me it seems like these two issues are really the great contribution Oneness brings to those who believe in Jesus.

Not sure what you mean but yes they are distinct from the rest of Christianity in the sense that they have been blessed by Elohim to restore two of the most important doctrines of it.

To me whatever revisionism has been done is not as important as the preaching of full New Covenant Christianity to the present world in which we live. This must include both Oneness doctrine and Acts 2:38 as the complete new birth.

I do not praise any Oneness org I am aware of. They all are sorely lacking in truth. Yet I do really appreciate those who are still holding onto these important truths. If they are allowed to be lost again it may be another 1000 years before they are re-restored.

So good that someone found them, smack of LDS to me. They weren't lost because they never were. The development of modern Oneness theology combined with the Water and Spirit teaching is unique to the 20th Century, no other group in history held those two components.

[Michael The Disciple]

So good that someone found them, smack of LDS to me. They weren't lost because they never were. The development of modern Oneness theology combined with the Water and Spirit teaching is unique to the 20th Century, no other group in history held those two components.

This is exactly what Im talking about. You seem to reject both the Oneness message as well as the new birth teaching. You evidently are a Evangelical/Protestant?

Where do you agree with what you are calling "Apostolic"?

Where do you disagree with Evangelical Protestants on the Godhead and new birth?

[Baron1710]

This is exactly what Im talking about. You seem to reject both the Oneness message as well as the new birth teaching. You evidently are a Evangelical/Protestant?

Where do you agree with what you are calling "Apostolic"?

Where do you disagree with Evangelical Protestants on the Godhead and new birth?

I didn't reject anything I stated historical facts. See this is exactly what this thread is about, honesty when dealing with historical facts.

[UnTraditional]

The notion that the Oneness doctrine was hidden for centuries since the times of the Apostles is absolutely false. Because God has preserved His Word, and we know that it is true, and that the truth is clearly defined in scripture, the Oneness doctrine has indeed always been around. Even if the majority of people did not believe it, and the false church tried to silence it, God has preserved His Word to show us the doctrine is there, and always has been. I wish we Apostolics would get enough of a spiritual backbone to see this lie is nothing more than a discredit attempt by the enemy. The One God doctrine has always been around, as has been the doctrine of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. It is not some 'new' doctrine, but is a true doctrine preserved in the Word through the ages.

[Baron1710]

The notion that the Oneness doctrine was hidden for centuries since the times of the Apostles is absolutely false. Because God has preserved His Word, and we know that it is true, and that the truth is clearly defined in scripture, the Oneness doctrine has indeed always been around. Even if the majority of people did not believe it, and the false church tried to silence it, God has preserved His Word to show us the doctrine is there, and always has been. I wish we Apostolics would get enough of a spiritual backbone to see this lie is nothing more than a discredit attempt by the enemy. The One God doctrine has always been around, as has been the doctrine of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. It is not some 'new' doctrine, but is a true doctrine preserved in the Word through the ages.

Give me one group older than the 20th Century who believed both of this things, we can start with just one and see how connected these two doctrines are to the past.

[LUKE2447]

It seems to me like modern Oneness is again dropping the ball. The very two issues that Oneness excels in more and more are being pushed to the side. The Oneness of God and the Acts 2:38 new birth teaching.

Modern Oneness seems to really admire Evangelical Protestant teaching. I guess it just seems so much easier. To me it seems like these two issues are really the great contribution Oneness brings to those who believe in Jesus.

It is pathetic and complete error. Very sad indeed. Don't you just love reformed views of all sorts that followed many in and have placed a nice smell all over the movement. lol smh

[llambert]

The notion that the Oneness doctrine was hidden for centuries since the times of the Apostles is absolutely false. Because God has preserved His Word, and we know that it is true, and that the truth is clearly defined in scripture, the Oneness doctrine has indeed always been around. Even if the majority of people did not believe it, and the false church tried to silence it, God has preserved His Word to show us the doctrine is there, and always has been. I wish we Apostolics would get enough of a spiritual backbone to see this lie is nothing more than a discredit attempt by the enemy. The One God doctrine has always been around, as has been the doctrine of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. It is not some 'new' doctrine, but is a true doctrine preserved in the Word through the ages.

