PDA

View Full Version : ~1944 PAJC Manual-Articles of Faith~


Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 05:59 PM
As promised some time back, here is the Articles of Faith from the PAJC forerunner of the UPCI. This is taken from the last manual 1944. Pages 5-8

This manual came from my late Grandfather's estate.

Jeanie fried her motherboard on the Laptop to do this, so please be kind to her in the future. :gift

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s46/keith4him/Articlesoffaith1JPG2.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s46/keith4him/Articlesoffaith2JPG3.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s46/keith4him/Articlesoffaith3JPG4.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s46/keith4him/ArticlesoffaithJPG1.jpg

Thad
12-22-2007, 06:05 PM
what is the point of posting this Keith ?

Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 06:07 PM
what is the point of posting this Keith ?

For those who are interested in historical background of Oneness Pentecostalism, sorry, I don't have a agenda.

rgcraig
12-22-2007, 06:07 PM
what is the point of posting this Keith ?

:jolly You of all people to ask what the point is. :jolly

berkeley
12-22-2007, 06:08 PM
For those who are interested in historical background of Oneness Pentecostalism, sorry, I don't have a agenda.

Take note that they did not believe in taking ones life to preserve their own. :)

Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 06:09 PM
Anyone see article VI to be a member of the organization you only have to have one of the baptisms.

berkeley
12-22-2007, 06:11 PM
Anyone see article VI to be a member of the organization you only have to have one of the baptisms.

And this is where someone comes in and says "...the two baptisms are one baptism..."

Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 06:15 PM
And this is where someone comes in and says "...the two baptisms are one baptism..."

Well that opens the door to some problems, but I think your point is valid, like Constitutional Lawyers today, trying to interpret original intent is challenging.

berkeley
12-22-2007, 06:17 PM
Well that opens the door to some problems, but I think your point is valid, like Constitutional Lawyers today, trying to interpret original intent is challenging.

Right

Thad
12-22-2007, 06:18 PM
For those who are interested in historical background of Oneness Pentecostalism, sorry, I don't have a agenda.


ummm...You sure ? You're probably trying to start an argument which is fine with me Keith :christmoose

Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 06:18 PM
And this is where someone comes in and says "...the two baptisms are one baptism..."

because the wording is "had one baptism" and not "had the one baptism", I believe they allowed you to be a member either having just the HG or having been only baptised in Jesus Name.

berkeley
12-22-2007, 06:21 PM
because the wording is "had one baptism" and not "had the one baptism", I believe they allowed you to be a member either having just the HG or having been only baptised in Jesus Name.
This is how I interpret it. :)

Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 06:23 PM
This is how I interpret it. :)

I think this to be interesting when those who hold the legacy of the PAJC was clearly a 3-step salvation plan with no exceptions.

berkeley
12-22-2007, 06:25 PM
I think this to be interesting when those who hold the legacy of the PAJC was clearly a 3-step salvation plan with no exceptions.

Wow... history as we knew it....




:offkey

SDG
12-22-2007, 06:26 PM
because the wording is "had one baptism" and not "had the one baptism", I believe they allowed you to be a member either having just the HG or having been only baptised in Jesus Name.

Article VI is indeed interesting .... Just one baptism ... yet after looking at "How Membership is obtained" I do see the validity to what Thad may be saying ....

although the strict constructionist could find a loophole in it ....

In How Membership is Obtained it clear states membership is granted by a baptism (singular) of water and spirit.

also of note is their clause on the WHOLLY SANCTIFIED LIFE ....

It states that a wholly sanctified life is the only one true standard of a Christian life ....

berkeley
12-22-2007, 06:28 PM
Ah!! A (one) baptism of "water and spirit."

SDG
12-22-2007, 06:29 PM
Their rule on divorce and remarriage is also unbelievable ... no blanket rule it states ... it says each case will be looked at on an individual basis ....

The UC 3 steppers claiming heritage best re-examine.

Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 06:34 PM
Article VI is indeed interesting .... Just one baptism ... yet after looking at "How Membership is obtained" I do see the validity to what Thad may be saying ....

although the strict constructionist could find a loophole in it ....

