Reading Fudge's Book Again

[Steve Epley]

This will be my third reading. I read it twice when I first got it when it first came out. But decided to read it through again. Though I do not agree and his bias is evident he must be commended for the hours of gathering information and putting it together. Some things I doubt their factualness not impugning him but the memory can be tricky with all of us and interviewing folks in their late years or early years for that matter all information we remember through the prisms of experiences. I am enjoying it again. I love any history of the American Jesus Name movement. Or Pentecostalism in general. I bougth several books advertized in Charisma during the time of the Azusa celebration.

[deseret]

This will be my third reading. I read it twice when I first got it when it first came out. But decided to read it through again. Though I do not agree and his bias is evident he must be commended for the hours of gathering information and putting it together. Some things I doubt their factualness not impugning him but the memory can be tricky with all of us and interviewing folks in their late years or early years for that matter all information we remember through the prisms of experiences. I am enjoying it again. I love any history of the American Jesus Name movement. Or Pentecostalism in general. I bougth several books advertized in Charisma during the time of the Azusa celebration.

I can not believe that you read Charisma! That is the slippury sloap!

[Steve Epley]

I can not believe that you read Charisma! That is the slippury sloap!

Well I don't have a television and a guy has to do something for fun.:winkgrin

[Scott Hutchinson]

Good grief oh I guess you'll be reading a Carlton Pearson book next.

[Sam]

This will be my third reading. I read it twice when I first got it when it first came out. But decided to read it through again. Though I do not agree and his bias is evident he must be commended for the hours of gathering information and putting it together. Some things I doubt their factualness not impugning him but the memory can be tricky with all of us and interviewing folks in their late years or early years for that matter all information we remember through the prisms of experiences. I am enjoying it again. I love any history of the American Jesus Name movement. Or Pentecostalism in general. I bougth several books advertized in Charisma during the time of the Azusa celebration.

Well, with your knowledge of Pentecostal history, you know many of the folks in that book. I remember you confirming the quote from Bro. Goss to Bro. Ballestero about the Baptists being in the rapture.

[Neck]

This will be my third reading. I read it twice when I first got it when it first came out. But decided to read it through again. Though I do not agree and his bias is evident he must be commended for the hours of gathering information and putting it together. Some things I doubt their factualness not impugning him but the memory can be tricky with all of us and interviewing folks in their late years or early years for that matter all information we remember through the prisms of experiences. I am enjoying it again. I love any history of the American Jesus Name movement. Or Pentecostalism in general. I bougth several books advertized in Charisma during the time of the Azusa celebration.

I know my Brother David Eckstadt spoke with him when he was researching for the book.

He asked to verify some interactions that involved my father John A Eckstadt.

My pastor will be giving me the book to read soon.

I am sure it will be interesting.

I know it has been around for a while.

i just have not read it yet.

Nathan Eckstadt

[Sam]

Eld. Epley,
Did you know Bro. L.R. Ooton from Medora (I think) Indiana?
Do you know if the organization he founded, the AMA, is still in existence?
I think Bishop Howard was in that organization.
Actually, I think Bishop Howard was in several organizations during his long life time.

[Sam]

Bro. Epley,
Have you ever thought about writing a book?
You have a lot of memories of Pentecostal history.
I remember talking to my brother-in-law about Bro. Tom Skirvin. From my understanding, Tom and his brother Horace brought the Jesus' name message to the areas of KY and IN near Madison, IN and Carrollton, Warsaw, Sanders, Ghent, Perry Park, Bedford and other cities in KY. Bro. Gosey (who died in 1990 at the age of 90) was Tom Skirvin's brother-in-law and referred to Tom as the apostle to KY. My brother-in-law lived in Warsaw and went to Bro. Tom Skirvin's church. We talked about how someone should talk to Tom and some of the folks there about the history of the Jesus' name message in that part of the state. Well, all we did was talk and now Bro. Tom has been dead for years and that information died with him.

[Sam]

If I remember correctly, Dan Alicia has the Fudge book available as a pdf file and might be persuaded to email a copy as an attachment to someone who asks.

[Sam]

I know my Brother David Eckstadt spoke with him when he was researching for the book.

He asked to verify some interactions that involved my father John A Eckstadt.
...



Has your brother said anything about how accurately or inaccurately the information he provided was presented in the book?

[SDG]

Considering the PCI position Elder????

[Barb]

I have not read it yet, but can't see spending $30 for a book at this time...I would like to read it though and plan to sometime in the future.

[freeatlast]

It is an eye opener for sure.

Recommended reading for anyone who is searching for a better understanding of what we OP's teach and where we have been.

[Brother Strange]

I fell asleep last night reading the autobiograph of W. E. Kidson. It was an interesting read. In it, he speaks of Eugene Garret (from Washington) a great deal. I wondered if Bro Garrett was still alive. Anyone know?

[Sister Alvear]

I would like to have a copy of that book. I read it at someone´s house once but do not even remember when it was.

[CC1]

This will be my third reading. I read it twice when I first got it when it first came out. But decided to read it through again. Though I do not agree and his bias is evident he must be commended for the hours of gathering information and putting it together. Some things I doubt their factualness not impugning him but the memory can be tricky with all of us and interviewing folks in their late years or early years for that matter all information we remember through the prisms of experiences. I am enjoying it again. I love any history of the American Jesus Name movement. Or Pentecostalism in general. I bougth several books advertized in Charisma during the time of the Azusa celebration.

Elder Epley,

I agree with you about both the tremendous amount of research he did and the possibility that some of the oral history is skewed not by intent of the author or interviewee, but because of the fallacy of memory.

I am not an old man but as I near the half century mark I catch myself remembering events, places, people, etc slightly wrong sometimes. Just yesterday my wife and I were recollecting an event of just a few months ago and both had slightly different memories of the details.

[ILG]

Elder Epley,

I agree with you about both the tremendous amount of research he did and the possibility that some of the oral history is skewed not by intent of the author or interviewee, but because of the fallacy of memory.

I am not an old man but as I near the half century mark I catch myself remembering events, places, people, etc slightly wrong sometimes. Just yesterday my wife and I were recollecting an event of just a few months ago and both had slightly different memories of the details.

I've been noticing some of that in myself. Scary isn't it?? ;)

[Brother Strange]

I've been noticing some of that in myself. Scary isn't it?? ;)

Some of you folk ARE getting old. That IS scary for some of us young folk. :winkgrin

[Falla39]

I fell asleep last night reading the autobiograph of W. E. Kidson. It was an interesting read. In it, he speaks of Eugene Garret (from Washington) a great deal. I wondered if Bro Garrett was still alive. Anyone know?


What memories you bring up, Bro. Strange! The names of W.E. Kidson

and Eugene Garrett take me back to Sherman, Texas, as a young child.

It seems Bro. Kidson was the pastor of a church there or perhaps he and

Eugene Garrett were ministering there. I also connect a Bro. & Sis. Snow

with those names. I believe Bro. & Sis. Snow were pastors there at one

time and had a son. We lived in a tiny little town, Savoy, TX, where our

family lived until Sept. 30, 1950 when Dad did what God told Abraham to

do. Dad left father and mother, the difference was, Dad knew where he

was going. I had just turned 11 yrs. old twelve days before we moved.

That will be 57 yrs. ago, Sept. 30th, 2007.

Savoy, Texas is twelve miles east of Sherman. Twelve miles west of

Bonham, TX. We visited two different churches in Sherman back then,

although we were faithful to our home church that birthed both my dad

and mom back in the 30's. That is where I received the Holy Ghost, seven

years after moving to Wylie. We went back to a revival and my brother just

younger than myself, received the Holy Ghost on the last night. Just in time.

I was very young but I can picture Bro. W.E. Kidson, Bro, Eugene Garrett,

Bro. & Sis. Snow in my mind's eye right now!!

Incidentally, I spoke to Bro. Kidson's daughter that was married to Bro.

Gordon Magee (The smiling Irishman) a few years ago, She was living in

San Angelo, Tx. Of course, Bro. Magee is deceased.

I can remember a lot of things now that I couldn't remember while raising

our children, etc.,too much on my mind and like a computer, what's

stored there will remain there unless it is taken out. Your mind, also like a

computer, can become so overloaded, it might crash!!! LOL!!

Be renewed in the spirit of your mind. If we can be re-born, re-conciled,

re-vived, I am persuaded we can be RENEWED!! I know! I've have been re-

vived in my latter years. Not by works of righteousness lest any should

boast, but by HIS mercy He saved us by the washing of re-generation and

re-newing of the HOLY GHOST which He shed on us abundantly.

Sis. Nona Freeman said she had always heard that life begins at forty.

But she said for her, it began at sixty.

Bro. Strange, have we just begun to live??:shockamoo

Blessings,

Falla39

[Brother Strange]

You indeed have been renewed and revived too, sister. You are a live spark plug.

So, if life begins at 60, you and I are only 7 years old. Wow! Just snot nose young 'uns. I'm feeling better already. Now! What did I do with my geritol? :D

Well, I don't take that but I do have a regular regiment of Noni and Goji juice. It has really helped me.

Back to Bro. Kidson and Eugene Garrett. Brother Kidson was quite a business manager and publicist. Brother Garrett had a great healing ministry that saw many thousands of people healed in his meetings. He came to Houston and conducted a very large healing campaign for bro. Kidson. Brother Kidson became his campaign manager, scheduled him in different parts of the USA, in Apostolic Churches that immediately saw very large increases in attendance after the Campaign.

He learned his lesson well when he was a very new pastor around 1920 in Louisiana, Missouri. He had Mattie Crawford to come to his town but new he could not accomodate the crowd in his little church with only about 16 members. So, he rented a very large arena that seated thousands. He began publisizing the meetings with Sister Crawford. The crowds came. There not one seat left, not even standing room left. People were healed by the scores of many incurable diseases witnessed by the local people. Needless to say, his church immediately exploded in growth. He went from 16 to hundreds.

Sister, this made me to realize that we do not need to drop the standards to attract the crowds to this Apostolic, New Birth message. We just need the visiting power of God in our midst so that people can behold His glory, power and graciousness. I am convinced as always that the goodness of God leadeth men to repentance. God does not change. No sense in compromsing with the world for the sake of the crowds as so many are doing.

Then, he had Branham to come to his church in Houston. There are still people in Life Tabernacle that remember that glorious meeting. Bro. and sister Smith who are the head of the prison ministry of L.T. was saved in that meeting. Sister Smith, not quite aged, was healed of an incurable disease.

Bro. Kidson went on to manage the growing needs of the Branham meetings. Later Jack Moore of Shreveport, a UPC pastor assumed that obligation which he later shared with Gordon Lindsay of Dallas.

Is it any wonder that I both hunger, thirst and retch simultaneously?

[revrandy]

Try Superfudge....

It's great!! :D













by Beverly Clearly.... Sorry when I saw your title...that's what I thought you were reading!!! :D

[Felicity]

A lot of great information and history in that book!

[Steve Epley]

Eld. Epley,
Did you know Bro. L.R. Ooton from Medora (I think) Indiana?
Do you know if the organization he founded, the AMA, is still in existence?
I think Bishop Howard was in that organization.
Actually, I think Bishop Howard was in several organizations during his long life time.

I do remember Elder Ooten I preached for several AMA churches when I was young.

[Steve Epley]

I would like to have a copy of that book. I read it at someone´s house once but do not even remember when it was.

Me too.

[Barb]

A lot of great information and history in that book!

This is what I am finding out, sis...a lot of history and info I missed it seems.

[Praxeas]

Well I don't have a television and a guy has to do something for fun.:winkgrin
Yes and it helps to pass the time while standing in the check out line at the Quicky Mart

[Steve Epley]

I am enjoying the book.

[Esther]

A lot of great information and history in that book!

Hey, sis since you work for a bookstore, do you know right off where I can purchase that book?

[CC1]

Hey, sis since you work for a bookstore, do you know right off where I can purchase that book?

Amazon.com

I was hoping they might have some cheap used ones but they don't. It is still right at thirty bucks. I also checked ebay the other day and didn't see any.

[Felicity]

It's definitely worth $30.

[Felicity]

Hey, sis since you work for a bookstore, do you know right off where I can purchase that book?The bookstore chain I work for doesn't carry the book. I'm not sure it's been distributed to bookstores. You may have to just order it off a website. Not sure. It should be a part of your library sis. That's my opinion anyhow. :)

[Esther]

Thanks.

[Felicity]

Esther........

You can order it here (http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-without-Cross-Salvation-Pentecostalism/dp/1581125844) and here (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=1581125844) as well.

[JOYoftheLord]

Is that book mostly about Apostolic/Pentecostal pioneers?

Can someone tell me what OP stands for?

Thanks! :)

[Felicity]

Is that book mostly about Apostolic/Pentecostal pioneers?

Can someone tell me what OP stands for?

Thanks! :)One Pentecostals.

No, the book isn't just about the pioneers.

[JOYoftheLord]

One Pentecostals.

No, the book isn't just about the pioneers.

TY.....now can you tell me what the title of the book is?

also what else the book might entail?

[Steve Epley]

TY.....now can you tell me what the title of the book is?

also what else the book might entail?

It is about the merger of the PCI & PAJC to form the UPC and about the AS in the UPC.

[Sherri]

So, is it worth reading? Eddie has it and has read it, but it just seemed long and boring to me. I'm not a history buff like he is.

[CC1]

So, is it worth reading? Eddie has it and has read it, but it just seemed long and boring to me. I'm not a history buff like he is.

Some of it is very repetitious. I found I enjoyed reading it in small chunks.

[CC1]

One Pentecostals.

No, the book isn't just about the pioneers.

LOL!!! I think you meant OP stands for Oneness Pentecostals.

[Sam]

I fell asleep last night reading the autobiograph of W. E. Kidson. It was an interesting read. In it, he speaks of Eugene Garret (from Washington) a great deal. I wondered if Bro Garrett was still alive. Anyone know?

Bro. Kidson was one of the old timers.
My brother-in-law was a kid going to the UPC Bible School in Houston years ago and met Bro. Kidson. I think it was in a dusty old office that seemed like a time warp.

What is the title of the book?
and do you know if it is still available for sale some where?

[Old Paths]

I got my Tommy Fudge book FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Thanks again Elder.

[Brother Strange]

Bro. Kidson was one of the old timers.
My brother-in-law was a kid going to the UPC Bible School in Houston years ago and met Bro. Kidson. I think it was in a dusty old office that seemed like a time warp.

What is the title of the book?
and do you know if it is still available for sale some where?

I don't rememberr the name of the book and would look it up if I were at home. I will be back home this weekend and will answer that question. But, the book is out of print. I bought it many years ago in Houston in the used book section of the "Pentecostal Book Store," (now defunct) on East Tex Fwy.

Yes, brother Kidson had a Bilble School in Houston as well as a church too. His son-in-law, Gordon MaGhee later assumed pastorate of the church. The church is currently named "Elim Tabernacle." I'm not even sure if they are still oneness. I've found it amazing how things turn out in the end once the drift begins. It seems the drift has begun everywhere, even in places I thought never would do so.

A funny side note in regards to Bro. Gordon Magee, probably one of the most brilliant minds of Oneness theology in his day, also the author of "Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus," still widely circulated by the UPCI publishing house.

Bro. MaGhee, inspite of being a UPCI preacher and pastor, took his church on a picnic and swimming trip down to Galveston. Everyone went swimming in their own swim wear...brother and YIKES!!!!...sisters too!!! (YES, sister Gertrude Finkledorf's cellulite was fully exposed)

Word drifted back to brother Guidroz and the Dist. Board. Not willing to let it go, the Tex. Board called bro. MaGhee in to answer some question in regards to that days' activies, particularly about the great swimming event. He was asked if it was true that there was "mixed bathing," among the brothers and sisters? To this repeatedly asked question, he vehemently denied. No action was taken against him or his church.

Some times later, someone asked him how it was that he could deny the mixed bathing question. He said, "No problem. There was not even one bar of soap among us."

You would have to have known brother MaGhee to really appreciate this. He had a brilliant mind, quick wit and a sense of humor that would keep you rolling on the floor with his sense of humor.

[Brother Strange]

I gotta confess...

I don't have the book, never read the book, but if is about Christianity without the cross, why would I want to read it? I am already historically astute of the Pentecostal/Apostolic movement.