I agree with Michael that UPCI is at least holding to promoting two very biblical doctrines that are very, very important and that for whatever reasons, weren't being promoted as much in centuries past. Many groups believed these doctrines. To say that these doctrines are new or false just because they weren't taught by persons who were considered of some stature in the history of Christendom is to open up a box that to me is leading away from Christ and towards humanity and man's ways and philosophies taking precedence.

There is a colloquialism/pun that to be saved and defeat Satan, we need an "AX and Two 38s". This joke reminds me that the word is quick and sharp and powerful. It can be used to cut people up and kill, so we need to be careful how we weild it and not use it as a weapon on each other.

I think that a sector of the Oneness/Apostolic or Jesus name movement has been historically guilty of being too heavy handed in many cases with how they they have promoted the Acts 2:38 and Oneness teachings- beating people over the head, telling people they are going to hell, being dogmatic, argumentative, prone to debate, not meeting persons at the points of their need, but in too many cases pushing doctrines that to the souls they are dealing with appear to be irrelevant.

And add to that the air that "We have the truth and they don't" that can settle on people and we have a real disaster that causes the movement on a whole in some circles (and the UPCI in particular) to be labeled cultish by some and ridiculous by others.

What I think is needed is that those of us who believe that Jesus is Father, Son and Holy Spirit need to realize how these beliefs affect practical day to day realities of living in a world of economic failure, govenmental disarray and uncertainty and social change. Once we realize this personally, we can begin to speak hope and encouragement to the many broken and questioning souls that God is placing in our paths everyday.

I do think though, that if we have blots in our past histories as the UPCI seems to, we need to just fess up- look this was this, this happened, now this is what is happening and move on- othewise Satan will always have a toehold and we'll be limping along in life.

[Barb]

I agree with Michael that UPCI is at least holding to promoting two very biblical doctrines that are very, very important and that for whatever reasons, weren't being promoted as much in centuries past. Many groups believed these doctrines. To say that these doctrines are new or false just because they weren't taught by persons who were considered of some stature in the history of Christendom is to open up a box that to me is leading away from Christ and towards humanity and man's ways and philosophies taking precedence.

There is a colloquialism/pun that to be saved and defeat Satan, we need an "AX and Two 38s". This joke reminds me that the word is quick and sharp and powerful. It can be used to cut people up and kill, so we need to be careful how we weild it and not use it as a weapon on each other.

I think that a sector of the Oneness/Apostolic or Jesus name movement has been historically guilty of being too heavy handed in many cases with how they they have promoted the Acts 2:38 and Oneness teachings- beating people over the head, telling people they are going to hell, being dogmatic, argumentative, prone to debate, not meeting persons at the points of their need, but in too many cases pushing doctrines that to the souls they are dealing with appear to be irrelevant.

And add to that the air that "We have the truth and they don't" that can settle on people and we have a real disaster that causes the movement on a whole in some circles (and the UPCI in particular) to be labeled cultish by some and ridiculous by others.

What I think is needed is that those of us who believe that Jesus is Father, Son and Holy Spirit need to realize how these beliefs affect practical day to day realities of living in a world of economic failure, govenmental disarray and uncertainty and social change. Once we realize this personally, we can begin to speak hope and encouragement to the many broken and questioning souls that God is placing in our paths everyday.

I do think though, that if we have blots in our past histories as the UPCI seems to, we need to just fess up- look this was this, this happened, now this is what is happening and move on- othewise Satan will always have a toehold and we'll be limping along in life.

:nod

[LifeGuide]

@davidkbernard: At merger to form UPCI (1945), PAJC had 346 churches & PCI had 175 churches. At least 85% of ministers held that Acts 2:38 was new birth. (via Bro. Bernard's latest tweet).

[Baron1710]

couldn't get the quote to work on my phone.

So what are the historical groups that have held to the UPC positions on the Godhead AND baptism historically.

And many oneness would not say Jesus is the Father.

[Charnock]

couldn't get the quote to work on my phone.

So what are the historical groups that have held to the UPC positions on the Godhead AND baptism historically.

And many oneness would not say Jesus is the Father.

That's not enough.