In How Membership is Obtained it clear states membership is granted by a baptism (singular) of water and spirit.

also of note is their clause on the WHOLLY SANCTIFIED LIFE ....

It states that a wholly sanctified life in the only true standard of a Christian life ....

Look at the Word "true church" a early forerunner of the "whole gospel"

Dan, santification is biblical, the devil is in the details. But most likely leftover 2 work of Grace teaching.

SDG
12-22-2007, 06:36 PM
Look at the Word "true church" a early forerunner of the "whole gospel"

Dan, santification is biblical, the devil is in the details. But most likely leftover 2 work of Grace teaching.

Just interesting that in the world of salvational standards [plural]

The PAJC stood for "only one true standard" ... our sanctification ... what a concept!

SDG
12-22-2007, 06:44 PM
I also agree that the minimum age for ministers should be at least 21 ... if not older .... 25 perhaps.

commonsense
12-22-2007, 07:45 PM
For what it's worth (or not) I'm pretty sure Bro Norris considered one to be a member of the local church, with voting rights, if they had been baptized...it was implied that they were seeking for the HG.
On the basis of this, it makes sense.

The booklet I have (1941) by Ewart is verrry similar in content.

Pastor Keith
12-22-2007, 08:12 PM
For what it's worth (or not) I'm pretty sure Bro Norris considered one to be a member of the local church, with voting rights, if they had been baptized...it was implied that they were seeking for the HG.
On the basis of this, it makes sense.

The booklet I have (1941) by Ewart is verrry similar in content.

What book do you have by Ewart?

BoredOutOfMyMind
12-22-2007, 08:57 PM
For what it's worth (or not) I'm pretty sure Bro Norris considered one to be a member of the local church, with voting rights, if they had been baptized...it was implied that they were seeking for the HG.
On the basis of this, it makes sense.

The booklet I have (1941) by Ewart is verrry similar in content.

What book do you have by Ewart?

Post it!

nwlife
12-23-2007, 12:28 AM
I still see where the 3 steps were taught in this. Repentance, baptism in water were in one article, the HG baptism in the section on "God's standard of salvation".

And the article on membership requirements at the bottom of the scanned page, It would seem to imply that the baptisms of water AND spirit are required based up on the scriptures listed, the record of membership section, and sections on "God's standard of salvation" and "repentance and remission of sins". It would seem that they would view them as intertwined, and both being required.

Otherwise it just shows they hadn't gotten the matter of how to organize things down as of the time this booklet was published....

Otherwise thanks for posting it.

StillStanding
12-23-2007, 07:28 AM
I love the part about offerings! :D

The old method of begging, rallying, giving socials, shows and concerts to carry on God's work is not God's plan.

Whoever wrote this has probably rolled over in their grave many times during the annual UPCI general conference.:ursofunny

OneAccord
12-23-2007, 07:47 AM
Keith... I just want to say thanks for posting this thread. Its always interesting to go back and "search our roots". I really appreciate the glimpse into the past.... helps to know where we came from... so we can know where we are going!

commonsense
12-24-2007, 09:02 PM
For what it's worth (or not) I'm pretty sure Bro Norris considered one to be a member of the local church, with voting rights, if they had been baptized...it was implied that they were seeking for the HG.
On the basis of this, it makes sense.

The booklet I have (1941) by Ewart is verrry similar in content.

Sorry, misinformation, bad memory, call it what your will...
booklet is by Elder B.E.Echols Copyrighted 1940 Marshall, Tx


I could scan it, but I've never mastered posting it to the forum. I will send it if someone can assist me in this.

commonsense
12-25-2007, 11:11 AM
My son helped me convert it to a plain text file.

Pragmatist
12-25-2007, 12:13 PM
I tried to clean it up and make it a little easier to read.

Pragmatist
12-25-2007, 01:51 PM
Thad should be glad to note that number 71 addresses the fact that no Christian should be guilty of getting cranky. :)

Pastor Keith
12-25-2007, 02:02 PM
I tried to clean it up and make it a little easier to read.

Wow, this is one intensive list of rules.

berkeley
12-25-2007, 04:42 PM
Um, wow. Utensils... hehe

timlan2057
12-25-2007, 06:33 PM
Interesting.