I am already well acquainted with the Affirmation or Loyalty Oath. I was there. I've written about it. Though in my writings I have been kind enough to not call it a document from hell as it surely is, but there can be no doubt how I feel. It is absolutely, without question, the most wicked thing that the UPCI has ever done while throwing men in a quandry that pitted their righteous conscience against a desire for fellowship and security that comes from fellowship of friends. Some decided to favor their conscience and convictions, many others have over rode their conscience and personal convictions, though in denial of it. Ultimately, it seems to me that this had the affect of making them less in character than they would have been had they stayed true to their conscience. Still others, probably the vast majority, had no scrupples one way or the other. This is unfortunate. It tells me that the spiritual sensitives are not where they should be. No wonder we are drifting.

[Felicity]

I hope there are more books written about the OP movement. I heard that there's a new book being written on the life of GT Haywood.

[Sam]

I

... Bro. Gordon Magee, probably one of the most brilliant minds of Oneness theology in his day, also the author of "Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus," still widely circulated by the UPCI publishing house.
...


I heard Bro. Gordon Magee when I was a student at the Apostolic Bible Institute in 1956/1957. Later after coming to Cincinnati I received a magazine from the group with which he was affiliated which was called The Churches of God of Ireland.I don't remember if the subscription expired or if the magazine was discontinued.

In 1957 there was an ad in the local paper for a meeting at "The Full Gospel Church" here in Cincinnati with Bro. Magee as the speaker. The Full Gospel Church was a split from Bro. Curts' church in 1945 so a young man from the family where I was staying called Bro. Curts and Bro. Magee was forced to cancel the preaching engagement.

When I was in St. Paul in 1956/1957 when Bro. Magee was there I heard a story which I don't know if it is true or not. I heard that Bro. Buie (A.T. Morgan's son-in-law) talked to Bro. Magee about the Oneness of God and the Jesus' name message. At that time Bro. Magee did not agree with what he was hearing. He is alleged to have told Bro. Buie, "You know,you ought to write a book about that. You could call it hooey by Buie." Later Bro. Magee became a proponent of the Oneness message.

Years ago, I read "Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?"

[Brother Strange]

I heard Bro. Gordon Magee when I was a student at the Apostolic Bible Institute in 1956/1957. Later after coming to Cincinnati I received a magazine from the group with which he was affiliated which was called The Churches of God of Ireland.I don't remember if the subscription expired or if the magazine was discontinued.

In 1957 there was an ad in the local paper for a meeting at "The Full Gospel Church" here in Cincinnati with Bro. Magee as the speaker. The Full Gospel Church was a split from Bro. Curts' church in 1945 so a young man from the family where I was staying called Bro. Curts and Bro. Magee was forced to cancel the preaching engagement.

When I was in St. Paul in 1956/1957 when Bro. Magee was there I heard a story which I don't know if it is true or not. I heard that Bro. Buie (A.T. Morgan's son-in-law) talked to Bro. Magee about the Oneness of God and the Jesus' name message. At that time Bro. Magee did not agree with what he was hearing. He is alleged to have told Bro. Buie, "You know,you ought to write a book about that. You could call it hooey by Buie." Later Bro. Magee became a proponent of the Oneness message.

Years ago, I read "Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?"

:killinme

"Hooey by Buie." Sounds just like something that this quick witted man would say.

G.A. Mangun gave me a 9 hour series of reel to reel tapes of a debate between him and a church of Christ preacher by the name of Totter if I rightly recall. His wit, brilliance and sound doctrine on the oneness of the Godhead came through marvelously. Bro. N. A. Urshan who was the moderator of that debate gave the tape to Bro. Mangun. I lost it. He has not loaned me a tape since... :winkgrin He just never took to those kind of jokes too well. Anyway, he got another set from Bro. Urshan.

[Steve Epley]

:killinme

"Hooey by Buie." Sounds just like something that this quick witted man would say.

G.A. Mangun gave me a 9 hour series of reel to reel tapes of a debate between him and a church of Christ preacher by the name of Totter if I rightly recall. His wit, brilliance and sound doctrine on the oneness of the Godhead came through marvelously. Bro. N. A. Urshan who was the moderator of that debate gave the tape to Bro. Mangun. I lost it. He has not loaned me a tape since... :winkgrin He just never took to those kind of jokes too well. Anyway, he got another set from Bro. Urshan.

The Toddy & Magee debate is still available through Elder Tingle from Madisonville.

[Barb]

I did not know that Agnes Ozman renounced her Upper Room experience.

Interesting...

[Chewy]

I would venture a guess that a majority of the majority (much greater than just 51%) of Apostolics know anything about the history of the movement, much less care about it.

It has been said that the victors write the history books, therefore which perspective is truth? There is a version from the organization/movement side, and there is a version from those who have left the movement and are strongly on the academic side, and there are those who are simply bitter and don't mind trashing the whole thing.

I know for a fact that J.L. has, in the past, embellished the history of the movement in order to maintain its legacy of posessing truth.

Fudge? I think because of his academic background, he has written the closest work. Boyd? :slaphappy

Can a work be written sans propaganda? Yea, but I can't imagine where it would come from.

[Steve Epley]

I would venture a guess that a majority of the majority (much greater than just 51%) of Apostolics know anything about the history of the movement, much less care about it.

It has been said that the victors write the history books, therefore which perspective is truth? There is a version from the organization/movement side, and there is a version from those who have left the movement and are strongly on the academic side, and there are those who are simply bitter and don't mind trashing the whole thing.

I know for a fact that J.L. has, in the past, embellished the history of the movement in order to maintain its legacy of posessing truth.

Fudge? I think because of his academic background, he has written the closest work. Boyd? :slaphappy

Can a work be written sans propaganda? Yea, but I can't imagine where it would come from.

This problem I see with Fudges' book is many things are assummptions that are unprovable either way. Like the percentage of PCI men who believed saved at repentance though he has no idea he quotes men who say both ways and then comes up with his own conclusion that he wants. Many of the PCI leaders believers believed salvation at repentance but some did not and the constituent body was diverse as the PAJC was also diverse not as much but was certainly diverse. His bias is clearly seen yet he plummets the official UPC response as bias. But it is a very interesting book indeed I am enjoying rereading it.

[Light]

It doesnt matter what Fudge or any one else write about the history of Pentecost. They can say what they want, tell stories and so on, it matters little.
There has NEVER been a time in history that there hasn't been a Acts 2:38 preacher preaching this wonderful 3 step message. From the day of Pentecost to this very day.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[crakjak]

Bro. Kidson was one of the old timers.
My brother-in-law was a kid going to the UPC Bible School in Houston years ago and met Bro. Kidson. I think it was in a dusty old office that seemed like a time warp.

What is the title of the book?
and do you know if it is still available for sale some where?

I recognize that office, I attended that same Bible College, I think.:winkgrin

[Barb]

There has NEVER been a time in history that there hasn't been a Acts 2:38 preacher preaching...From the day of Pentecost to this very day.



This was a point I questioned in my own mind this morning as I was reading. I have a book by Bro. Arnold which clearly shows a remnant through every century.

Of course, giving Bro. Fudge the benefit of the doubt, he may not have had this info, therefore I will not judge him harshly.

[Barb]

I would venture a guess that a majority of the majority (much greater than just 51%) of Apostolics know anything about the history of the movement, much less care about it.

It has been said that the victors write the history books, therefore which perspective is truth? There is a version from the organization/movement side, and there is a version from those who have left the movement and are strongly on the academic side, and there are those who are simply bitter and don't mind trashing the whole thing.

I know for a fact that J.L. has, in the past, embellished the history of the movement in order to maintain its legacy of posessing truth.

Fudge? I think because of his academic background, he has written the closest work. Boyd? :slaphappy

Can a work be written sans propaganda? Yea, but I can't imagine where it would come from.I would GLADLY do it if I had all the facts...:(

[Steve Epley]

This was a point I questioned in my own mind this morning as I was reading. I have a book by Bro. Arnold which clearly shows a remnant through every century.

Of course, giving Bro. Fudge the benefit of the doubt, he may not have had this info, therefore I will not judge him harshly.

Fudge's book is not about that it concerns the PCI influence in the UPC that he feels has been ignored AND the AS letter that he attacks. Of course he is Anglican but his roots are in NB his father went to a UPC church that I think was of PIC influence.

[mizpeh]

This was a point I questioned in my own mind this morning as I was reading. I have a book by Bro. Arnold which clearly shows a remnant through every century.

Of course, giving Bro. Fudge the benefit of the doubt, he may not have had this info, therefore I will not judge him harshly.

Barb,

What is the name of the book by Bro Arnold? I'd like to read it.

[SDG]

It doesnt matter what Fudge or any one else write about the history of Pentecost. They can say what they want, tell stories and so on, it matters little.
There has NEVER been a time in history that there hasn't been a Acts 2:38 preacher preaching this wonderful 3 step message. From the day of Pentecost to this very day.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Hardy ... har ... har ... talk about propaganda.

[Felicity]

It's interesting that I read the book through the first time never thinking about motive or agenda. But then after that point was made over and over and drilled into my head a million times and I went back and reviewed parts of the book then I could see that there might have been some bias. :)

Regardless, the book is valuable! Very! I don't know if a book recording the OP movement could be written without some sort of bias on the part of the author but regardless I wish there were more written and hope there will be.

[Steve Epley]

It's interesting that I read the book through the first time never thinking about motive or agenda. But then after that point was made over and over and drilled into my head a million times and I went back and reviewed parts of the book then I could see that there might have been some bias. :)

Regardless, the book is valuable! Very! I don't know if a book recording the OP movement could be written without some sort of bias on the part of the author but regardless I wish there were more written and hope there will be.

I think it is a good book from that perspective that is needed. I bought about 25 of them and gave them away. My only regret was he was getting some money from them but you can have everything your way.:winkgrin EF said he knew him as a young man and knew his family. He really enjoyed the book since it has much to do with the Atlantic district where he group up he knew all the men mentioned there.

[Sam]

It's interesting that I read the book through the first time never thinking about motive or agenda. But then after that point was made over and over and drilled into my head a million times and I went back and reviewed parts of the book then I could see that there might have been some bias. :)

Regardless, the book is valuable! Very! I don't know if a book recording the OP movement could be written without some sort of bias on the part of the author but regardless I wish there were more written and hope there will be.

One thing about the book that impressed me was that what we call the "One-step" plan of salvation was (and still is in my opinion) a valid belief among those who call themselves Oneness Pentecostal or Apostolic. Many (we really don't know the actual number) ministers, preachers, and teachers (including officials of the UPC) believed and taught that a person is saved/justified/born again prior to water baptism and Spirit baptism. This was also taught in some UPC Bible Schools and was a valid viewpoint to be expressed in the Pentecostal Herald. Not all Apostolics are "three-steppers." Some are "one-steppers."

[Steve Epley]

:winkgrinOne thing about the book that impressed me was that what we call the "One-step" plan of salvation was (and still is in my opinion) a valid belief among those who call themselves Oneness Pentecostal or Apostolic. Many (we really don't know the actual number) ministers, preachers, and teachers (including officials of the UPC) believed and taught that a person is saved/justified/born again prior to water baptism and Spirit baptism. This was also taught in some UPC Bible Schools and was a valid viewpoint to be expressed in the Pentecostal Herald. Not all Apostolics are "three-steppers." Some are "one-steppers."

And some "out-of-steppers!":winkgrin

[Sam]

I think the only folks I've heard use the terms "three-stepper" and "one-stepper" were folks on these forums. To your knowledge, have those terms ever been in general use among Apostolics?

[Sam]

:winkgrin

And some "out-of-steppers!":winkgrin

Now, Elder, I think there are or have been some folks you thought highly of who were what we would call "one-steppers." Would you care to name some of them?

[Steve Epley]

I think the only folks I've heard use the terms "three-stepper" and "one-stepper" were folks on these forums. To your knowledge, have those terms ever been in general use among Apostolics?

NOPE I have never heard that. I did see in a tract once three-steps. I didn't believe it then and don't now. I believe there are 3 ingredients to the NT salvation NOT step per se.

[Barb]

Barb,

What is the name of the book by Bro Arnold? I'd like to read it.

Apostolic History Outline by Bro. Marvin Arnold...not sure if they are still available at this site, by they used to have them on the ALJC website.

[Barb]

I think the only folks I've heard use the terms "three-stepper" and "one-stepper" were folks on these forums. To your knowledge, have those terms ever been in general use among Apostolics?

Not that I ever heard of...:IAM

[Sam]

Now, Elder, I think there are or have been some folks you thought highly of who were what we would call "one-steppers." Would you care to name some of them?

Bump for Bro. Epley

[Steve Epley]

Bump for Bro. Epley

Sam in the country I was raised there were PCI roots however a great number of folks did believe a person was saved at repentance and that baptism did not remit sin and the Holy Ghost was extra power but not essential. I fussed with them as a boy then fought them as a young preacher.Everyone had a relative or friend that was saved without obeying the gospel I NEVER believed that. I just thought most of them were good folks but ignorant. Many were illiterate.

[Adino]

....There has NEVER been a time in history that there hasn't been a Acts 2:38 preacher preaching this wonderful 3 step message. From the day of Pentecost to this very day.
This is simply not true. I grew up under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. There was no one who had a greater passion to prove what you just offered to be true. He failed to find even a single witness, prior to preachers of the 20th century, who taught the water and spirit interpretation of the new birth as it is taught today in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Haywood, Ewart and others knew they were preaching something brand new and readily admitted this in their writings. In fact, Haywood's "progressive light doctrine" and Urshan's "kingdom of heaven vs kingdom of God" teaching were were developed to support the "newly revealed" position on salvation.

Please give us the proof of your statement. Thanks.

[Felicity]

Hey there Adino! :waving

[Sam]

:winkgrin

And some "out-of-steppers!":winkgrin

And, Bro. Epley, over the years there have been "one-steppers" that you have highly respected.

[crakjak]

Sam in the country I was raised there were PCI roots however a great number of folks did believe a person was saved at repentance and that baptism did not remit sin and the Holy Ghost was extra power but not essential. I fussed with them as a boy then fought them as a young preacher.Everyone had a relative or friend that was saved without obeying the gospel I NEVER believed that. I just thought most of them were good folks but ignorant. Many were illiterate.

Let's not credit ignorance and illiteracy to being one steppers, the two are not necessarily synonymous. Just as the with the ignorant and illiterate three steppers, doesn't make them one and the same.

[Light]

This is simply not true. I grew up under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. There was no one who had a greater passion to prove what you just offered to be true. He failed to find even a single witness, prior to preachers of the 20th century, who taught the water and spirit interpretation of the new birth as it is taught today in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Haywood, Ewart and others knew they were preaching something brand new and readily admitted this in their writings. In fact, Haywood's "progressive light doctrine" and Urshan's "kingdom of heaven vs kingdom of God" teaching were were developed to support the "newly revealed" position on salvation.

Please give us the proof of your statement. Thanks.

I use the bible as proof.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If there was a time after the day of Pentecost that the truth was void on this earth, then hell prevailed.
Read Rev. Thomas Weissers books.

[Adino]

Hey there Adino! :wavingHello, Felicity! :tiphat

Hope all is well with you and the gang. Everyone here is well. My girls just turned 17 and 13.... yikes!!! Lori's a senior in high school this year.... Mahala (Haley) is now in 8th grade. Julie and I have a 20th wedding anniversary coming up in a couple of days on the 12th.

Don't post nearly as much as I used to... too many things on the plate lately. The Lord is certainly good. Great to see you.

[SDG]

This is simply not true. I grew up under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. There was no one who had a greater passion to prove what you just offered to be true. He failed to find even a single witness, prior to preachers of the 20th century, who taught the water and spirit interpretation of the new birth as it is taught today in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Haywood, Ewart and others knew they were preaching something brand new and readily admitted this in their writings. In fact, Haywood's "progressive light doctrine" and Urshan's "kingdom of heaven vs kingdom of God" teaching were were developed to support the "newly revealed" position on salvation.

Please give us the proof of your statement. Thanks.

MMM ....absolutely ... in another thread ... BD tried to assert that William Penn was Oneness ... only to find out he and many Early Quakers didn't practice water baptism among themselves ... let alone be be baptized in Jesus name ....

This "remnant history" is a blatant falsehood.

[Bishop1]

What About The Hugenots ?

[SDG]

What About The Hugenots ?

Are you suggesting that French Calvinists believed like today's OPs ... NOT.

[Adino]

I use the bible as proof.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If there was a time after the day of Pentecost that the truth was void on this earth, then hell prevailed.
Read Rev. Thomas Weissers books. The point is that your interpretation of the new birth does not have a single historical witness. I can easily give you alternative interpretations of all the core passages you would use as prooftext to support the water/spirit new birth position. There is far more proof that the Apostles held to these alternative views than there is for the newly concocted water/spirit position.