They would also need to preach these things as salvific and attach "holiness standards" as well.

[Charnock]

The trouble is, there are no such groups. Not even one.

This is new. That's why they called it "The New Issue."

[Baron1710]

That's not enough.

They would also need to preach these things as salvific and attach "holiness standards" as well.

You are correct. I was just trying to make it easier for the. They cannot find what i asked for much less what you have asked for.

[Michael The Disciple]

The trouble is, there are no such groups. Not even one.

This is new. That's why they called it "The New Issue."

Unreal. The original New Covenant Church is the only group that matters. All else is the invention of men who have departed from it as Yeshua and the apostles said.

Can you tell us who all these "groups" are that you seem to think have the truth? This should be interesting!

[Charnock]

Unreal. The original New Covenant Church is the only group that matters. All else is the invention of men who have departed from it as Yeshua and the apostles said.

Can you tell us who all these "groups" are that you seem to think have the truth? This should be interesting!

The original New Covenant church was the believing church. That church has existed throughout history, without fail.

The burden of proof rests with you to prove otherwise.

1 John 5:1a

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:"

[Michael The Disciple]

The original New Covenant church was the believing church. That church has existed throughout history, without fail.

The burden of proof rests with you to prove otherwise.

1 John 5:1a

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:"

Ok thats what I thought. You cannot name ONE of these groups that are identical in doctrine to the Biblical New Covenant Church. So while you are laughing at Oneness Churches get a good laugh at all them.

So if they BELIEVE then we add Jehovah Witness, Mormons, Armstongism, Branch Davidians, ect.

Yeah were all just one happy family!

[Praxeas]

At one point Lutheranism was a new issue, Calvinism, Wesleyanism, ana-baptists, evangelicalism etc etc

[Praxeas]

The original New Covenant church was the believing church. That church has existed throughout history, without fail.

The burden of proof rests with you to prove otherwise.

1 John 5:1a

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:"
ROFL..it's true until you prove it false?

Classic Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on whoever made the assertion

Which church belief system? Roman Orthodox? Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? Calvinism? Lutheranism? Wesleyism?

Which one of those is that church that existed throughout history? Because they don't all agree with each other either

[Charnock]

Ok thats what I thought. You cannot name ONE of these groups that are identical in doctrine to the Biblical New Covenant Church. So while you are laughing at Oneness Churches get a good laugh at all them.

So if they BELIEVE then we add Jehovah Witness, Mormons, Armstongism, Branch Davidians, ect.

Yeah were all just one happy family!

You are assigning motives that don't exist. I am not laughing.

And yes, I don't care which label is used, anyone that believes Jesus is the Messiah is "born of God."

Read 1 John 5.

[Charnock]

ROFL..it's true until you prove it false?

Classic Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on whoever made the assertion

Which church belief system? Roman Orthodox? Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? Calvinism? Lutheranism? Wesleyism?

Which one of those is that church that existed throughout history? Because they don't all agree with each other either

Praxeas, Bill Price asserted that there has always been a group of OP adherents throughout history. He bears the burden of proof, not me.

What's next? Fairies are real? Unicorns? Nessie?

This isn't about which denomination is correct. What does the Bible say? What does history show?

The Bible says everyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah is born of God.

History shows there has always been a large group of believers, even in the Dark Ages.

[Charnock]

On the other hand, there was no such thing as Oneness Pentecostalism until the second decade of the 20th century. We have many proofs that our movement sprang up as an offshoot of Wesleyan Methodism. PPH has documented the origins of the movement.

Yet we have men, like Bill Price, who state that the 20th century OP movement was not a restoration - it was a continuation.

A continuation of what?

Where did this movement exist prior to the 20th century? What evidences do you have that it existed?

Zero. Zero evidences. There is no movement like this one prior to the 2nd decade of the 20th century. Sure, some groups possessed one element or another, but none possessed all of the elements we deem essential to salvation.

In fact, even those who held at least one of the elements (Oneness, baptism, or tongues) denied all other elements. Do we consider these heretics brothers? Saved?

[Charnock]

Chalfant and Weisser hold up obscure sects of Christians that practiced one of the elements as proof that there has been continuity. Yet they conveniently omit other doctrinal "errors" of these sects.