Per 55, did Echols believe the "Divine Health" doctrine that one never got sick and that sickness was a sign of sin?

Of course I knew of this booklet for the last 30 years or so but never really perused it.

Not surprisingly, Echols takes a few of his personal hobby horses and sticks a title "What Oneness Pentecostals Believe" on them - presuming to speak for the entire movement.

Actually, were he alive, he'd fit in well on this forum.

berkeley
12-25-2007, 06:45 PM
There's one thing on the end of the list. I can't believe he is against it. And, how would he know if people did it. That's kinda creepy. But whatevah.

stmatthew
12-25-2007, 07:28 PM
There's one thing on the end of the list. I can't believe he is against it. And, how would he know if people did it. That's kinda creepy. But whatevah.


Which thing is it??

berkeley
12-25-2007, 07:32 PM
Which thing is it??

PM incoming.

Sam
12-25-2007, 08:21 PM
Well, are we all ready to go back to the "old landmarks"?



71. A few things the Oneness Pentecostal People believe and teach that a Christian should NOT do or partake of are: drink beer, wine, whiskey, or any kind of intoxicating liquors, use snuff or tobacco (2 Cor. 7:1; I Pet.. 2:11); attend or take part in basketball, football and baseball games, picture shows, boxing and wrestling matches, visit pool halls, play golf or cards, dance, go swimming where both sexes are present, go after and take part in any of the amusements of the world (I John 2:15-17; Heb. 11:24,25) or intermarry with unbelievers. See 2 Cor. 6:14-16; I Cor. 7:39; I Kings 11:1-11; Deut. 7:1-4; with 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Neh. 13:23-27; Ezra. 9:1-4, 10-15.

No Christian should ever be guilty of swearing, cursing, using God's name in vain, speaking ugly words, getting angry or throwing mad fits, quarrelling, gambling, tattling, gossiping, judging others, backbiting, fault-finding, telling jokes (Eph. 5:3,4); getting cross, cranky, grouchy, harshly, lordly, unmerciful, being inconsiderate, or being easily offended (Psa. 119:165). He also should not be guilty of causing divisions, sowing discord, acting or speaking foolishly (Prov. 24:9), speaking idle words (Matt. 12:36, 37), being indifferent or a busybody. He should not be guilty, of borrowing and not paying back (Psa. 37:21), reading funny papers, novels, or any other ungodly literature; if married he should not be too familiar with the opposite sex; neither should he spend his time listening in on comic radio programs and ungodly broadcasts. All such things rob a Christian of his spirituality and will eventually drown his soul in perdition. Gal. 5:19-21.

Christian women should not bob their hair (I Cor. 11:5-11), get permanents (I Tim. 2:9,10), wear jewelry as ornaments (this applies to men also); wear socks, use rouge and lipstick or paint their eyebrows, eyelashes or fingernails; neither should they wear low-neck, short skirt and short sleeve dresses especially in public. I Pet. 3:1-5; I Tim. 2:9,10.

Christian young people should maintain a standard of absolute purity in their relations with one another. They should abstain from all lustful and pagan customs of the ungodly, such as necking, kissing, spooning and keeping late hours at night. They should confine their courtship to believers ONLY. (Eph. 5:11, 12; I Thes. 5:22; 2 Cor. 6:14-17), and then they should not flirt with one another. I Pet. 2:22; 3:10-12.

berkeley
12-25-2007, 08:30 PM
I was all for this list.. but come on. No socks.. no flirting?? That's just overdoing it! It'd be the end of my world if I couldn't flirt while wearing a pair of socks.

nahkoe
12-25-2007, 08:37 PM
I was all for this list.. but come on. No socks.. no flirting?? That's just overdoing it! It'd be the end of my world if I couldn't flirt while wearing a pair of socks.

Only women can't wear socks. Because, I guess, we're supposed to freeze?

Being cold is physically painful for me. I'm keeping my tights and socks tyvm.

berkeley
12-25-2007, 08:46 PM
Only women can't wear socks. Because, I guess, we're supposed to freeze?

Being cold is physically painful for me. I'm keeping my tights and socks tyvm.