It cannot be proven that anyone in history ever interpreted the new birth in Scripture as do those who hold to the water/spirit new birth doctrine. We can see the development of the doctrine in the writings of Ewart, Haywood, Urshan and a few others. To say the apostles held the interpretive position of these who admitted a new revelation from heaven in the early 20th century demands an extreme dose of wishful thinking.

No one has ever supplied a single witness who has held the new birth doctrine as was newly revealed to early 20th Oneness Pentecostal preachers. Light, with all due respect, you need to come to terms with the actual history.

[SDG]

I use the bible as proof.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If there was a time after the day of Pentecost that the truth was void on this earth, then hell prevailed.
Read Rev. Thomas Weissers books.



Herein lies your dilemma ... you believe the bible teaches the Church would prevail .... throughout ....

and claim that Acts 2:38 as you interpret has been preached and practiced in every generation

and the Church is the Church if they adapt the W&S PAJC view of salvation ...

but there are no examples until this century ...

Either the Church doesn't fit your definition .... or your doctrine re-appeared after years of apostasy ... kinda like the Mormons say.

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

This remnant "Oneness preservation throughout history" doctrine is extremely flawed ... especially since most traditional Oneness believers tout a 3 step process to salvation ... REPENTANCE, WATER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST W/ EVIDENCE IN SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES as requisites to be FULLY SAVED and RAPTURE READY ... as the truth to obeying the Gospel

Some have made a futile effort to align today's Oneness movement w/ various individuals, who may have or may have not, held similar views to today's Oneness movement.

One problem w/ this approach is that some of these "Oneness" individuals held heretical views regarding the Godhead and other issues that would not be accepted or tolerated by either Oneness or Trinitarian believers today.

Others are equated to being Oneness believers ... with the suggestion that God has preserved his Truth through the generations through these men and those that followed them ... yet apparently THE CHURCH varied wildly on their views on salvation? .... can't be ... either they had THE TRUTH OR DIDN'T. EITHER THAT TRUTH SAVED THEM OR DIDN'T ....

For example, BD presents William Penn as a Oneness adherent ... therefore we are to believe he was in THE TRUTH [albeit as perceived by PAJC Oneness believers]...

REALLY?

Early Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, did not practice water baptism AT ALL... let alone did a baptizer utter the proper name of Jesus over a believer for the remission of sins ....

which means they weren't saved as many OPs would define saved .... and of course we know they didn't all speak in tongues ... although some believe they did.

Wiki states:
----------------------------------------

Early Friends did not believe in the reliance upon practice of the outward rites and sacraments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament), believing that holiness can exist in all the activities of one's life—all of life is sacred. They experienced baptism by the Holy Spirit as an inward, transforming experience and knew communion with Christ in the midst of gathered worship in the expectant silence. Thus they did not perform baptism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism) as a rite of membership. These Friends also believed that any meal with others could be a form of communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_%28Christianity%29).


At various times some individuals or small groups of Friends have published corrective cautions against adopting the prohibition of some rite as itself being creedal. The focus should be upon God as Present Teacher, rather than on some human ritual, or the absence of a ritual. Most Friends therefore do not prohibit rites or ceremonies, but they do counsel against allowing these human inventions to take the place of direct experience and leading by God.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends)
--------------------------------------------

Here are William Penn's own words on Water Baptism:

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

Perversion 14: The Quakers deny the two great sacraments or ordinances of the Gospel, Baptism and the Supper.

Principle: Whatever is truly a Gospel ordinance, they desire to own and practice. But they observe no such language in the Scriptures as in the reflection. They do confess the practice of John's baptism and the Supper is to be found there; but practice only is no institution, nor a sufficient reason for continuation. That they were then proper, they believe, when the mysteries lay yet couched in figures and shadows. But it is their belief that no figures or signs are perpetual or of institution under the Gospel administration, when Christ, Who is the Substance of them, is come.

It were to overthrow the whole Gospel dispensation, and to make the coming of Christ of no effect, to render signs and figures of the nature of the Gospel, which is inward, spiritual and eternal. If it be said, but they were used after the coming of Christ, and His ascension too: they answer, so were many Jewish ceremonies. It is sufficient to them that water baptism was John's, and not Christ's; that Jesus never used it; that it was no part of Paul's commission, which if it were evangelical and of duration, it certainly would have been; that there is but one baptism, as well as one faith, and one Lord; and that baptism ought to be of the same nature with the kingdom of which it is an ordinance, and that is spiritual The same holds also as to the supper, both alluding to old Jewish practices, and used as a signification of a near and accomplishing work, namely, the Substance they represented.
If any say, but Christ commanded that one of them should continue in remembrance of Him, which the apostle to the Church of Corinth explains thus: that thereby they do show forth the Lord's death till He comes. We allege that He said so. told His disciples also He would come to them again; that some should not taste death till they saw Him coming in the kingdom: and that He Who dwelleth with them, should be in them; and that He would drink no more of this fruit till He should drink it anew with them in the kingdom of God, which is within. He was the heavenly bread that they had not yet known, nor His flesh and blood as they were to know them. So that though Christ came to end all signs, yet till He was known as the Great Bread of life from heaven, signs had their service to show forth in remembrance of Christ. Paul says expressly of the Jewish observations, that they were shadows of the good things to come, but the Substance was of Christ.


Hence it is that the Quakers cannot be said to deny them, but they, truly feeling in themselves the very thing which the outward water, bread and wine signify, leave them off, as fulfilled in Christ, Who is in them the hope of their glory, and henceforth they have but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one bread, and one cup of blessing, and that is of the kingdom of God, which is within.

http://www.tractassociation.org/AKey.html#SEC10

[SDG]

Light does Thomas Weisser offer one example that parallels today's OP PAJC theology? Please share it.

[seguidordejesus]

I'd be interested, too. TW came close to being the pastor of a church I used to attend. Knowledgeable guy.

[Adino]

The late church historian, Rev. Marvin M. Arnold who wrote, "The Origin and Spread of Man," "History of the Christian Church," "Nicaea and the Nicene Council of AD 325," "Pentecost (Acts 2:38 in America) Before Azusa," "Apostolic History Outline" and "The Bible Trinity and Matthew 28:19" could not find a single witness to the current water/spirit interpretation. If someone else has succeeded where he failed, please show us the historical evidence. Thank you.

[pelathais]

I use the bible as proof.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If there was a time after the day of Pentecost that the truth was void on this earth, then hell prevailed.
Read Rev. Thomas Weissers books.


Light, since there is no evidence to support the idea that OP existed throughout history, the burden of proof is on you to make your case. And believe me, most people here would be inclined to accept any evidence presented.

It's just that most have bought into your understanding of Matthew 16:18 at one time or another, thinking that the evidence would be forthcoming. Needless to say, we were badly disappointed. Of course there are some who still hold on to the hope that the evidence will suddenly turn up. A careful investigation of history however, reveals that this hope is only imagined. And that, even though they were terrible persecutions and destruction of records, nothing resembling our OP practice of the faith existed from the late Apostolic era until it began to develop in the late 1800's in North America.

We've all had to rethink our understanding of Matthew 16:18 or, as many have sadly done, abandon the faith altogether. I would encourage you to have confidence in the Bible, but to be flexible when it comes to the traditions of men.

[Barb]

The late church historian, Rev. Marvin M. Arnold who wrote, "The Origin and Spread of Man," "History of the Christian Church," "Nicaea and the Nicene Council of AD 325," "Pentecost (Acts 2:38 in America) Before Azusa," "Apostolic History Outline" and "The Bible Trinity and Matthew 28:19" could not find a single witness to the current water/spirit interpretation. If someone else has succeeded where he failed, please show us the historical evidence. Thank you.

Respectfully, I have Apostolic History Outline and have read it through many times.

As I told someone last night, I may not be the brightest bulb in this chandelier, but I thought Bro. A showed that there was a continuation down through every century.

[pelathais]

Respectfully, I have Apostolic History Outline and have read it through many times.

As I told someone last night, I may not be the brightest bulb in this chandelier, but I thought Bro. A showed that there was a continuation down through every century.
He presented that case at one time, however most have rejected it. I remember at the Oneness Symposiums they used to have there was a general consensus among those assembled that you should not cite dear Bro. Arnold's work.

[Barb]

He presented that case at one time, however most have rejected it. I remember at the Oneness Symposiums they used to have there was a general consensus among those assembled that you should not cite dear Bro. Arnold's work.

Really?! I am surprised and am interested as to why this is so...I mean why they came to these conclusions when it was so strongly written.

[Adino]

Respectfully, I have Apostolic History Outline and have read it through many times.

As I told someone last night, I may not be the brightest bulb in this chandelier, but I thought Bro. A showed that there was a continuation down through every century.Hello, Barb. I began sitting under Marvin Arnold around 1968-69. I stayed in the church he founded in Utica, Michigan until about 1995 without interruption. In fact, I proofread some of his work.

While Marvin Arnold was able to find traces throughout history (some highly questionable at times) of certain doctrinal distinctives used in the development of the water/spirit new birth position, he was never able to find the water/spirit doctrine as it is presented today.

Marvin Arnold saw the shortcomings of the "progressively revealed light" theory taught by early Oneness pioneers like G.T. Haywood and Frank Ewart. This theory taught that God chose to progressively disperse varying degrees of spiritual understanding during seven dispensational periods of human history. Haywood believed the newly revealed truth given to 20th century Oneness pioneers was the climax of this dispensational dispersion of spiritual light from heaven.

Haywood states, "Very few will agree with us on this subject at the first, but if they will lay aside the doctrine of men, and for a moment remove their thoughts from the abnormal state of the present day Christianity, they will find no trouble in grasping the truth AS IT IS NOW REVEALED to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation."Frank Ewart said it this way:"He [God] first gave the true light to a few, and then signally expressed His approval by a startling revival through the instrumentality OF THE NEW TEACHING."

Marvin Arnold rejected the idea that initial doctrinal tenets disappeared for nearly 2000 years and that newly revealed knowledge from heaven brought about a restoration of the true first century Apostolic church with its original doctrinal nuances in 20th century America. He held fast to the idea that God had a perpetually existing witness throughout the ages and that the true Apostolic church, with its original doctrinal tenets, never died.

His passionate mission was to prove this continuity by tracing through the historical record what he believed to be the doctrinal earmarks of the 1st century Apostolic church. Ironically, he might have succeeded had he not adopted Haywood and Urshan's conclusions on the new birth. But, because he too accepted the "three step" progressive new birth position, which was their legacy to Oneness Pentecostalism, he failed to find a single witness in history who taught repentance and faith, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and Spirit filling evidenced by speaking in tongues as necessary doctrinal components which together constituted the saving new birth.

Yes, he did find throughout the ages adherents to anti-Trinitarian theology holding views of the nature of God similar to views held by early Oneness pioneers (Though other historians agree that some, if not many, of his examples were a bit of a reach and contrived).

Yes, he did find people who baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by full immersion (Yet it must be conceded that Trinitarians did this as well. In fact, the sermon on water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which prompted Frank Ewart to more deeply study the nature of God was preached by R. E. McAlister, a Trinitarian man, hoping to head off the growing heresy of requiring people to be dipped three times at baptism).

Yes, he did find historical witness of groups who spoke in other tongues and experienced other Spirit manifestations in their Christian walk. He even found historical examples of people who combined two or more of these doctrinal distinctives found in modern Oneness Pentecostalism.

So, again, how did he fail? He failed just as all others who made the attempt have failed. Marvin Arnold was never able to provide historical witness prior to G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan of anyone ever teaching that man must repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and be Spirit filled with the evidence of speaking in tongues in order to be saved. The record of history shows these doctrinal tenets were not connected as components of the new birth until Haywood and Urshan began teaching their newly revealed doctrine from heaven.

Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, G.T. Haywood, Andrew Urshan and others of their time greatly influenced current Oneness Pentecostal soteriology. Their writings show a progressive development in their thinking concerning the new birth.

Frank Ewart began to redefine the new birth by rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's imputed righteousness at conversion and by demanding a secondary experience of the Spirit which he called "the vital side of redemption" because he believed all men were "born of Satan." He also strongly promoted the "new issue" which forced a split from those who went on to form the Assemblies of God in early American Pentecostalism.

Glenn Cook, the man who baptized Ewart and Haywood, had been raised under the influence of men who followed the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Campbellites stressed baptismal sin remission rather than justification by faith alone by disregarding very plausible and grammatically sound alternative interpretations of Acts 2:38.

G.T. Haywood, under the influence of Ewart and Cook turned his back on his initial thoughts penned in 1914 that "as soon as we believe, they [our sins] become as white as snow." He ultimately arrived at a mistaken view of the new birth when he tried to repair a misuse of the terms "baptism of the Spirit" and "birth of the Spirit" in American Pentecostalism. In his noble attempt he erroneously drew speaking in tongues into the conversion experience and began to promote the new "walking in the light" theory of dispensational salvation.

Andrew Urshan did his best to explain the whole mess and came up with the "kingdom of God" VS "kingdom of heaven" controversy.

Does the absence of a historical witness and the questionable beginnings of the "three step" view in America prove it to be wrong? No, it does not, I believe an objective look at Scripture does this, but any serious study on the issue should begin with a proper understanding of this view’s heritage.

[Barb]

Thank you, Adino, for taking the time to post with such depth.

You must realize that I am of the water/Spirit/PAJC persuasion, thus have a hard time not holding to the belief that the continuity of the Church had to have been maintained down through the ages.

However, you have given me much to ponder. As it has been a long day, I will have to return to this in the morning, but be assured that the question girl will return.

[Felicity]

Hello, Felicity! :tiphat

Hope all is well with you and the gang. Everyone here is well. My girls just turned 17 and 13.... yikes!!! Lori's a senior in high school this year.... Mahala (Haley) is now in 8th grade. Julie and I have a 20th wedding anniversary coming up in a couple of days on the 12th.

Don't post nearly as much as I used to... too many things on the plate lately. The Lord is certainly good. Great to see you. Wow! Lori's 17! Hard to believe! Time goes by so fast!

My oldest grandson is 11 now and my granddaughter (the youngest) just turned 8 on the 4th. Her daddy turned 33 on the 3rd and today is our 34th anniversary.

You always have lots going on! :)

[pelathais]

...
I would like to add my "thanks" as well Adino. Please post any other treatments that you have as time permits. Thanks again.

[crakjak]

Hello, Barb. I began sitting under Marvin Arnold around 1968-69. I stayed in the church he founded in Utica, Michigan until about 1995 without interruption. In fact, I proofread some of his work.

While Marvin Arnold was able to find traces throughout history (some highly questionable at times) of certain doctrinal distinctives used in the development of the water/spirit new birth position, he was never able to find the water/spirit doctrine as it is presented today.

Marvin Arnold saw the shortcomings of the "progressively revealed light" theory taught by early Oneness pioneers like G.T. Haywood and Frank Ewart. This theory taught that God chose to progressively disperse varying degrees of spiritual understanding during seven dispensational periods of human history. Haywood believed the newly revealed truth given to 20th century Oneness pioneers was the climax of this dispensational dispersion of spiritual light from heaven.

Haywood states, "Very few will agree with us on this subject at the first, but if they will lay aside the doctrine of men, and for a moment remove their thoughts from the abnormal state of the present day Christianity, they will find no trouble in grasping the truth AS IT IS NOW REVEALED to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation."Frank Ewart said it this way:"He [God] first gave the true light to a few, and then signally expressed His approval by a startling revival through the instrumentality OF THE NEW TEACHING."

Marvin Arnold rejected the idea that initial doctrinal tenets disappeared for nearly 2000 years and that newly revealed knowledge from heaven brought about a restoration of the true first century Apostolic church with its original doctrinal nuances in 20th century America. He held fast to the idea that God had a perpetually existing witness throughout the ages and that the true Apostolic church, with its original doctrinal tenets, never died.

His passionate mission was to prove this continuity by tracing through the historical record what he believed to be the doctrinal earmarks of the 1st century Apostolic church. Ironically, he might have succeeded had he not adopted Haywood and Urshan's conclusions on the new birth. But, because he too accepted the "three step" progressive new birth position, which was their legacy to Oneness Pentecostalism, he failed to find a single witness in history who taught repentance and faith, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and Spirit filling evidenced by speaking in tongues as necessary doctrinal components which together constituted the saving new birth.