For instance, some Quakers baptized in the name of Jesus. Great. Trouble is, they were also hard and fast Trinitarians who never spoke in tongues.

This need to revise history is troubling. It's dishonest and reveals the origins of false doctrine in the OP movement.

[Charnock]

I have discussed this issue, at length, with conservative Apostolic preachers who state that the Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal movement has existed in an unbroken chain of succession throughout history. They go so far as to deny any connection to Azusa and Topeka.

It is sad that people so in love with "The Elders" and "Old Paths" are so purposefully ignorant of their own heritage.

[Michael The Disciple]

And yes, I don't care which label is used, anyone that believes Jesus is the Messiah is "born of God."

Yes thats what I thought.

[Charnock]

The notion that the Oneness doctrine was hidden for centuries since the times of the Apostles is absolutely false. Because God has preserved His Word, and we know that it is true, and that the truth is clearly defined in scripture, the Oneness doctrine has indeed always been around. Even if the majority of people did not believe it, and the false church tried to silence it, God has preserved His Word to show us the doctrine is there, and always has been. I wish we Apostolics would get enough of a spiritual backbone to see this lie is nothing more than a discredit attempt by the enemy. The One God doctrine has always been around, as has been the doctrine of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. It is not some 'new' doctrine, but is a true doctrine preserved in the Word through the ages.

Hate to break it to you, but God "preserved His word" through the Roman Catholic Church. They are the ones who decided which books are canon and which aren't.

[Charnock]

Yes thats what I thought.

So Michael, what do you do with 1 John 5?

Verse 1: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:"

Verse 5: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Verse 13: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

[Charnock]

I have a feeling it's going to be very quiet for a while.

[mizpeh]

So Michael, what do you do with 1 John 5?

Verse 1: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:"

Verse 5: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Verse 13: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."Charnock, we harmonize them with the rest of the scriptures like the ones on repentance, and water baptism, and being filled with the Spirit, etc.

[Michael The Disciple]

I have a feeling it's going to be very quiet for a while.

Its a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth. If you understand what is meant by "the Christ" your eyes would be opened.

What is the Old Testament basis for the New Testament doctrine of Christ?

Here it is!

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor , The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.

So yes those who are believing Jesus is THE CHRIST have been born of God.

As you can see THE BIBLICAL CHRIST is both the SON AND FATHER.

Exceedingly amazing is the fact that all over the world only ONE group of those who say they believe actually teach that the Messiah Jesus IS BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON.

That is the Oneness Churches that baptize in Jesus name.

[Baron1710]

At one point Lutheranism was a new issue, Calvinism, Wesleyanism, ana-baptists, evangelicalism etc etc

ROFL..it's true until you prove it false?

Classic Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on whoever made the assertion

Which church belief system? Roman Orthodox? Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? Calvinism? Lutheranism? Wesleyism?

Which one of those is that church that existed throughout history? Because they don't all agree with each other either

Speaking of classic fallacies, you missed the point. The point is not which belief system is oldest, or which one is correct, the issue is history.

And on top of that it was another poster who asserted a continued line of apostolic faith so it IS on them to prove their statement.

The theology of the UPC is unique to the 20th century, never before that point can you find their unique teaching. (And don't claim the book of Acts or the Apostles because it only begs the question).

So take your ADD pills and try to keep up.

[Michael The Disciple]

The theology of the UPC is unique to the 20th century, never before that point can you find their unique teaching. (And don't claim the book of Acts or the Apostles because it only begs the question).

No book of Acts? Well you can have all those "historical" groups you want. I follow Yeshua. The Church he started is revealed in Acts and the epistles. Everything else is false.

[Baron1710]

No book of Acts? Well you can have all those "historical" groups you want. I follow Yeshua. The Church he started is revealed in Acts and the epistles. Everything else is false.


You must not be able to read.

You have your opinion of Acts others have theirs, but the truth is you cannot point to another group, outside of how you interpret Acts, that hold your views. Therefore, the whole world went to Hell for 1900 years.

[Michael The Disciple]

You must not be able to read.

You have your opinion of Acts others have theirs, but the truth is you cannot point to another group, outside of how you interpret Acts, that hold your views. Therefore, the whole world went to Hell for 1900 years.