Oh,my bad. Well, I wouldn't want to flirt with a gal that doesn't wear socks.:jolly

nahkoe
12-25-2007, 08:49 PM
Oh,my bad. Well, I wouldn't want to flirt with a gal that doesn't wear socks.:jolly

:jolly

berkeley
12-25-2007, 08:51 PM
:jolly

:jolly:jolly

Sam
12-25-2007, 10:09 PM
The ban on wearing socks was for women.
Women were expected to wear long cotton stockings.
Later nylon hose replaced cotton stockings.
Some preached that the hose had to have seams.

commonsense
12-25-2007, 11:11 PM
The ban on wearing socks was for women.
Women were expected to wear long cotton stockings.
Later nylon hose replaced cotton stockings.
Some preached that the hose had to have seams.


Tis true. I think the socks refers to anklets and the idea was that a woman should not have bare legs.

Since I've seen many ladies in sandals and bare legs in UPC churches in the last few years we have evidence of todays' scandalous attire.

commonsense
12-25-2007, 11:15 PM
This little 3"x5" green booklet was always in my dad's desk drawer.
I would read it and be amazed at the don'ts even as a child.........
This was not taught at our local assembly. Not sure where my dad got it.

pelathais
12-26-2007, 10:35 AM
Keith, many, many thanks for posting this ( and thanks to commonsense too!).

Is there more to that PAJC manual than just the AoF? Don't want to be a bother... but what else ya got? LOL!

philjones
12-27-2007, 10:43 AM
Anyone see article VI to be a member of the organization you only have to have one of the baptisms.

Keith,

It is interesting that they stated it the way they did.

Taking the statement in context, referring to page 5, I believe THEY were clear on their intent and that the intent was to license those who were in compliance with stated salvific doctrines on page 5. Now, some 63 or 64 years later, WE are probably not nearly so clear on their intent.

I DO know that there were preachers, CA Nelson being a case in point, who had the revelation of the mighty God in Christ, had been baptized in Jesus Name, but had not received the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues who were actively preaching meetings and then seeking the Holy Ghost in their own altar calls. At its inception, this may have been their intent in the wording.

Of course, if that is the case, then a tongue talking titles baptized individual could have qualified for license and a Jesus name baptized non-tongue talking individual could have qualified for license.

It is a very interesting bit of history and I thank you for posting it and Jeanie for her efforts in scanning it.

I would love to have a copy of the entire manual and would gladly pay you for the photocopying and postage to get it to me.:santathumb

winklebottom
12-27-2007, 01:08 PM
I'm sorry...but young people and "spooning?" that just cracked me up!!!

philjones
12-27-2007, 02:37 PM
I'm sorry...but young people and "spooning?" that just cracked me up!!!

Keep in mind that this was in your day... you know... the 1940s. :D:jolly

winklebottom
12-28-2007, 08:08 AM
Keep in mind that this was in your day... you know... the 1940s. :D:jolly

I know what it means now...but somebody old help me out!! What did that mean in 1940??:feedback

philjones
12-28-2007, 09:29 AM
I know what it means now...but somebody old help me out!! What did that mean in 1940??:feedback

I am sorry I am of no help here... I wasn't even a twinkle in my daddy's eye in 1940 or 1950... it was almost 1960 before I came along.

I do believe I have this little green book in my library... I will have to take a look and see. I have a number of Bro. Echols' books and pamphlets.:horn

BoredOutOfMyMind
12-28-2007, 10:17 AM
Thad should be glad to note that number 71 addresses the fact that no Christian should be guilty of getting cranky. :)

:bumpsign

winklebottom
12-28-2007, 01:16 PM
well.........I'm getting cranky because no one will explain "spooning" to me....I guess I will have to listen to some comedy radio programs to lift my mood....oops! can't do that either??

Pragmatist
12-28-2007, 03:00 PM
well.........I'm getting cranky because no one will explain "spooning" to me....I guess I will have to listen to some comedy radio programs to lift my mood....oops! can't do that either??

Google "spooning."

It will tell you all you need to know.

Farfel
05-01-2013, 09:55 AM
Does anyone have the rest of the manual?