Yes, he did find throughout the ages adherents to anti-Trinitarian theology holding views of the nature of God similar to views held by early Oneness pioneers (Though other historians agree that some, if not many, of his examples were a bit of a reach and contrived).

Yes, he did find people who baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by full immersion (Yet it must be conceded that Trinitarians did this as well. In fact, the sermon on water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which prompted Frank Ewart to more deeply study the nature of God was preached by R. E. McAlister, a Trinitarian man, hoping to head off the growing heresy of requiring people to be dipped three times at baptism).

Yes, he did find historical witness of groups who spoke in other tongues and experienced other Spirit manifestations in their Christian walk. He even found historical examples of people who combined two or more of these doctrinal distinctives found in modern Oneness Pentecostalism.

So, again, how did he fail? He failed just as all others who made the attempt have failed. Marvin Arnold was never able to provide historical witness prior to G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan of anyone ever teaching that man must repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and be Spirit filled with the evidence of speaking in tongues in order to be saved. The record of history shows these doctrinal tenets were not connected as components of the new birth until Haywood and Urshan began teaching their newly revealed doctrine from heaven.

Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, G.T. Haywood, Andrew Urshan and others of their time greatly influenced current Oneness Pentecostal soteriology. Their writings show a progressive development in their thinking concerning the new birth.

Frank Ewart began to redefine the new birth by rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's imputed righteousness at conversion and by demanding a secondary experience of the Spirit which he called "the vital side of redemption" because he believed all men were "born of Satan." He also strongly promoted the "new issue" which forced a split from those who went on to form the Assemblies of God in early American Pentecostalism.

Glenn Cook, the man who baptized Ewart and Haywood, had been raised under the influence of men who followed the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Campbellites stressed baptismal sin remission rather than justification by faith alone by disregarding very plausible and grammatically sound alternative interpretations of Acts 2:38.

G.T. Haywood, under the influence of Ewart and Cook turned his back on his initial thoughts penned in 1914 that "as soon as we believe, they [our sins] become as white as snow." He ultimately arrived at a mistaken view of the new birth when he tried to repair a misuse of the terms "baptism of the Spirit" and "birth of the Spirit" in American Pentecostalism. In his noble attempt he erroneously drew speaking in tongues into the conversion experience and began to promote the new "walking in the light" theory of dispensational salvation.

Andrew Urshan did his best to explain the whole mess and came up with the "kingdom of God" VS "kingdom of heaven" controversy.

Does the absence of a historical witness and the questionable beginnings of the "three step" view in America prove it to be wrong? No, it does not, I believe an objective look at Scripture does this, but any serious study on the issue should begin with a proper understanding of this view’s heritage.

Very interesting presentation, that very few southern PAJCers have ever heard, much less considered. Thank you.

[commonsense]

I need to read it through. I've scanned it front to back but I need to actually read it for the historical research.
I was surprised at how many of the quoted ministers that I knew; as in had met, spoken to etc.

Looks like I need to find our copy of Thomas Weisser's book also. It has a timeline showing the continuous oneness believer. :angelsad You mean I can't believe everything I read?

[pelathais]

I need to read it through. I've scanned it front to back but I need to actually read it for the historical research.
I was surprised at how many of the quoted ministers that I knew; as in had met, spoken to etc.

Looks like I need to find our copy of Thomas Weisser's book also. It has a timeline showing the continuous oneness believer. :angelsad You mean I can't believe everything I read?
I no longer have Weisser's, Arnold's or Chalfant's books available to me. All three writers are known for having published various timelines where they purported to show the unbroken existence of the "water/Spirit" or "3 Stepper Plan." Of the three I have met Arnold and Chalfant.

I do remember one occasion at a Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism where Chalfant was challenged about his writings and he responded with real earnest that he was deliberately following a strategy that he called "extrapolation." That is, he felt that the standard historical sources were unreliable even in their description of the "heretics" own message. Therefore, using Matthew 16:18 as his guide he assumed that anyone being persecuted by religious authorities throughout history must have been practicing Acts 2:38 salvation.

This kind of thinking leads to our people making statements like the following (http://godsguarantees.com/church_history.pdf):

"The slander and religionists smearing of the ApostolicChurch is the way investigators were able to discover the true church during each century. All that researchers had to do was look at those groups that the Catholic Church were against. Who and what were these HERETICS? They were surprised to find that almost all of them were Jesus Name Pentecostals. These so called Heretics used many organizational names, throughout the centuries as we will discover in this study. Such names as Donatist, Samosatene, Celtic Christianity, Albigensians, Anabaptist, Cathari[,] Mani, Noetus, Priscillianism, Sabellians, are just a few of the Jesus Name Organizations that have been alive and well since the Day of Pentecost."

The last three groups or individuals did appear to practice a "Oneness" type of theology, but their soteriology probably differed. But sprinkling them in among the others is just bad scholarship. They don't belong together, they're entirely different types of beliefs.

We in fact have the actual documents created by many of these groups. Donatist, Albigensians (whose elite were called the Cathari) and Anabaptists. They clearly did not identify themselves with "Sabellianism" or any such teachings. The Albigensians were Gnostic dualists. They rejected the Trinity because they felt that the god who created the material world was evil. That was why Jesus Christ was "manifest" (not born). The immaterial Christ (sort of like 'heavenly flesh') prepared a way for those with the hidden knowledge (Gr. gnosis) to escape the designs of the "evil" Jehovah. This is clearly Gnosticism and not anything even close to Oneness theology.

[Barb]

Marvin Arnold rejected the idea that initial doctrinal tenets disappeared for nearly 2000 years and that newly revealed knowledge from heaven brought about a restoration of the true first century Apostolic church with its original doctrinal nuances in 20th century America. He held fast to the idea that God had a perpetually existing witness throughout the ages and that the true Apostolic church, with its original doctrinal tenets, never died.

His passionate mission was to prove this continuity by tracing through the historical record what he believed to be the doctrinal earmarks of the 1st century Apostolic church. Ironically, he might have succeeded had he not adopted Haywood and Urshan's conclusions on the new birth. But, because he too accepted the "three step" progressive new birth position, which was their legacy to Oneness Pentecostalism, he failed to find a single witness in history who taught repentance and faith, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and Spirit filling evidenced by speaking in tongues as necessary doctrinal components which together constituted the saving new birth.

Excuse my ignorance or inability to understand you...are you saying that MMA was not always of the PAJC view?!

[Adino]

Excuse my ignorance or inability to understand you...are you saying that MMA was not always of the PAJC view?!Oh, yes, he was most certainly of the "water/spirit" new birth view. This was driven into me with the force of an axe and two .38's :rolleyes2

Marvin Arnold received his doctrinal position from his pastor, the daughter of a Mr. James Craigen, who was a reporter in California covering the Azusa street revival of 1906. James Craigen's daughter received her doctrinal influence directly from G.T. Haywood of Indiana. She was one of his students/church members.

The doctrinal lineage is Haywood to Craigen to Arnold. What Arnold did not accept was that the newly revealed doctrine he inherited indirectly from Haywood had not existed for nearly 2000 years without a witness. Though Haywood readily admitted a new twist on doctrine, Arnold refused to fully adhere to the "restorationist" position. He instead set out to find support for a "remnant" approach to what he had come to believe was the truth taught by the 1st century church.

His problem was that he chose Haywood's interpretation of truth as that doctrine taught by the Apostles. A witness has yet to surface to support this preconception.

[Steve Epley]

Hello, Barb. I began sitting under Marvin Arnold around 1968-69. I stayed in the church he founded in Utica, Michigan until about 1995 without interruption. In fact, I proofread some of his work.

While Marvin Arnold was able to find traces throughout history (some highly questionable at times) of certain doctrinal distinctives used in the development of the water/spirit new birth position, he was never able to find the water/spirit doctrine as it is presented today.

Marvin Arnold saw the shortcomings of the "progressively revealed light" theory taught by early Oneness pioneers like G.T. Haywood and Frank Ewart. This theory taught that God chose to progressively disperse varying degrees of spiritual understanding during seven dispensational periods of human history. Haywood believed the newly revealed truth given to 20th century Oneness pioneers was the climax of this dispensational dispersion of spiritual light from heaven.

Haywood states, "Very few will agree with us on this subject at the first, but if they will lay aside the doctrine of men, and for a moment remove their thoughts from the abnormal state of the present day Christianity, they will find no trouble in grasping the truth AS IT IS NOW REVEALED to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation."Frank Ewart said it this way:"He [God] first gave the true light to a few, and then signally expressed His approval by a startling revival through the instrumentality OF THE NEW TEACHING."

Marvin Arnold rejected the idea that initial doctrinal tenets disappeared for nearly 2000 years and that newly revealed knowledge from heaven brought about a restoration of the true first century Apostolic church with its original doctrinal nuances in 20th century America. He held fast to the idea that God had a perpetually existing witness throughout the ages and that the true Apostolic church, with its original doctrinal tenets, never died.

His passionate mission was to prove this continuity by tracing through the historical record what he believed to be the doctrinal earmarks of the 1st century Apostolic church. Ironically, he might have succeeded had he not adopted Haywood and Urshan's conclusions on the new birth. But, because he too accepted the "three step" progressive new birth position, which was their legacy to Oneness Pentecostalism, he failed to find a single witness in history who taught repentance and faith, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and Spirit filling evidenced by speaking in tongues as necessary doctrinal components which together constituted the saving new birth.

Yes, he did find throughout the ages adherents to anti-Trinitarian theology holding views of the nature of God similar to views held by early Oneness pioneers (Though other historians agree that some, if not many, of his examples were a bit of a reach and contrived).

Yes, he did find people who baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by full immersion (Yet it must be conceded that Trinitarians did this as well. In fact, the sermon on water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which prompted Frank Ewart to more deeply study the nature of God was preached by R. E. McAlister, a Trinitarian man, hoping to head off the growing heresy of requiring people to be dipped three times at baptism).

Yes, he did find historical witness of groups who spoke in other tongues and experienced other Spirit manifestations in their Christian walk. He even found historical examples of people who combined two or more of these doctrinal distinctives found in modern Oneness Pentecostalism.

So, again, how did he fail? He failed just as all others who made the attempt have failed. Marvin Arnold was never able to provide historical witness prior to G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan of anyone ever teaching that man must repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and be Spirit filled with the evidence of speaking in tongues in order to be saved. The record of history shows these doctrinal tenets were not connected as components of the new birth until Haywood and Urshan began teaching their newly revealed doctrine from heaven.

Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, G.T. Haywood, Andrew Urshan and others of their time greatly influenced current Oneness Pentecostal soteriology. Their writings show a progressive development in their thinking concerning the new birth.

Frank Ewart began to redefine the new birth by rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's imputed righteousness at conversion and by demanding a secondary experience of the Spirit which he called "the vital side of redemption" because he believed all men were "born of Satan." He also strongly promoted the "new issue" which forced a split from those who went on to form the Assemblies of God in early American Pentecostalism.

Glenn Cook, the man who baptized Ewart and Haywood, had been raised under the influence of men who followed the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Campbellites stressed baptismal sin remission rather than justification by faith alone by disregarding very plausible and grammatically sound alternative interpretations of Acts 2:38.

G.T. Haywood, under the influence of Ewart and Cook turned his back on his initial thoughts penned in 1914 that "as soon as we believe, they [our sins] become as white as snow." He ultimately arrived at a mistaken view of the new birth when he tried to repair a misuse of the terms "baptism of the Spirit" and "birth of the Spirit" in American Pentecostalism. In his noble attempt he erroneously drew speaking in tongues into the conversion experience and began to promote the new "walking in the light" theory of dispensational salvation.

Andrew Urshan did his best to explain the whole mess and came up with the "kingdom of God" VS "kingdom of heaven" controversy.

Does the absence of a historical witness and the questionable beginnings of the "three step" view in America prove it to be wrong? No, it does not, I believe an objective look at Scripture does this, but any serious study on the issue should begin with a proper understanding of this view’s heritage.

Adino it is good to see you posting again though we NEVER agree. I have NOT found one iota of proof that Cook was a Campbellite. And I have looked since you brought it up a couple of years ago. What sources are you quoting BESIDES Bernie???????????????????????????????

[mizpeh]

I no longer have Weisser's, Arnold's or Chalfant's books available to me. All three writers are known for having published various timelines where they purported to show the unbroken existence of the "water/Spirit" or "3 Stepper Plan." Of the three I have met Arnold and Chalfant.

I do remember one occasion at a Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism where Chalfant was challenged about his writings and he responded with real earnest that he was deliberately following a strategy that he called "extrapolation." That is, he felt that the standard historical sources were unreliable even in their description of the "heretics" own message. Therefore, using Matthew 16:18 as his guide he assumed that anyone being persecuted by religious authorities throughout history must have been practicing Acts 2:38 salvation.

This kind of thinking leads to our people making statements like the following (http://godsguarantees.com/church_history.pdf):

"The slander and religionists smearing of the ApostolicChurch is the way investigators were able to discover the true church during each century. All that researchers had to do was look at those groups that the Catholic Church were against. Who and what were these HERETICS? They were surprised to find that almost all of them were Jesus Name Pentecostals. These so called Heretics used many organizational names, throughout the centuries as we will discover in this study. Such names as Donatist, Samosatene, Celtic Christianity, Albigensians, Anabaptist, Cathari[,] Mani, Noetus, Priscillianism, Sabellians, are just a few of the Jesus Name Organizations that have been alive and well since the Day of Pentecost."

The last three groups or individuals did appear to practice a "Oneness" type of theology, but their soteriology probably differed. But sprinkling them in among the others is just bad scholarship. They don't belong together, they're entirely different types of beliefs.

We in fact have the actual documents created by many of these groups. Donatist, Albigensians (whose elite were called the Cathari) and Anabaptists. They clearly did not identify themselves with "Sabellianism" or any such teachings. The Albigensians were Gnostic dualists. They rejected the Trinity because they felt that the god who created the material world was evil. That was why Jesus Christ was "manifest" (not born). The immaterial Christ (sort of like 'heavenly flesh') prepared a way for those with the hidden knowledge (Gr. gnosis) to escape the designs of the "evil" Jehovah. This is clearly Gnosticism and not anything even close to Oneness theology.

Daniel A has asked for BobDylan and me to join the discussion here. I'm not a church historian. But there are some questions we have asked a Trinitarian who has yet to respond. I'd be interested in yours and Adino's imput since your both seem knowledgable and articulate.

1. Who and where was the "real church" from 500AD to 1500AD?

2. When, where, and by whom was the trinitarian theory of the Godhead established as the official dogma of the "real church"?

3. What is the earliest manuscript that indicates a fully developed "trinity" theory-doctine of the Godhead?

4. What did the early post apostolic church teach on salvation?

5. Can you find your own personal beliefs on salvation and Oneness in history between the times posted in question 1?

[Scott Hutchinson]

I don't own Fudge's book ,but I would read it if I owned a copy.

[Steve Epley]

Daniel A has asked for BobDylan and me to join the discussion here. I'm not a church historian. But there are some questions we have asked a Trinitarian who has yet to respond. I'd be interested in yours and Adino's imput since your both seem knowledgable and articulate.

1. Who and where was the "real church" from 500AD to 1500AD?

2. When, where, and by whom was the trinitarian theory of the Godhead established as the official dogma of the "real church"?

3. What is the earliest manuscript that indicates a fully developed "trinity" theory-doctine of the Godhead?

4. What did the early post apostolic church teach on salvation?

5. Can you find your own personal beliefs on salvation and Oneness in history between the times posted in question 1?

I am certainly NOT a historian and I was raised to believe the "Reformation doctrine" I heard M. L. Walls teach against it years ago and preach the church has been in existance preaching Acts 2:38 and Oneness from Pentecost onward. I did not believe it and after church I told him so. He challenged me to research it myself. At that time I lived in Owenboro, Ky. they have a Catholic College there I spent several hours a day doing research and came a way convinced I was wrong and Elder Walls was correct. There has always been someone preaching Acts 2:38 salvation and the Oneness of God. Again the little historian that I am I was convinced. The writings against hereticks done by the Roman church as apologists seem to clearly define what the Pentecostal church today teaches. "The gates of hell shall NOT prevail against the church." I believe Jesus even if there was NO history to prove it, however there is plenty.

[Steve Epley]

I don't own Fudge's book ,but I would read it if I owned a copy.