Yes I can read. Rather bold of you to say no group ever existed that believes what I believe.

Where you there in every country in the world during every century for 2000 years? Any house Churches that existed or just even single believers here and there. You must be very old.:heeheehee

[Baron1710]

Yes I can read. Rather bold of you to say no group ever existed that believes what I believe.

Where you there in every country in the world during every century for 2000 years? Any house Churches that existed or just even single believers here and there. You must be very old.:heeheehee

Go ahead point one out...waiting...

[Jason B]

You are assigning motives that don't exist. I am not laughing.

And yes, I don't care which label is used, anyone that believes Jesus is the Messiah is "born of God."

Read 1 John 5.

Charnock, one can hardly make a determination of salvation by 1 John 5. The whole book must be considered. In the above quote you were replying that Jw's, Mormons, Branch Dividians, Armstrongites, etc, could be saved ("I don't care which label is used"), some of whom do not meet the theological/christological requirements of 1 John.

Also I don't think there is any doubt that there have been Christians throughout history who affirmed both the oneness of God (while not using that 20th century term to define themselves) and who baptized invoking the name of Jesus. Those are the 2 doctrines that Mike The Disciple pointed out, and that was a legitimate point.

However Untraditional's assertion of an unbroken chain of "Full package" oneness, baptising in JN, tongues as initial evidence, and standards affirming groups are either completely absent or silent from history as we know it, until the 20th century pentecostals.

[Michael The Disciple]

Go ahead point one out...waiting...

You are the one worried about history not me. Whats written in the Bible is good enough for me. Everything else must be judged against it. I would not be moved from that if there really wasn't one.

:highfive

[Baron1710]

Charnock, one can hardly make a determination of salvation by 1 John 5. The whole book must be considered. In the above quote you were replying that Jw's, Mormons, Branch Dividians, Armstrongites, etc, could be saved ("I don't care which label is used"), some of whom do not meet the theological/christological requirements of 1 John.

Also I don't think there is any doubt that there have been Christians throughout history who affirmed both the oneness of God (while not using that 20th century term to define themselves) and who baptized invoking the name of Jesus. Those are the 2 doctrines that Mike The Disciple pointed out, and that was a legitimate point.

However Untraditional's assertion of an unbroken chain of "Full package" oneness, baptising in JN, tongues as initial evidence, and standards affirming groups are either completely absent or silent from history as we know it, until the 20th century pentecostals.

So show us these groups...

[Max Cosme]

Chalfant and Weisser hold up obscure sects of Christians that practiced one of the elements as proof that there has been continuity. Yet they conveniently omit other doctrinal "errors" of these sects.

For instance, some Quakers baptized in the name of Jesus. Great. Trouble is, they were also hard and fast Trinitarians who never spoke in tongues.

This need to revise history is troubling. It's dishonest and reveals the origins of false doctrine in the OP movement.

Which Quakers baptized in Jesus name?!?!?! Much less baptized????

Some Quakers, like Penn, denied the Trinity, albeit, they did not express the type of modalism we see today. Weiser, Arnold and Chalfant jumped on this, trying to suggest they were in line with Oneness Pentecostals.

Fox, Penn and Barclay, leaders of this movement expressed a belief in a spiritual baptism and a spiritual Eucharist. They also believed in universal reconciliation.

A guiding principle of Quakerism is that all mankind has been given some form of light.

http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/index.html

[Jason B]

So show us these groups...

Which groups? Groups that affirmed "oneness" and baptism in Jesus Name or "full package"? I can't produce a full package group, nor do I know of anyone who can legitimately produce one, as for groups affirming the twofold doctrine of oneness and water baptism in JN, its well known that the primative church didn't believe in the trinity and baptized invoking the name of Jesus. This is common knowledge, affirmed by church historians, biblical and secular encyclapedias.

[Baron1710]

You are the one worried about history not me. Whats written in the Bible is good enough for me. Everything else must be judged against it. I would not be moved from that if there really wasn't one.

:highfive


This thread is about history.

So which is it, did your theological views burst on the scene in the 20th century or were they practiced by people for 2000 years?

[Max Cosme]

Penn expresses that Quakers believe the water in John 3 is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. A common evangelical view, even today. Not even close to a Water and Spirit view.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BDb5mw-mGHgC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=this+is+not+%22meant+of+outward+water%22+willia m+penn&source=bl&ots=9tzhc2DWKZ&sig=bJWN7Zg6V1g4AuTH4FDFAMxZzgg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mBNxT5rFHYqbtweItZjnDw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Baron1710]

Which groups? Groups that affirmed "oneness" and baptism in Jesus Name or "full package"? I can't produce a full package group, nor do I know of anyone who can legitimately produce one, as for groups affirming the twofold doctrine of oneness and water baptism in JN, its well known that the primative church didn't believe in the trinity and baptized invoking the name of Jesus. This is common knowledge, affirmed by church historians, biblical and secular encyclapedias.

It is well known...so give me some references.

[houston]

Penn expresses that Quakers believe the water in John 3 is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. A common evangelical view, even today.

Really? That's my take on it. I was not aware that it's a common evangelical view.

[Sabby]

Okay,back to the history of the merger.
This discussion is about the relevance of the PCI at the merger. If the relevance can be minimized it bolsters the "might makes right" position that seems to be DKB's direction.
I talked to Bobby _______ today, a protege of A.D. Gurley. Gurley was PCI prior to the merger. He was considered "soft" on the message, but baptized thousands. According to _______, Gurley voted against the merger because he could forsee problems with a merger with hardliners. Also according to _______ the PCI had the most ministers at the merger.
They (PCI) were clearly the more evangelistically minded, another point that _______ mentioned. (which explains the high % of missionaries coming out of Conqueror's Bible College* :))
I digress.
According to Loren Yadon (I spoke to him last year), most of the assets at the merger including the Herald were PCI, and quoting his uncle C.Haskell, the merger was "like oil and water and should never have happened". It was at least a 50/50 split in membership if anything.
I bugs me that DKB is trying to rewrite history, but I'm better off letting it go. It is what it is, and the UPC is who they are. They apparently rammed the A.S. down everyone's throat and are STILL not satisfied. They will choke on a noose of their own making.

[UnTraditional]

Give me one group older than the 20th Century who believed both of this things, we can start with just one and see how connected these two doctrines are to the past.

Excuse me, but as I said, it does not matter if some notable groups taught it or not. The Bible clearly teaches them, and God has preserved His Word for all that time. You want to look to man for validation of a doctrine, to see if a man taught it. Look to scripture and see what it says instead. Popularity does not make something biblical. Now, can we discuss the biblical doctrine, or is your focus on man?

[Nitehawk013]

Penn expresses that Quakers believe the water in John 3 is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. A common evangelical view, even today. Not even close to a Water and Spirit view.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BDb5mw-mGHgC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=this+is+not+%22meant+of+outward+water%22+willia m+penn&source=bl&ots=9tzhc2DWKZ&sig=bJWN7Zg6V1g4AuTH4FDFAMxZzgg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mBNxT5rFHYqbtweItZjnDw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wait what? "Water" in John 3 is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit?

So John 3 really means you must be born again of Holy Spirit and Spirit? Spirit and Spirit huh? Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again of the spirit and the spirit? Twice of the spirit?

Did this come form the Department of Redundancy Department?

Is being born again of the spirit once not enough? You have to do it twice or else you didn't do it right?

It seems to me that the much simpler explanation of JOhn 3 is exactly what OP have been preaching it as for years. Water and Spirit = water baptism and Holy Ghost infilling. Funny...that's exactly what we see happening in Acts as a demonstration of being born again.

[TGBTG]

Wait what? "Water" in John 3 is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit?

So John 3 really means you must be born again of Holy Spirit and Spirit? Spirit and Spirit huh? Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again of the spirit and the spirit? Twice of the spirit?

Did this come form the Department of Redundancy Department?

Is being born again of the spirit once not enough? You have to do it twice or else you didn't do it right?

It seems to me that the much simpler explanation of JOhn 3 is exactly what OP have been preaching it as for years. Water and Spirit = water baptism and Holy Ghost infilling. Funny...that's exactly what we see happening in Acts as a demonstration of being born again.