Ask the library to order it they probably will.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I found a ancient copy of Clarence Larkin's Dispensational truth from a thrift shop, I'm reading it.
It's a long book ,with alot of charts.

[mizpeh]

I am certainly NOT a historian and I was raised to believe the "Reformation doctrine" I heard M. L. Walls teach against it years ago and preach the church has been in existance preaching Acts 2:38 and Oneness from Pentecost onward. I did not believe it and after church I told him so. He challenged me to research it myself. At that time I lived in Owenboro, Ky. they have a Catholic College there I spent several hours a day doing research and came a way convinced I was wrong and Elder Walls was correct. There has always been someone preaching Acts 2:38 salvation and the Oneness of God. Again the little historian that I am I was convinced. The writings against hereticks done by the Roman church as apologists seem to clearly define what the Pentecostal church today teaches. "The gates of hell shall NOT prevail against the church." I believe Jesus even if there was NO history to prove it, however there is plenty.

Brother Elpey, I agree with you but the scripture I use is Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations. If the truth of the new birth is Acts 2:38 and the Oneness of God is the correct view of the Godhead, then there has been someone preaching that truth throughout the generations from the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 until today.

BTW, there is nothing new under the sun and that includes the message of salvation which you preach. I don't believe those who say that message has only been around since 1916!

[Scott Hutchinson]

If the gates of hell cannot prevail agains't the church ,then One God Jesus Name people have always existed since Pentecost ,they went underground ,but they have always existed.

[mizpeh]

I am certainly NOT a historian and I was raised to believe the "Reformation doctrine"
What is the Reformation doctrine?

[Scott Hutchinson]

What is the Reformation doctrine?

I think He means the doctrine of the Protestant Reformation.

[mizpeh]

I think He means the doctrine of the Protestant Reformation.

But where was the doctrine of the protestant reformation being taught during the years of Roman Catholic domination?

[Scott Hutchinson]

But where was the doctrine of the protestant reformation being taught during the years of Roman Catholic domination?

See when people like Luther left the RCC, they had bits of truth, but they had alot of their harlot mother's teaching in their doctrine.

[Sarah]

I am certainly NOT a historian and I was raised to believe the "Reformation doctrine" I heard M. L. Walls teach against it years ago and preach the church has been in existance preaching Acts 2:38 and Oneness from Pentecost onward. I did not believe it and after church I told him so. He challenged me to research it myself. At that time I lived in Owenboro, Ky. they have a Catholic College there I spent several hours a day doing research and came a way convinced I was wrong and Elder Walls was correct. There has always been someone preaching Acts 2:38 salvation and the Oneness of God. Again the little historian that I am I was convinced. The writings against hereticks done by the Roman church as apologists seem to clearly define what the Pentecostal church today teaches. "The gates of hell shall NOT prevail against the church." I believe Jesus even if there was NO history to prove it, however there is plenty.

This thread reminds me of an incident that happened at the first UPC General Conference I ever attended. The year was either 1964 or 65, and it was in Grand Rapids, MI. Do any of you remember that conference? Bro Sam and Sis Fella are the only ones I can think of who would be old enough on this forum to remember, besides myself. Anyhow......

A Chinese man was brought to address the audience. Some of our people had "run into him" in China. This man told us an amazing story. There was an underground church there, and had been there since the "dark ages". He grilled our people (not sure if they were UPC, but were Apostolic) for hours on the new birth.....repentance, water baptism, infilling of the HG....... before he would allow them to preach to his people. He said the only difference in his church and the American church is that their women did not cut their hair. lol

God has always had a church, somewhere, that teaches the way to be saved is through repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Just like the one in the book of Acts.

[stmatthew]

What is the Reformation doctrine?

I think the Reformation doctrine Bro Epley is eluding to is that God gradually opened up the knowledge of salvation, through Luther Wesley, and so on. God gradually added to knowledge until we know have come to the place where the full salvation message is known. I think this is also where the "light doctrine" comes from, as those prior to our knowledge would only be judged by the "light" they had received.

[KwaiQ]

I found a ancient copy of Clarence Larkin's Dispensational truth from a thrift shop, I'm reading it.
It's a long book ,with alot of charts.
Go to BTC... you'll find a link to a pdf of CWotC there Brother.

[BobDylan]

Brother Elpey, I agree with you but the scripture I use is Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations. If the truth of the new birth is Acts 2:38 and the Oneness of God is the correct view of the Godhead, then there has been someone preaching that truth throughout the generations from the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 until today.

BTW, there is nothing new under the sun and that includes the message of salvation which you preach. I don't believe those who say that message has only been around since 1916!

Great points Mizpeh!

[BobDylan]

This is simply not true. I grew up under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. There was no one who had a greater passion to prove what you just offered to be true. He failed to find even a single witness, prior to preachers of the 20th century, who taught the water and spirit interpretation of the new birth as it is taught today in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Haywood, Ewart and others knew they were preaching something brand new and readily admitted this in their writings. In fact, Haywood's "progressive light doctrine" and Urshan's "kingdom of heaven vs kingdom of God" teaching were were developed to support the "newly revealed" position on salvation.

Please give us the proof of your statement. Thanks.

I cited historical accounts of oneness monarchians throughout history in a thread in Deep Waters called "Ancient Monarchians in History"... There is at least in a nutshell evidence as to the existence of oneness theology all throughout history.

[BobDylan]

Light, since there is no evidence to support the idea that OP existed throughout history, the burden of proof is on you to make your case. And believe me, most people here would be inclined to accept any evidence presented.

It's just that most have bought into your understanding of Matthew 16:18 at one time or another, thinking that the evidence would be forthcoming. Needless to say, we were badly disappointed. Of course there are some who still hold on to the hope that the evidence will suddenly turn up. A careful investigation of history however, reveals that this hope is only imagined. And that, even though they were terrible persecutions and destruction of records, nothing resembling our OP practice of the faith existed from the late Apostolic era until it began to develop in the late 1800's in North America.

We've all had to rethink our understanding of Matthew 16:18 or, as many have sadly done, abandon the faith altogether. I would encourage you to have confidence in the Bible, but to be flexible when it comes to the traditions of men.

Pelathais, is there extrabiblical evidence that supports the Nation of Israel literally walking across the Red Sea on dry ground? The only real evidence one needs to believe the bible, is the bible! Now having said that, Thomas Weisser and Bro. William Chalfants works on the history of Christian Monarchinanism are very informative as to the existence of Jesus name oneness churches throughout history!

[Steve Epley]

The Reformation doctrine is the same as the light doctrine. In other words the church went into darkness and God began to restore the church through the reformers until more light was revealed. While I have no doubt God was dealing with men like Luther and others in his youth but somewhere he failed to follow God then his light became darkness.

[Steve Epley]

I noticed TB is quoted quite often in the book were y'all friends?

[Scott Hutchinson]

The Reformation doctrine is the same as the light doctrine. In other words the church went into darkness and God began to restore the church through the reformers until more light was revealed. While I have no doubt God was dealing with men like Luther and others in his youth but somewhere he failed to follow God then his light became darkness.

That's the same as the seven church age doctrine, I think.

[SDG]

I see some parallels between the progressive light doctrine and the Mormon doctrine of apostasy and restoration.

Mormons believe that the early Christian church fell away from Christ's original organization (the apostasy) and that that church was restored through Joseph Smith in the 1800's (the restoration).

[Sam]

Are you suggesting that French Calvinists believed like today's OPs ... NOT.

We do find references to gifts of the Spirit such as healing, speaking with tongues, prophecy, etc here and there throughout the history of "the visible church." Also, we may find references to people who disputed the doctrine of the Trinity. And we find some who insisted on baptism for believers only and some who taught immersion for baptism. But, in my opinion, to use these references as proof that "there have always been oneness pentecostals throughout the centuries from AD 30 until 1914 who practiced and preached Acts 2:38 as taught by some in the UPC today" is a stretch.

[pelathais]

Pelathais, is there extrabiblical evidence that supports the Nation of Israel literally walking across the Red Sea on dry ground? The only real evidence one needs to believe the bible, is the bible! Now having said that, Thomas Weisser and Bro. William Chalfants works on the history of Christian Monarchinanism are very informative as to the existence of Jesus name oneness churches throughout history!
Hi B.D.

I agree that the Bible does speak for itself. However, all attempts to show a continuous existence of a Oneness/Jesus Name movement throughout all of church history has failed everytime. Could it be that what the Bible is speaking about in Matthew 16 and the Psalms cited by Mizpeh is something different than the angle we want to take?

As just one example, both Chalfant and Weisser identified the Albigensians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars) (or Cathari) as "Oneness/Jesus Name" groups just because they denied the Trinity. However, as I stated before, the Cathari were dualists. They practiced a Christianized form of Zoroastrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism). They believed that the "Jehovah" of Genesis was evil! The web site www.gnosis.org (http://www.gnosis.org) has some texts from the Cathari themselves. Try to imagine reading some of these rituals in a Oneness church! I don't intend to promote Gnosticism so my link to their sources will be sparce. But you can check them out for yourself.

It hurts to see dishonesty coming from Apostolics. And dishonesty is what it really comes down to. When I first came across Weisser's book and then Chalfant's I really hoped that they had something. Reading their books however proved to be a big disappointment. Watching Chalfant in person as he tried to defend his writings was even more painful.

There is really no need for us to try and prove this "continuous existence" time-line anyway. It's a red herring issue.

As you yourself put it, "The only real evidence one needs to believe the bible, is the bible!" Let's stand or fall on something that is certain; not upon something that has been proven to be false. Bernard's treatments of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity are good places to start a study of this issue. He avoids many of the old mistakes that we used to make, like saying that "the Trinity was invented at the Council of Nicea..."

[pelathais]

This thread reminds me of an incident that happened at the first UPC General Conference I ever attended. The year was either 1964 or 65, and it was in Grand Rapids, MI. Do any of you remember that conference? Bro Sam and Sis Fella are the only ones I can think of who would be old enough on this forum to remember, besides myself. Anyhow......

A Chinese man was brought to address the audience. Some of our people had "run into him" in China. This man told us an amazing story. There was an underground church there, and had been there since the "dark ages". He grilled our people (not sure if they were UPC, but were Apostolic) for hours on the new birth.....repentance, water baptism, infilling of the HG....... before he would allow them to preach to his people. He said the only difference in his church and the American church is that their women did not cut their hair. lol

God has always had a church, somewhere, that teaches the way to be saved is through repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Just like the one in the book of Acts.
I had heard that story but I don't remember that it involved a GC. Such a find is incredible and would certainly attract a lot of attention. The activities of that group from the 1960's right up through today would make fascinating and encouraging news.

Who are they? Where are they? Any names? Places? Dates? Documents? Sounds a lot like the "2 million Urshanites in the Soviet Union." As the Iron Curtain came down I met with Russian Pentecostals. For the most part they would just stare at you with unbelief when you asked them about Oneness believers and Jesus Name baptism. They had never heard of such a doctrine.

I don't want to sound like I'm being cruel toward the hopes of others; but put yourself in my shoes- and the shoes of thousands of others. We had hope for just this sort of thing. We've got blank pages in our books and sermon materials waiting to be filled in with this news. But if we're going to stake our reputations and ministries on something, we want a little proof.

That proof will put the excited edge into our voices. We need a little certainty to go on to be persuasive toward our critics. Try presenting a paper based upon the conclusions of "After the Way Called Heresy" and "Ancient Champions of Oneness" in an academic setting. Such writings are not even received well in Oneness Symposiums.

[Adino]

Adino it is good to see you posting again though we NEVER agree. I have NOT found one iota of proof that Cook was a Campbellite. And I have looked since you brought it up a couple of years ago. What sources are you quoting BESIDES Bernie???????????????????????????????What's the matter Steve? Haven't you stirred up enough courage to talk to Bernie personally about this yet?

From the pen of Cook himself: Glenn A. Cook, "The Kingdom Message," Vol. 1, No. 1, August?, 1933, p. 2... "The writer [Cook speaking of himself] was raised among the Campbellites, as they were called in those days, and has seen hundreds baptized to get into that organization. Water baptism was all that was necessary, and in later years I have had these same people ridicule me when I told them they needed the Spirit-filled life."

I understand the original article is at Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center in Springfield, MO.

[SDG]

The point is that your interpretation of the new birth does not have a single historical witness. I can easily give you alternative interpretations of all the core passages you would use as prooftext to support the water/spirit new birth position. There is far more proof that the Apostles held to these alternative views than there is for the newly concocted water/spirit position.

It cannot be proven that anyone in history ever interpreted the new birth in Scripture as do those who hold to the water/spirit new birth doctrine. We can see the development of the doctrine in the writings of Ewart, Haywood, Urshan and a few others. To say the apostles held the interpretive position of these who admitted a new revelation from heaven in the early 20th century demands an extreme dose of wishful thinking.

No one has ever supplied a single witness who has held the new birth doctrine as was newly revealed to early 20th Oneness Pentecostal preachers. Light, with all due respect, you need to come to terms with the actual history.

The late church historian, Rev. Marvin M. Arnold who wrote, "The Origin and Spread of Man," "History of the Christian Church," "Nicaea and the Nicene Council of AD 325," "Pentecost (Acts 2:38 in America) Before Azusa," "Apostolic History Outline" and "The Bible Trinity and Matthew 28:19" could not find a single witness to the current water/spirit interpretation. If someone else has succeeded where he failed, please show us the historical evidence. Thank you.

What's the matter Steve? Haven't you stirred up enough courage to talk to Bernie personally about this yet?

From the pen of Cook himself: Glenn A. Cook, "The Kingdom Message," Vol. 1, No. 1, August?, 1933, p. 2..."The writer [Cook speaking of himself] was raised among the Campbellites, as they were called in those days, and has seen hundreds baptized to get into that organization. Water baptism was all that was necessary, and in later years I have had these same people ridicule me when I told them they needed the Spirit-filled life."I understand the original article is at Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center in Springfield, MO.

HMMM ... another myth dispelled.

[Adino]

I cited historical accounts of oneness monarchians throughout history in a thread in Deep Waters called "Ancient Monarchians in History"... There is at least in a nutshell evidence as to the existence of oneness theology all throughout history.If you read my earlier post you might have seen that I was raised under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. Without looking at your citings I would guess some may have come from his works. Like I said before, he failed to find a single witness who taught the soteriological water/spirit position as is taught by so many in Oneness Pentecostalism today. If you can succeed where he failed I would very much impressed.

I wrote to Rev. Chalfant about this issue as well. He could not produce a single witness either.

[tssp]

This thread reminds me of an incident that happened at the first UPC General Conference I ever attended. The year was either 1964 or 65, and it was in Grand Rapids, MI. Do any of you remember that conference? Bro Sam and Sis Fella are the only ones I can think of who would be old enough on this forum to remember, besides myself. Anyhow......

A Chinese man was brought to address the audience. Some of our people had "run into him" in China. This man told us an amazing story. There was an underground church there, and had been there since the "dark ages". He grilled our people (not sure if they were UPC, but were Apostolic) for hours on the new birth.....repentance, water baptism, infilling of the HG....... before he would allow them to preach to his people. He said the only difference in his church and the American church is that their women did not cut their hair. lol

God has always had a church, somewhere, that teaches the way to be saved is through repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Just like the one in the book of Acts.

I remember that GC, it's the only one I've ever been to. I was quite young at the time so about the only thing I can remember from it was that Dottie Rambo was there.

[SDG]

If you read my earlier post you might have seen that I was raised under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. Without looking at your citings I would guess some may have come from his works. Like I said before, he failed to find a single witness who taught the soteriological water/spirit position as is taught by so many in Oneness Pentecostalism today. If you can succeed where he failed I would very much impressed.

I wrote to Rev. Chalfant about this issue as well. He could not produce a single witness either.

BD ... separates the aspect of Oneness Christological doctrine w/ Oneness soteriological doctrine ... he feels that the truth of the Godhead has survived through time... the only flaws w/ this argument are:

1. He also maintains that God's full truth has survived the generations ... but his witnesses seem to only have partial truth.

2. Oneness PAJC doctrine is by definition linked not only to their view of the Godhead but also by the necessity of Jesus name baptism for the remission of sins.

3. Many of the examples he gives hold heretical Christological views

[Steve Epley]

What's the matter Steve? Haven't you stirred up enough courage to talk to Bernie personally about this yet?

From the pen of Cook himself: Glenn A. Cook, "The Kingdom Message," Vol. 1, No. 1, August?, 1933, p. 2... "The writer [Cook speaking of himself] was raised among the Campbellites, as they were called in those days, and has seen hundreds baptized to get into that organization. Water baptism was all that was necessary, and in later years I have had these same people ridicule me when I told them they needed the Spirit-filled life."