If you consider the translation of "kai" in the greek which can be either AND or EVEN. Then, we can see a case of where Water would be a metaphor of the Holy Spirit. Especially considering that Jesus uses Water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit in other scriptures.

In other words (reading it this way):

John 3
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, EVEN of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Considering that Jesus uses Water as metaphor for the Holy Spirit in other scriptures, the argument above has some merit to it

John 4
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

John 7
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Having said that, regardless of the interpretation of John 3:5, water baptism is part of the RESPONSE to the gospel of Jesus Christ (not the gospel) as evidenced in Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 9:18, Acts 10:47, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, Acts 19:5, 1 Cor 1:13-17,1 Pet 3:21, etc

[mizpeh]

Okay,back to the history of the merger.
This discussion is about the relevance of the PCI at the merger. If the relevance can be minimized it bolsters the "might makes right" position that seems to be DKB's direction.
I talked to Bobby _______ today, a protege of A.D. Gurley. Gurley was PCI prior to the merger. He was considered "soft" on the message, but baptized thousands. According to _______, Gurley voted against the merger because he could forsee problems with a merger with hardliners. Also according to _______ the PCI had the most ministers at the merger.
They (PCI) were clearly the more evangelistically minded, another point that _______ mentioned. (which explains the high % of missionaries coming out of Conqueror's Bible College* :))
I digress.
According to Loren Yadon (I spoke to him last year), most of the assets at the merger including the Herald were PCI, and quoting his uncle C.Haskell, the merger was "like oil and water and should never have happened". It was at least a 50/50 split in membership if anything.
I bugs me that DKB is trying to rewrite history, but I'm better off letting it go. It is what it is, and the UPC is who they are. They apparently rammed the A.S. down everyone's throat and are STILL not satisfied. They will choke on a noose of their own making.

I think you are right.

[Sam]

Okay,back to the history of the merger.
This discussion is about the relevance of the PCI at the merger. If the relevance can be minimized it bolsters the "might makes right" position that seems to be DKB's direction.
I talked to Bobby _______ today, a protege of A.D. Gurley. Gurley was PCI prior to the merger. He was considered "soft" on the message, but baptized thousands. According to _______, Gurley voted against the merger because he could forsee problems with a merger with hardliners. Also according to _______ the PCI had the most ministers at the merger.
They (PCI) were clearly the more evangelistically minded, another point that _______ mentioned. (which explains the high % of missionaries coming out of Conqueror's Bible College* :))
I digress.
According to Loren Yadon (I spoke to him last year), most of the assets at the merger including the Herald were PCI, and quoting his uncle C.Haskell, the merger was "like oil and water and should never have happened". It was at least a 50/50 split in membership if anything.
I bugs me that DKB is trying to rewrite history, but I'm better off letting it go. It is what it is, and the UPC is who they are. They apparently rammed the A.S. down everyone's throat and are STILL not satisfied. They will choke on a noose of their own making.

Thank you, Sabby, for sharing your insight on this.:yourock

This is something either unknown or covered up by so many over the years so they can present "history" according to their viewpoint.

[Max Cosme]

Is Bernard reading AFF? His 89% is now 85%. He lists 14 points to prove his one source that gave him a guesstimate is legitimate while referring to the others who concurred and why they are credible in concurring with the single phone interview he had with David Gray, in the early 1990's.

Bernard posted on August 21, 2012: At merger to form UPCI (1945), PAJC had 346 churches & PCI had 175 churches. At least 85% of ministers held that Acts 2:38 was new birth.

-------------------


In my books, I have stated that at least 85% of the UPC ministers at the time of the Merger in 1945 believed that Acts 2:38 was the new birth or essential to salvation. (See A History of Christian Doctrine, 3:115-121 for documentation. For discussion see also Understanding the Articles of Faith, 9-15; The Apostolic Life, 121-22.)

This number is an estimate, which means it is not exact, but it is more than anecdotal. It has more supporting evidence than any other estimate that has been given. Clearly there is no way at this date to make a definitive survey. Using information that is documented in my history book and reproduced below, here is how I arrived at this estimate:

1. David Gray said practically all the PAJC and 2/3s (67%) of the PCI believed the new-birth doctrine. He was youth president of the Western District PCI at the Merger and first youth president of the UPC.

2. E. J. McClintock concurred with this estimate. He was a pastor in Idaho (Northwest District) at the PCI at time of the Merger. He later became general Sunday school director of the UPCI.

3. Ellis Scism said only a minority in the PCI did not believe Acts 2:38 was essential to salvation. He was superintendent of the Northwest District PCI at the Merger and became the first UPC district superintendent there. It must have been an obvious minority, not 49%, or he would not have made a definitive statement. His grandson and coauthor of his autobiography, Stanley Scism, recently posted on my Facebook page that he used the figure 1/3 (33%).

4. Since Gray, McClintock, and Scism were members of the PCI, if anything we would expect them to overestimate the size of the minority. Likewise, since both McClintock and Scism were from an area where this minority was concentrated, if anything we would expect them to overestimate. In short, their estimates are credible and reasonable.

5. Fred Kinzie, a PAJC minister at the time of the merger, stated that the PAJC held Acts 2:38 to be the new birth and that a majority of the PCI concurred. Again, he would not have made this statement unless there was an obvious majority in the PCI, not merely 51%. See his book Strength through Struggle, 155.

6. I have supportive comments from two general superintendents who were part of the Merger: Stanley Chambers, last surviving member of the original UPC General Board, and Nathaniel Urshan.

7. I have an estimate of 90% from J. L. Hall, the foremost UPCI and Oneness Pentecostal historian until his death. (Because of his scholarship, he was the only living Oneness Pentecostal listed in The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements.)

8. The number of churches seems the most reliable indicator of organizational size. Constituent numbers are difficult to obtain and subjective. Numbers of ministers are generally proportional to number of churches. The number of churches is the best estimate of the number of senior pastors, and the views of pastors are the most relevant when discussing doctrinal views of an organization.

9. The main areas of concentrations for the minority were the Northwest, the Northeast, and Tennessee/North Mississippi. The number of churches and ministers in the Northwest and Northeast was small. In the earliest list of Oneness ministers, 80% came from the West Coast (mostly California), the Midwest, and the South (see HCD 3:91). Thus, the estimates correspond to what we know about geographical distribution.

10. Let’s make some estimates based on the number of churches listed in the respective organizational directories at the time of the Merger: 346 PAJC + 175 PCI = 521 UPC total.

11. 100% of PAJC and 67% of PCI = 463, or 89% of total.

12. 95% of PAJC and 67% of PCI = 445, or 85% of total. I consider this reasonable and in accord with the evidence. I have mostly used this estimate.

13. 95% of PAJC and 60% of PCI = 434, or 83%. I used this estimate in one place.

14. 90% of PAJC and 60% of PCI = 416, or 80%. I consider this low based on the evidence. To go any lower, we would need evidence at least as specific and as well documented as what I have given.

[Max Cosme]

We now have 3 ESTIMATES BY BERNARD. He is honest to acknowledge them all in the last post on the matter. 89% (made on Facebook earlier), 85% and 83%. The 83% was his first estimate from the Vol. 3 book.

No statistical data collection with corroborating evidence from a large or even a reasonable sample but rather one guesstimate and McClintock, Scism, and Kinzie saying the PCI was in the minority. Bernard then takes liberties to tell us what this means and what they meant. This falls short of anything resembling qualitative research.

Hall's 90% estimate is supported by an appeal to authority. He is labeled by the Bernard as the foremost UPCI and Oneness historian until his death. Hall was the curator of HQ archives for many years.

[Max Cosme]

Bernard admittedly does not consider the number of ministerial constituents in this estimate as they are in his opinion "subjective and difficult to obtain". Are these numbers not available? The PCI had listings of its ministers.

We are to take the view of "senior pastors" as the best indicators of what fellowships of ministerial constituents believed? Did some of these "senior pastors" oversee various churches? What of evangelists and missionaries? Are men like VA Larsen or Bill Drost, missionaries to Colombia, and one steppers, even factored in this?

Why hasn't Bernard included the Canadian New Brunswick churches in this "analysis"?

Bernard, you are making these authoritative estimates based solely on the number of buildings claimed by both groups?