I understand the original article is at Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center in Springfield, MO.

Adino I plan on going to Branson in Nov. I will visit the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center. I don't trust Bernie. It is that simple. I find it hard to believe a disciple of Durham having Campbellite leanings. I promise you I have looked high and low for any history to corroborate this and found none. But if I go and the proof is there I will post it here. That wouldn't prove his veiw on baptism wrong I happen to believe baptism remits sins like they do only their baptism is NOT NT water baptism in Jesus Name. But I am man enough to confess I was wrong on this matter if I am proven wrong. Again it is good to see you posting again. Have you heard from our mutual friends lately I have not?

[BobDylan]

I see some parallels between the progressive light doctrine and the Mormon doctrine of apostasy and restoration.

Mormons believe that the early Christian church fell away from Christ's original organization (the apostasy) and that that church was restored through Joseph Smith in the 1800's (the restoration).

What do you believe Dan? Where was the true church between 500AD and 1500AD? What's your take on the history of the church?

[SDG]

What do you believe Dan? Where was the true church between 500AD and 1500AD? What's your take on the history of the church?

I hold a PCI view, BD. Hence, the Church are those who place their faith in Jesus Christ.... I along w/ other Apostolics, like Howard Goss, believe the Baptists and other believers will be saved. :poloroid

The Church is not defined by your parameters.

[Adino]

Adino I plan on going to Branson in Nov. I will visit the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center. I don't trust Bernie. It is that simple. I find it hard to believe a disciple of Durham having Campbellite leanings. I promise you I have looked high and low for any history to corroborate this and found none. But if I go and the proof is there I will post it here. That wouldn't prove his veiw on baptism wrong I happen to believe baptism remits sins like they do only their baptism is NOT NT water baptism in Jesus Name. But I am man enough to confess I was wrong on this matter if I am proven wrong. Again it is good to see you posting again. Have you heard from our mutual friends lately I have not?Good to see you again as well, Steve. I think you'd really like Bernie once you gave him a chance.

Hey, go to youtube.com and do a search for Jeff [using his first and last name]. He is now down in Tennessee singing karoake. I understand he needs your prayer, Bro.

God bless

[mizpeh]

I hold a PCI view, BD. Hence, the Church are those who place their faith in Jesus Christ.... I along w/ other Apostolics, like Howard Goss, believe the Baptists and other believers will be saved. :poloroid

The Church is not defined by your parameters.

Faith is the means by which we are saved. The new birth is what saves, brings us into the body of Christ, and makes us children of God.

[SDG]

Faith is the means by which we are saved. The new birth is what saves, brings us into the body of Christ, and makes us children of God.

We have discussed aspects of the New Birth ... throughout this forum ... including justification, remission, baptism, and pneumotology ... the when and how of salvation and New Birth.

We can discuss New Birth again in another thread if you like ... this thread has taken an interesting turn concerning "Remnant History" as presented by the Water and Spirit Oneness crowd ... I think we should remain on this rather than get into something we've discussed to death.

[mizpeh]

We have discussed aspects of the New Birth ... throughout this forum ... including justification, remission, baptism, and pneumotology ... the when and how of salvation and New Birth.

We can discuss New Birth again in another thread if you like ... this thread has taken an interesting turn concerning "Remnant History" as presented by the Water and Spirit Oneness crowd ... I think we should remain on this rather than get into something we've discussed to death.

No worries, Dan. It was just a comment. Some other time. :hypercoffee

[Sarah]

I had heard that story but I don't remember that it involved a GC. Such a find is incredible and would certainly attract a lot of attention. The activities of that group from the 1960's right up through today would make fascinating and encouraging news.

Who are they? Where are they? Any names? Places? Dates? Documents? Sounds a lot like the "2 million Urshanites in the Soviet Union." As the Iron Curtain came down I met with Russian Pentecostals. For the most part they would just stare at you with unbelief when you asked them about Oneness believers and Jesus Name baptism. They had never heard of such a doctrine.

I don't want to sound like I'm being cruel toward the hopes of others; but put yourself in my shoes- and the shoes of thousands of others. We had hope for just this sort of thing. We've got blank pages in our books and sermon materials waiting to be filled in with this news. But if we're going to stake our reputations and ministries on something, we want a little proof.

That proof will put the excited edge into our voices. We need a little certainty to go on to be persuasive toward our critics. Try presenting a paper based upon the conclusions of "After the Way Called Heresy" and "Ancient Champions of Oneness" in an academic setting. Such writings are not even received well in Oneness Symposiums.

The only 'proof' I have is my memory, and that is faulty at times, I'm sure. And I agree, written proof would be good. I wonder if the FMB has a record of this?

I remember the Russian Pentecostals, and I don't think at the time it was mentioned too much about them being oneness, just spirit filled. Brother Urshan was wanting to help them in a big way.

The testimony of the Chinese man was awesome. He was very strong in the Apostolic message.

[pelathais]

We have discussed aspects of the New Birth ... throughout this forum ... including justification, remission, baptism, and pneumotology ... the when and how of salvation and New Birth.

We can discuss New Birth again in another thread if you like ... this thread has taken an interesting turn concerning "Remnant History" as presented by the Water and Spirit Oneness crowd ... I think we should remain on this rather than get into something we've discussed to death.
Yeah really. When did D.A. become the "keep-it-on-topic-thread-police?" :)

But, getting after my friend Dan would soon lead me off topic as well. So... I found Thomas Fudge's book is available online at this link (http://books.google.com/books?id=GmztAtSwxMkC&pg=PP1&dq=thomas+fudge&sig=J1PkQr7X3Ve6_G34lUpt50tVXTk). I don't know if that's been mentioned before; sorry if I'm duplicating some else's effort. It's a "preview" with about 2/3 of the book missing. I guess Google swallows things up just like the "business administrators in Hazelwood." http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I've read the book once, but I noticed the very first sentence anew. It breaks down this discussion rather nicely.


"Oneness theology can neither be said to have existed throughout ecclesiastical history in an unbroken line of continuity ..."

Here he argues against the Chalfants, Weissers and Arnolds.


" ... nor can it be regarded as having risen in a religious vacuum in the second decade of the twentieth century."

And here he argues against those who would say Oneness and Jesus Name theology was simply "made up" only about 100 years ago.

I agree that we should be reaching for a more complex understanding than the two extremes. When someone criticizes Oneness theology like these folks (http://thriceholy.net/opf.html) do,


"'Oneness' Pentecostalism got underway in 1913 when somebody at a camp-meeting received the 'revelation' that "the [singular!] name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" of Matthew 28:19 is 'Jesus'. This revelation has left Bible-readers asking ever since, 'Who's on first?'"


We should not respond with (http://www.geocities.com/beapostolic/history2.html),


"EUROPEAN TRINITARIANISM fought MONOTHEISM. NOTE: Catholic invented Trinitarianism caused more mass deaths; over 68,000,000-than any other thing. The magic in numeral three (3) of the TRINITY-has created havoc, hysteria, and divisions that led to millions of deaths.

CATHARI--were people of the True Christian Church in different organizations. They had Gothic Bibles. (See: C. F. Potter, p. 174) UPPER ROOM doctrine shined throughout DARK AGES. The individualistic makeup-yet-doctrinal like-ness-of the Cathari organizations we mention, together with the courage of their refusal to conform to the norms of corrupt Catholicism, led them in the biblical way to maintain Acts 2:38 ecclesiology. Beyond the reach of Rome in outlying places such as Saxony, Frisia (Netherlands), Languedoc, etc., there were whole organizations of Acts two Christians. "

Baptism "into Christ," "in the name of Christ" and "in Jesus name" did occur quite regularly thoughout history. For example the Old Irish Celtic Church was known to baptize "in Jesus name;" but they were thoroughly Trinitarian in their doctrine. It would be inaccurate to describe them as "Oneness Pentecostals" simply because they baptized in Jesus name.

[pelathais]

The only 'proof' I have is my memory, and that is faulty at times, I'm sure. And I agree, written proof would be good. I wonder if the FMB has a record of this?

I remember the Russian Pentecostals, and I don't think at the time it was mentioned too much about them being oneness, just spirit filled. Brother Urshan was wanting to help them in a big way.

The testimony of the Chinese man was awesome. He was very strong in the Apostolic message.
You probably are remembering the "Siberian Seven." This was a group of Trinitarian Pentecostals who had sought asylum in the US Embassy in Moscow. The UPC did spend a great deal of effort and funds on securing their release and helping them get established in America. I thought that it was a very generous thing that NA Urshan did, especially since the seven weren't Oneness in doctrine. The UPC was just trying to help some folks out. Urshan and others were criticised for that, which I thought was unfair.

It was about this time that reports of "2 million Urshanites" began to spring up. NA Urshan's father had been able to briefly evangelize in Russia just after the First World War. It was thought that there must be quite a number of disciples that had grown from that. One Russian Pentecostal that I met back in the 1980's (we had helped a family get out and get established in the US) said that the Oneness people had "the smallest churches" in Russia. He was rather sadly mesmerized by Benny Hinn and Co. In fact, I think he was the first person to point out Hinn to me. It's kind of funny; here he was in Soviet Communism and watching TBN while in the states I'm like, "Benny who...?"

That family went through a painful tug of war between UPC people who just wanted to help and UPC people who wanted to control them. At one point we were instructed by a person holding a nationally elected position to "put them in a motel without a telephone" so they would not be in contact with Trinitarians. It was like, "We paid for these Russians, they're our Russians and we don't want to lose them like we lost the Siberian Seven..." I'm certain they meant well, but c'mon.

The advice about the motel room was of course ridiculous. I don't think there's even such a thing as a motel without a telephone in the United States. I put them up in an apartment of their own and had the utilities and telephone turned on immediately. At their request we even got them a TV. I thought that it would be a useful language tool.

[BobDylan]

If you read my earlier post you might have seen that I was raised under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. Without looking at your citings I would guess some may have come from his works. Like I said before, he failed to find a single witness who taught the soteriological water/spirit position as is taught by so many in Oneness Pentecostalism today. If you can succeed where he failed I would very much impressed.

I wrote to Rev. Chalfant about this issue as well. He could not produce a single witness either.

Some of the groups were identified by Bro's Chalfant and Weisser. I believe this was after Bro. Arnold. But at least a couple of the groups are confirmed to have held a Jesus name waterbaptism formula, and a belief in the Spirit with external signs. The Paulicians are one of the most notable groups.... but regardless of the soteriology, do you reject their findings of the oneness groups throughout history? For instance, in 1441, the Council of Florence convened to denounce "Sabellianism". Sabellianism started with the teaching of Sabellius around 200AD. It is very interesting that there were still "Sabellians" 1200 years later... What is your view of church history? Where was the true church between the years of 500AD and 1500AD? Was it the Roman Catholics? Greek Orthadox? If not, then who was it?

[redeemedcynic84]

I realize you are saying that link (http://www.geocities.com/beapostolic/history2.html) is bunk... I agree... I just want to point out a few really important things about it:

1. AD 1774, On Aug. 6, ANN LEE imported tongues speaking into the US. Tongues speaking spread. (E. D. Andrews, pp. 15-19)

Ann Lee taught that everyone had a little "Christ Spirit" in them and that 2 people would have the full "Christ Spirit" in them, one male (Jesus) and one female (her)...

to even claim her group are Christians is a massive stretch...

2. Arius and ARIANISM appeared. ARIUS denied the Trinity idea by ca. AD 300. (J. N. Blunt, P. 144; Bernstein & Green, pp. 137,155) Most Arians immersed in the Name-Jesus Christ. By AD 800 Arianism, in Europe, was close to Jesus Name monotheism. (See: J. Murray, p. 293, H. Daniel Rops, p. 110; Z. Oldenbourg, p. 41).

Arius preached that Jesus wasn't diety at all, but was the "first created thing" and bestowed all of God's power...

3. There are WAY too many pot shots taken at Catholics... there is no excuse for noting every error the Catholic Church made in something about the "true history of the apostolic church"... No reason to say Constantine was like Hitler... No reason to say tons of things said... They have nothing to do with the topic...

and... honestly... If anyone ever believed the guy who wrote that... it makes me wonder how in tune with God they really were, and I take saying something like that very, very seriously... but the things he says are a joke and incorrect on such a massive level that you would have to be completely uneducated in the history of Christianity and movements somewhat related to Christianity and then after you hear what he says refuse to actually look anything up yourself in any outside sources (or even look up his sources) to even believe what he said...

How in the world could these "great men of God" from so long ago get duped so badly to even believe this drivel for a second? It doesn't make sense to me...

[redeemedcynic84]

Some of the groups were identified by Bro's Chalfant and Weisser. I believe this was after Bro. Arnold. But at least a couple of the groups are confirmed to have held a Jesus name waterbaptism formula, and a belief in the Spirit with external signs. The Paulicians are one of the most notable groups.... but regardless of the soteriology, do you reject their findings of the oneness groups throughout history? For instance, in 1441, the Council of Florence convened to denounce "Sabellianism". Sabellianism started with the teaching of Sabellius around 200AD. It is very interesting that there were still "Sabellians" 1200 years later... What is your view of church history? Where was the true church between the years of 500AD and 1500AD? Was it the Roman Catholics? Greek Orthadox? If not, then who was it?

don't you have to define what "a true church" is? I mean... the church isn't a denomination... it isn't the followers of a certain creed... the church is simply the believers world-wide...

To assume there were no believers (no matter how dark and godless the world may seem) is folly IMO... But to think we can pick out groups who supposedly preached exactly what we do to try and prove we are right is just as full of folly...

[redeemedcynic84]

Some of the groups were identified by Bro's Chalfant and Weisser. I believe this was after Bro. Arnold. But at least a couple of the groups are confirmed to have held a Jesus name waterbaptism formula, and a belief in the Spirit with external signs. The Paulicians are one of the most notable groups.... but regardless of the soteriology, do you reject their findings of the oneness groups throughout history? For instance, in 1441, the Council of Florence convened to denounce "Sabellianism". Sabellianism started with the teaching of Sabellius around 200AD. It is very interesting that there were still "Sabellians" 1200 years later... What is your view of church history? Where was the true church between the years of 500AD and 1500AD? Was it the Roman Catholics? Greek Orthadox? If not, then who was it?

I would say any finding they made that wasn't seperately made by other people and extremely well-documented should be thrown out just based upon the complete and utter falicy of some of the statements they made...

That whole document is propoganda-filled drivel that wouldn't hold up in a 3rd grade classroom, and never should have gotten any response other than laughter by anyone who had any credibility as a scholar...

[BobDylan]

BD ... separates the aspect of Oneness Christological doctrine w/ Oneness soteriological doctrine ... he feels that the truth of the Godhead has survived through time... the only flaws w/ this argument are:

1. He also maintains that God's full truth has survived the generations ... but his witnesses seem to only have partial truth.

I am primarily dealing with the monarchian doctrine.



2. Oneness PAJC doctrine is by definition linked not only to their view of the Godhead but also by the necessity of Jesus name baptism for the remission of sins.
Well, since I am not PAJC, does that mean that I am not bound by this definition? I do affirm Jesus name baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, but I DO have my own independent ideas about that.


3. Many of the examples he gives hold heretical Christological views

This is an unfair statement unless you are willing or able to provide proof that they indeed hold "heretical" christological views. I perceive that if you and I discussed christology, either you and/or I would be accused by the other of holding "heretical" christological views... my point being that simply making an accusation is meaningless without real substance. I suggest that far fewer of their christological views are "heretical" than one might think!

[BobDylan]

Yeah really. When did D.A. become the "keep-it-on-topic-thread-police?" :)

But, getting after my friend Dan would soon lead me off topic as well. So... I found Thomas Fudge's book is available online at this link (http://books.google.com/books?id=GmztAtSwxMkC&pg=PP1&dq=thomas+fudge&sig=J1PkQr7X3Ve6_G34lUpt50tVXTk). I don't know if that's been mentioned before; sorry if I'm duplicating some else's effort. It's a "preview" with about 2/3 of the book missing. I guess Google swallows things up just like the "business administrators in Hazelwood." http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I've read the book once, but I noticed the very first sentence anew. It breaks down this discussion rather nicely.


Here he argues against the Chalfants, Weissers and Arnolds.


And here he argues against those who would say Oneness and Jesus Name theology was simply "made up" only about 100 years ago.

I agree that we should be reaching for a more complex understanding than the two extremes. When someone criticizes Oneness theology like these folks (http://thriceholy.net/opf.html) do,



We should not respond with (http://www.geocities.com/beapostolic/history2.html),


Baptism "into Christ," "in the name of Christ" and "in Jesus name" did occur quite regularly thoughout history. For example the Old Irish Celtic Church was known to baptize "in Jesus name;" but they were thoroughly Trinitarian in their doctrine. It would be inaccurate to describe them as "Oneness Pentecostals" simply because they baptized in Jesus name.

WHO determined they were truly "trinitarian"? I heard a black baptist on the radio describe the trinity as "three manifestations of Jesus Christ". He called himself trinitarian, but fundamentally he held a oneness view of the Godhead. There may even have been numerous "trinitarian" groups throughout history, that if you were to examine and scrutinize their doctrine, they very well have been oneness...

[pelathais]

I am primarily dealing with the monarchian doctrine.


Well, since I am not PAJC, does that mean that I am not bound by this definition? I do affirm Jesus name baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, but I DO have my own independent ideas about that.



This is an unfair statement unless you are willing or able to provide proof that they indeed hold "heretical" christological views. I perceive that if you and I discussed christology, either you and/or I would be accused by the other of holding "heretical" christological views... my point being that simply making an accusation is meaningless without real substance. I suggest that far fewer of their christological views are "heretical" than one might think!
BobDylan, I provided a link earlier to the actual documents of the Albigensians and Cathari. These are people that Chalfant and others have said were Oneness. Read the documents and decide for yourself. Whether we like it or not, Dan is right on this one. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[pelathais]

WHO determined they were truly "trinitarian"? I heard a black baptist on the radio describe the trinity as "three manifestations of Jesus Christ". He called himself trinitarian, but fundamentally he held a oneness view of the Godhead. There may even have been numerous "trinitarian" groups throughout history, that if you were to examine and scrutinize their doctrine, they very well have been oneness...
Who determined that the Irish Celtic Church was thoroughly Trinitarian? Why the Irish Celtic Church themselves. Remember Saint Patrick and the shamrock?

And you are correct about the "may very well have..." part. I have been approached by well meaning Trinitarian type Christians who have asked me to explain Oneness. I'll give some boiler plate type response and I've often had the Trinitarian say, "Well, yeah... that's the Trinity..." God in Christ, Jesus is deity. I make it a point though to expressly not say anything about "Persons." It's funny, but if you leave out the word "Persons" a whole lot of "Trinitarians" probably do believe like we do.

The Celtic Church however, was indeed thoroughly Trinitarian, but they baptized in Jesus name.

[Steve Epley]

No one has to be a scholar nor historian a few hours at a good library today will suffice. I did it myself over 25 years ago when data would have been more limited than today.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here check these articles out.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm
http://geocities.com/beapostolic/history.html

[redeemedcynic84]

Here check these articles out.
http://geocities.com/beapostolic/history.html

see my post on the page before...

this article is the biggest pile of bunk ever posted on the Internet (and that's saying a lot)

[BobDylan]

BobDylan, I provided a link earlier to the actual documents of the Albigensians and Cathari. These are people that Chalfant and others have said were Oneness. Read the documents and decide for yourself. Whether we like it or not, Dan is right on this one. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

I will have to check out the link. Was the link on this thread or another one? Let me also ask you to consider, that if in the future, history peered through time at us oneness people today, and only had at their disposal the writings of Teklemarian, would they conclude that the UPCI were divine flesh advocates and therefore heretics?

[BobDylan]

Maybe someone can post the link to the Cathari and Abligensian theology... if you knw where it is... thanks!

[SDG]

I will have to check out the link. Was the link on this thread or another one? Let me also ask you to consider, that if in the future, history peered through time at us oneness people today, and only had at their disposal the writings of Teklemarian, would they conclude that the UPCI were divine flesh advocates and therefore heretics?

Exactly do you think Tek's teaching is Oneness as you teach it? I alsothought of this scenario this morning, BD ...

would you like Teks writings to be included with UPCI teaching?

This is what I mean when I say that including the teachings of some of the past witnesses you have provided would mean that you have tacitly accepted their teaching to represent yours.

[BobDylan]

Exactly do you think Tek's teaching is Oneness as you teach it? I alsothought of this scenario this morning, BD ...

would you like Teks writings to be included with UPCI teaching?

This is what I mean when I say that including the teachings of some of the past witnesses you have provided would mean that you have tacitly accepted their teaching to represent yours.

No, I would not want Tek's teaching included with ours, but you have to understand that he was indeed one who associated with us at one time. And if history did indeed associate the entire oneness movement of today with Tek's writings, then they would come to a less that accurate conclusion as to what we believe. And I perceive that is what has happened with many "oneness" movements in the past. Their detractors (the trinitarians), have "preserved" the writings of that segment that are obviously non-representative of the movement as a whole, and then broad-brush paint the entire movement as associated with that spurious segment. And in my mind such were the Albigenses and cathari, the Paulicians, Bogamils, and so forth and so on. I do see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying?

[SDG]

No, I would not want Tek's teaching included with ours, but you have to understand that he was indeed one who associated with us at one time. And if history did indeed associate the entire oneness movement of today with Tek's writings, then they would come to a less that accurate conclusion as to what we believe. And I perceive that is what has happened with many "oneness" movements in the past. Their detractors (the trinitarians), have "preserved" the writings of that segment that are obviously non-representative of the movement as a whole, and then broad-brush paint the entire movement as associated with that spurious segment. And in my mind such were the Albigenses and cathari, the Paulicians, Bogamils, and so forth and so on. I do see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying0?

I see what you are suggesting but it is also an admission that you have no data to support your claims of an OP Church in every generation... only speculation and theories.

[BobDylan]

I see what you are suggesting but it is also an admission that you have no data to support your claims of an OP Church in every generation... only speculation and theories.

I think it's more than just speculation and theories, it's based on logical analysis of what we do know, real data that we do have, and principles of histoical analysis superimposed onto the "declared" history itself. I would concur that there are less that adequate specific "data" that suggests what is being proposed by men such as Chalfant and Weisser, but their approach is substantiated by more than speculation and theories, there is a logical and analytical approach that supports their conclusions.

By the way, can you post that link to the Cathari and Abligensian works?[/

[Truly Blessed]

I noticed TB is quoted quite often in the book were y'all friends?SE, I did not know Tom Fudge at all prior to him contacting me for an interview. He knew that I had left the UPCI in 1997 and at that time was going through some major battles with them. He also knew we had been missionaries with the UPC, District FM Director and District Board member, so I suppose he felt that my perspective would be meaningful in some way. It wasn't a good time to interview me because of the circumstances of the moment. My perspective on a lot of things was, to say the least, somewhat distorted by what I was going through at that time. One benefit of having spent 3 years here in BC is the opportunity to gain a better perspective on what happened during that turbulent period of our lives.

[redeemedcynic84]

No, I would not want Tek's teaching included with ours, but you have to understand that he was indeed one who associated with us at one time. And if history did indeed associate the entire oneness movement of today with Tek's writings, then they would come to a less that accurate conclusion as to what we believe. And I perceive that is what has happened with many "oneness" movements in the past. Their detractors (the trinitarians), have "preserved" the writings of that segment that are obviously non-representative of the movement as a whole, and then broad-brush paint the entire movement as associated with that spurious segment. And in my mind such were the Albigenses and cathari, the Paulicians, Bogamils, and so forth and so on. I do see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying?

doesn't that really just mean that you'd like to believe this so you are going to think it whether there is any factual evidence of it or not??

Why even name groups if this is how youa re going to claim oneness survived through the centuries??? There is no reason to name any group as "they were oneness" because you don't actually need any proof you can just say "BUT WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS CHANGED BY THE EVIL CATHOLICS!!" over and over and over again... and you end up claiming everyone was actually oneness...

[Mischief Maker]

I like peanut butter fudge the best, what about you?

[BobDylan]

doesn't that really just mean that you'd like to believe this so you are going to think it whether there is any factual evidence of it or not??

Why even name groups if this is how youa re going to claim oneness survived through the centuries??? There is no reason to name any group as "they were oneness" because you don't actually need any proof you can just say "BUT WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS CHANGED BY THE EVIL CATHOLICS!!" over and over and over again... and you end up claiming everyone was actually oneness...

It is very plausible to suggest that what many groups believed has been misrepresented in historical writings. For instance, most encyclopedic references to the Paulicians regard them as "dualist Manicheans". Even though their own statement of faith, the "Key of Truth", suggests nothing of dualism or Manicheanism. Suggesting the Paulicians were Manicheanists is even more absurd considering they anathematized Mani and his doctrine.

Basically I am taking an analytical approach. I am not disregarding the historical data, simply putting that data into proper context and perspective rather than embracing the traditional declared "history". For instance, in 1441, the Roman Catholic church convened the Council of Florence. It's premise was to discuss and denounce the "Sabellian" teachings prevailent at their day. Now consider that Sabellius first started teaching his form of Monarchianism around 200AD. This was 1200 years later that there were still "Sabellians". (BTW, I have absolutely no problem with Sabellius' ideas about modalism and the monarchy of God, and the real humanity AND deity of Jesus Christ). Taking this data and extrapolating the implications, we see that throughout the dark ages, for 1200 years, the Roman Catholic's fought the theology of Sabellius. This is extremely notable. I do not have to appeal to the Cathari, Abligenses, Bogamils, etc. to prove my point.

The history, the uncorrupted data that is, speaks for itself. Although the Roman Catholic version of that history differs from Chalfant's and Weisser's and my own. Who is to suggest that the Roman Catholic version of history is "more authoritative" than either of these scholars, or anyone else who comes to a different conclusion. Again, the historical data speaks for itself. Simply alalyzing the data from an alternate presupposition resulting in a different conclusion does not make that conclusion any less valid than what is traditionally held and promoted. The problem is the predominant presupposition in modern christocentric history is that the primative ante-nicene church, was trinitarian. This presupposition is absolutley unsubstantiable, thus the false conclusions of the Roman Catholic system and history and modern ecclesiastical histories.

[Truly Blessed]

I like peanut butter fudge the best, what about you?I like peanut butter fudge! I also like people who don't "fudge" it in any flavor! :)

[Barb]

I need to do this hurriedly, but first, thank you to Adino and pelathais for your time and efforts, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to this.

I will say again that even without proof, I am of the firm conviction that the Church has always prevailed with a remnant through every period of time.

If I may, I will quote from Bro. MMA's Introduction in Apostolic History Outline, and follow it with a question.

"Heavily documented, this reliable and understandable outline depicts ancient and modern functions of the Jerusalem (Acts 2) Church. Christ’s Church of Matt. 16:18 never died. It was always alive and never ceased to be doctrinally and spiritually intact for all people in all ages…

We have not used suppositional material. We certify that the facts -- dates, figures and quotes are accurate…

The quotes used in this outline are from the most credible of historians -- Heick, Harnack, hogben, Knox, Hayes, Schaff, Langer, Verduin, Bernstein, Geen, Blunt, and many others.”

Are you saying that everything the elder wrote above was not accurate?!

[pelathais]

...

Basically I am taking an analytical approach. I am not disregarding the historical data, simply putting that data into proper context and perspective rather than embracing the traditional declared "history". For instance, in 1441, the Roman Catholic church convened the Council of Florence. It's premise was to discuss and denounce the "Sabellian" teachings prevailent at their day. Now consider that Sabellius first started teaching his form of Monarchianism around 200AD. This was 1200 years later that there were still "Sabellians". (BTW, I have absolutely no problem with Sabellius' ideas about modalism and the monarchy of God, and the real humanity AND deity of Jesus Christ). Taking this data and extrapolating the implications, we see that throughout the dark ages, for 1200 years, the Roman Catholic's fought the theology of Sabellius. This is extremely notable. I do not have to appeal to the Cathari, Abligenses, Bogamils, etc. to prove my point.

Where do you find the information on Sabellianism and the Council of Florence? The Council of Florence was one of those last gasp attempts to unify the Byzantines with the West before the Turks completely overran them. They may have "denounced" various "heresies" in order to get on the same page, so to speak. But I can't find any refrences specifically to "Sabellianism" and the Council of Florence- and I started with exclusively secular and even anti-Catholic sources.

The history, the uncorrupted data that is, speaks for itself. Although the Roman Catholic version of that history differs from Chalfant's and Weisser's and my own. Who is to suggest that the Roman Catholic version of history is "more authoritative" than either of these scholars, or anyone else who comes to a different conclusion. Again, the historical data speaks for itself. Simply alalyzing the data from an alternate presupposition resulting in a different conclusion does not make that conclusion any less valid than what is traditionally held and promoted. The problem is the predominant presupposition in modern christocentric history is that the primative ante-nicene church, was trinitarian. This presupposition is absolutley unsubstantiable, thus the false conclusions of the Roman Catholic system and history and modern ecclesiastical histories.
Yes, I agree about the pre-Nicea church. Bart Erhman has done alot to show the "diversity" of the early church recently though he seems to have been one of those almost promoting the cause of the dualists and Gnostics. (I'd still recommend his books, just don't get caught up in the Gnosticism that seems to be having something of a revival lately.) Erhman was raised as a Baptist fundamentalist and began his academic career from that mindset.

Consider too that most histories produced in the West since the Age of Enlightenment were in fact anti-Catholic in their bias. From Gibbon to Schaff to Will Durant; most of the popular treatments are in fact anti-Catholic and were written to condemn the RCC. Durant, a U.U., found a little more balance. Gibbon blames the "Old Catholic Church" for the fall of Rome. Schaff believes RCC to be almost, if not anti-Christ in nature. None of them found a OP thread throughout church history.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here for info's sake.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/26014.htm

[pelathais]

I need to do this hurriedly, but first, thank you to Adino and pelathais for your time and efforts, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to this.

I will say again that even without proof, I am of the firm conviction that the Church has always prevailed with a remnant through every period of time.

If I may, I will quote from Bro. MMA's Introduction in Apostolic History Outline, and follow it with a question.

"Heavily documented, this reliable and understandable outline depicts ancient and modern functions of the Jerusalem (Acts 2) Church. Christ’s Church of Matt. 16:18 never died. It was always alive and never ceased to be doctrinally and spiritually intact for all people in all ages…

We have not used suppositional material. We certify that the facts -- dates, figures and quotes are accurate…

The quotes used in this outline are from the most credible of historians -- Heick, Harnack, hogben, Knox, Hayes, Schaff, Langer, Verduin, Bernstein, Geen, Blunt, and many others.”

Are you saying that everything the elder wrote above was not accurate?!
Yes. I remember as the elder sat in my father in law's (to be) parsonage office many years ago. I asked him point blank about his outline. He down played most of it and deflected my questions. This was the only occassion that I had ever met him. My FIL wanted me to produce some material that went along with the elder's work. I declined to be involved without more and better information. You probably heard about the outcome of the event that followed. I stayed at my parent's home and buried my head in my pillow. Literally.

[redeemedcynic84]

It is very plausible to suggest that what many groups believed has been misrepresented in historical writings. For instance, most encyclopedic references to the Paulicians regard them as "dualist Manicheans". Even though their own statement of faith, the "Key of Truth", suggests nothing of dualism or Manicheanism. Suggesting the Paulicians were Manicheanists is even more absurd considering they anathematized Mani and his doctrine.

Basically I am taking an analytical approach. I am not disregarding the historical data, simply putting that data into proper context and perspective rather than embracing the traditional declared "history". For instance, in 1441, the Roman Catholic church convened the Council of Florence. It's premise was to discuss and denounce the "Sabellian" teachings prevailent at their day. Now consider that Sabellius first started teaching his form of Monarchianism around 200AD. This was 1200 years later that there were still "Sabellians". (BTW, I have absolutely no problem with Sabellius' ideas about modalism and the monarchy of God, and the real humanity AND deity of Jesus Christ). Taking this data and extrapolating the implications, we see that throughout the dark ages, for 1200 years, the Roman Catholic's fought the theology of Sabellius. This is extremely notable. I do not have to appeal to the Cathari, Abligenses, Bogamils, etc. to prove my point.

The history, the uncorrupted data that is, speaks for itself. Although the Roman Catholic version of that history differs from Chalfant's and Weisser's and my own. Who is to suggest that the Roman Catholic version of history is "more authoritative" than either of these scholars, or anyone else who comes to a different conclusion. Again, the historical data speaks for itself. Simply alalyzing the data from an alternate presupposition resulting in a different conclusion does not make that conclusion any less valid than what is traditionally held and promoted. The problem is the predominant presupposition in modern christocentric history is that the primative ante-nicene church, was trinitarian. This presupposition is absolutley unsubstantiable, thus the false conclusions of the Roman Catholic system and history and modern ecclesiastical histories.


understandable, and that makes sense...

I guess my biggest question though is why does it matter?

I mean, we'll never know the entirety of history, because the "victor" (read: most powerful) write the history books and can say whatever they want...

history isn't truthful... What we really should be more worried about is the simple fact that the Catholics (that we say are so wrong) are the ones who compiled, chose, and transcribed/translated the Bible for those same years that we don't know if there were oneness people...

[Steve Epley]

SE, I did not know Tom Fudge at all prior to him contacting me for an interview. He knew that I had left the UPCI in 1997 and at that time was going through some major battles with them. He also knew we had been missionaries with the UPC, District FM Director and District Board member, so I suppose he felt that my perspective would be meaningful in some way. It wasn't a good time to interview me because of the circumstances of the moment. My perspective on a lot of things was, to say the least, somewhat distorted by what I was going through at that time. One benefit of having spent 3 years here in BC is the opportunity to gain a better perspective on what happened during that turbulent period of our lives.

I just wondered since his roots was where you were for a season and with somewhat the same doctrinal background. EF knew his parents and remembered him as a young child. EF was out of Arthur McElroy's church. So he was water & Spirit. I guess I just missed the many times he quoted you before. However you were not nasty nor ugly just forthright about your feelings and positions.

[pelathais]

understandable, and that makes sense...

I guess my biggest question though is why does it matter?

I mean, we'll never know the entirety of history, because the "victor" (read: most powerful) write the history books and can say whatever they want...

history isn't truthful... What we really should be more worried about is the simple fact that the Catholics (that we say are so wrong) are the ones who compiled, chose, and transcribed/translated the Bible for those same years that we don't know if there were oneness people...

"Antiquities or Remnants of History are, as we said, tanguam tabula naufragii, [like the planks of a shipwreck;] when industrious persons by an exact and scrupulous diligence and observation, out of monuments, names, words, proverbs, traditions, private records and evidences, fragments of stories, passages of books that concern not story, and the like, do save and recover somewhat from the deluge of time.

"In these kinds of unperfect histories I do assign no deficience, for they are tanquam imperfecte mista, [things imperfectly compounded;] and therefore any deficience in them is but their nature."
Sir Francis Bacon

Since all we have to work with are "planks" scattered across the sea after a shipwreck, we must exercise due care and diligence that we pass the truth on to our children; and not "cunningly devised fables..." (Saint Paul).

[Sam]

I hold a PCI view, BD. Hence, the Church are those who place their faith in Jesus Christ.... I along w/ other Apostolics, like Howard Goss, believe the Baptists and other believers will be saved. :poloroid

The Church is not defined by your parameters.

My view is like that of Dan. The Church (with a capital C) consists of those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ. I believe that anyone who may be Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal (trinity or oneness) Episcopalian, or whatever label may be used is saved if he or she has asked Jesus into his/her life.

And, I consider myself Jesus' Name, Holiness, Apostolic, Oneness Pentecostal.

[Sam]

This thread reminds me of an incident that happened at the first UPC General Conference I ever attended. The year was either 1964 or 65, and it was in Grand Rapids, MI. Do any of you remember that conference? Bro Sam and Sis Fella are the only ones I can think of who would be old enough on this forum to remember, besides myself. Anyhow......

A Chinese man was brought to address the audience. Some of our people had "run into him" in China. This man told us an amazing story. There was an underground church there, and had been there since the "dark ages". He grilled our people (not sure if they were UPC, but were Apostolic) for hours on the new birth.....repentance, water baptism, infilling of the HG....... before he would allow them to preach to his people. He said the only difference in his church and the American church is that their women did not cut their hair. lol
...


I was only at one UPC conference. That was in Indianapolis in 1958 or 59. I think it was at Cadle Tabernacle.

We've been fooled before when we too quickly embraced some one and paraded him like a trophy, like the Russians Pentecostals or the Messianic believers of a couple years back.

God has had people, some times just a remnant, through history. Some times they were captives in a strange land like Daniel and his three boyhood friends.

[Sam]

WHO determined they were truly "trinitarian"? I heard a black baptist on the radio describe the trinity as "three manifestations of Jesus Christ". He called himself trinitarian, but fundamentally he held a oneness view of the Godhead. There may even have been numerous "trinitarian" groups throughout history, that if you were to examine and scrutinize their doctrine, they very well have been oneness...

Anybody ever hear of a minister named C.C. Gosey? He died in February 1990 at the age of 90. I don't know if he was UPC or not. He lived in Norfolk, VA but had a sister or some family in Cincinnati, OH. He published books and a chart (like the Larkin Charts) that was available from the UPC Publishing house. One time while preaching at our ALJC church in the nineteen seventies he said that trinitarian and oneness folks actually believer the same but they just explain it differently.

[pelathais]

Anybody ever hear of a minister named C.C. Gosey? He died in February 1990 at the age of 90. I don't know if he was UPC or not. He lived in Norfolk, VA but had a sister or some family in Cincinnati, OH. He published books and a chart (like the Larkin Charts) that was available from the UPC Publishing house. One time while preaching at our ALJC church in the nineteen seventies he said that trinitarian and oneness folks actually believer the same but they just explain it differently.
I remember those charts. He used Larkin's as a template and made them more Apostolic oriented. I don't think I ever met him in person, though.

They were available from the Pub at one time. You can get them online here: http://www.armageddonbooks.com/gosey.html - kind of an "End of the World Clearing House..." Lots of different sources and materials. "Order now! Before it's too late!" :)

[redeemedcynic84]

Since all we have to work with are "planks" scattered across the sea after a shipwreck, we must exercise due care and diligence that we pass the truth on to our children; and not "cunningly devised fables..." (Saint Paul).

I agree with that...

and, honestly, for that reason I think we shouldn't try and "piece together" where there were people like us through history and just say "God would have preserved someone, whether we know who they were or not"...

trying to say this group or that group are like us is only going to end up making us look bad in the end and will never make us look good no matter how well we prove they believed like us...

[Steve Epley]

Anybody ever hear of a minister named C.C. Gosey? He died in February 1990 at the age of 90. I don't know if he was UPC or not. He lived in Norfolk, VA but had a sister or some family in Cincinnati, OH. He published books and a chart (like the Larkin Charts) that was available from the UPC Publishing house. One time while preaching at our ALJC church in the nineteen seventies he said that trinitarian and oneness folks actually believer the same but they just explain it differently.

Boy was he confused. I wouldn't want to use his charts.

[AGAPE]

If I remember correctly, Dan Alicia has the Fudge book available as a pdf file and might be persuaded to email a copy as an attachment to someone who asks.

Hey Dan oh Dan...wanta be nice to a conservative today???

Hey Dan

[Esther]

Boy was he confused. I wouldn't want to use his charts.

Some do some don't, you can't broad brush this one.

[AGAPE]

Ask em this

"When we get to heaven will we see Jesus as God or will we see 3 different beings?"

[mfblume]

Ask em this

"When we get to heaven will we see Jesus as God or will we see 3 different beings?"

Better still, ask if 'em if they believe Jesus, and His Father and the Holy Ghost were eternally aware of each other and eternally communed with each other and eternally loved each other. THAT is the difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism.

[Barb]

Yes. I remember as the elder sat in my father in law's (to be) parsonage office many years ago. I asked him point blank about his outline. He down played most of it and deflected my questions. This was the only occassion that I had ever met him. My FIL wanted me to produce some material that went along with the elder's work. I declined to be involved without more and better information. You probably heard about the outcome of the event that followed. I stayed at my parent's home and buried my head in my pillow. Literally.

Once again, I thank you for your candid response...

To some, what I am going to say may cause me to seem daft, yet I cannot help but believe that a remnant of the Church of the living God prevailed through every century.

It is beyond my human reasoning to imagine that the Church was somehow resurrected in the dawn of the 20th century. :nah

[pelathais]

Once again, I thank you for your candid response...

To some, what I am going to say may cause me to seem daft, yet I cannot help but believe that a remnant of the Church of the living God prevailed through every century.

It is beyond my human reasoning to imagine that the Church was somehow resurrected in the dawn of the 20th century. :nah
I agree with you, Sister. It's just that some have tried to prove that the Apostolic teachings existed in groups that were clearly not Apostolic. This tends to weaken our position in the eyes of other Christian groups.

We need to kind of "police" ourselves and critically question somethings that are put forth from our midst. That way we don't have people and churches being hurt when the Baptists or Evangelical writers come along.

[pelathais]

Once again, I thank you for your candid response...

To some, what I am going to say may cause me to seem daft, yet I cannot help but believe that a remnant of the Church of the living God prevailed through every century.

It is beyond my human reasoning to imagine that the Church was somehow resurrected in the dawn of the 20th century. :nah
Thomas Fudge makes this case in his book as well. There was and always has been a complex flow of ideas and thoughts.

To try and force "The Church" into some sort of continuous "Orthodoxy" that was maintained throughout history (like many of the Trinitarian Apologists do) is equally inaccurate. The history and writings of the "Church Fathers" often reads like a shrill debate on any of today's Internet boards.

[Sheltiedad]

Can we go a different way? Can anyone come forward and say that their family was not Catholic or some other religion 100 years ago? 200 years ago? etc...

[pelathais]

Can we go a different way? Can anyone come forward and say that their family was not Catholic or some other religion 100 years ago? 200 years ago? etc...
How about this...

When I signed on to the UPC one thing that influenced me was that among the Required Reading was a Bible Study by John Dearing where he used Romans 4:17 to show that his Trinitarian grandmother was not lost. Because of this I felt that the UPC's stand was that Trinitarians were not automatically "lost."

With the change in the Required Reading and the way the AS was put through, over time I began to see that the UPC had changed it's position. We now were saying that John Dearing's grandmother is lost. A founder of our movement (of course from the PCI side *shudder*) had some consolation in the fate of his loved ones. We take that consolation away with our revisionism.

That poor old lady; died before the revelation of Jesus name baptism and the Mighty God in Christ. We used to cut her some slack. Now we send her to hell. :dunno

[pelathais]

Can we go a different way? Can anyone come forward and say that their family was not Catholic or some other religion 100 years ago? 200 years ago? etc...

I didn't quite answer you and maybe steered away from your point. What you're asking is: can anyone show an unbroken line of Pentecostal pedigree that is older than, say about 1901? Where was the "Jesus Name Church" in 1890? 1865? etc?

[Sheltiedad]

Yes, rather than start at Christ and work forward, I was proposing that we start from now and work our way backwards (hopefully beyond 1901) the same way you would trace ancestry or geneology. I know my family was Catholic until the 1940's... so that rules us out...

[Barb]

I didn't quite answer you and maybe steered away from your point. What you're asking is: can anyone show an unbroken line of Pentecostal pedigree that is older than, say about 1901? Where was the "Jesus Name Church" in 1890? 1865? etc? Is this accurate?!

1850. Dan Huntington, Boston, Mass. baptized converts according to Acts 2:38 (V. Synan, p. 163).

[pelathais]

Is this accurate?!

1850. Dan Huntington, Boston, Mass. baptized converts according to Acts 2:38 (V. Synan, p. 163).
Synan is a credible source and I've seen that reference to D. Huntington in Boston before. But we must ask further, did the good Dan Huntington preach the full Oneness Apostolic message?

As stated in another post, the Old Celtic Church practiced baptism in Jesus name but they were also very Trinitarian in their views of the Godhead. Jesus name baptism is so plainly practiced in the book of Acts that many diverse groups picked up on it.

I personally baptized a CofC preacher and several of his people about 10 or 11 years ago. They then went back and rebaptized their entire congregation and Jesus name baptism spread to several other CofC churches through that. However for the most part they kept their Trinitarian creed and Preterist eschatology.

Sorting out all of these groups and teachings is very complex work. Just because someone baptized in Jesus name 200 years ago (or whenever) doesn't make them a candidate to preach GC this year. There;s a lot of baggage that we pick up when we try and attach ourselves to many of these historical groups and movements.

[RevDWW]

Synan is a credible source and I've seen that reference to D. Huntington in Boston before. But we must ask further, did the good Dan Huntington preach the full Oneness Apostolic message?

As stated in another post, the Old Celtic Church practiced baptism in Jesus name but they were also very Trinitarian in their views of the Godhead. Jesus name baptism is so plainly practiced in the book of Acts that many diverse groups picked up on it.

I personally baptized a CofC preacher and several of his people about 10 or 11 years ago. They then went back and rebaptized their entire congregation and Jesus name baptism spread to several other CofC churches through that. However for the most part they kept their Trinitarian creed and Preterist eschatology.

Sorting out all of these groups and teachings is very complex work. Just because someone baptized in Jesus name 200 years ago (or whenever) doesn't make them a candidate to preach GC this year. There;s a lot of baggage that we pick up when we try and attach ourselves to many of these historical groups and movements.

Are you saying that those groups had to have a full understanding of the God head to make their Jesus name baptism valid?

[pelathais]

Are you saying that those groups had to have a full understanding of the God head to make their Jesus name baptism valid?
No. Just that we would be wrong to say things like, "the Irish Celtic Church was a Oneness Apostolic church... " simply because we shared baptism in Jesus name in common with them.

As far as the validity of their baptism, that would depend upon the validity of the faith expressed by each individual. Considering that I need God's help just to judge my own heart (Psalm 129:23-24), I don't want to ever set myself up as a judge of those who've been dead a 1,000 years.

[Truly Blessed]

How about this...

When I signed on to the UPC one thing that influenced me was that among the Required Reading was a Bible Study by John Dearing where he used Romans 4:17 to show that his Trinitarian grandmother was not lost. Because of this I felt that the UPC's stand was that Trinitarians were not automatically "lost."

With the change in the Required Reading and the way the AS was put through, over time I began to see that the UPC had changed it's position. We now were saying that John Dearing's grandmother is lost. A founder of our movement (of course from the PCI side *shudder*) had some consolation in the fate of his loved ones. We take that consolation away with our revisionism.

That poor old lady; died before the revelation of Jesus name baptism and the Mighty God in Christ. We used to cut her some slack. No we send her to hell. :dunno

Thank God that we can't actually send anyone to hell as anxious as some appear to be in doing so. God is the one who will determine who is saved, not us.

[Truly Blessed]

Yes, rather than start at Christ and work forward, I was proposing that we start from now and work our way backwards (hopefully beyond 1901) the same way you would trace ancestry or geneology. I know my family was Catholic until the 1940's... so that rules us out...My dad was Church of God until 1958, so that rules me out as well.

[Steve Epley]

Synan is a credible source and I've seen that reference to D. Huntington in Boston before. But we must ask further, did the good Dan Huntington preach the full Oneness Apostolic message?

As stated in another post, the Old Celtic Church practiced baptism in Jesus name but they were also very Trinitarian in their views of the Godhead. Jesus name baptism is so plainly practiced in the book of Acts that many diverse groups picked up on it.

I personally baptized a CofC preacher and several of his people about 10 or 11 years ago. They then went back and rebaptized their entire congregation and Jesus name baptism spread to several other CofC churches through that. However for the most part they kept their Trinitarian creed and Preterist eschatology.

Sorting out all of these groups and teachings is very complex work. Just because someone baptized in Jesus name 200 years ago (or whenever) doesn't make them a candidate to preach GC this year. There;s a lot of baggage that we pick up when we try and attach ourselves to many of these historical groups and movements.

See it matters not how much anyone posts or any source your mind is made up. I know of churches in the hills of Kentucky that were speaking in tongues and baptizing in Jesus Name decades before the 1900's. Some of the Cain Ridge folks baptized in Jesus Name and spoke in tongues.

[pelathais]

See it matters not how much anyone posts or any source your mind is made up. I know of churches in the hills of Kentucky that were speaking in tongues and baptizing in Jesus Name decades before the 1900's. Some of the Cain Ridge folks baptized in Jesus Name and spoke in tongues.
I think we're really on the same page here but maybe I'm not articulating very well. I'm not familiar with those groups you described but I do have family in Kentucky and have thought of you fondly for that reason.

I'm certain that there were groups that no one has ever heard from who existed, preached an Acts 2:38 Gospel and then disappeared from the pages of time, remembered perhaps only by God. But I obviously can't prove they existed, so I just have to look at history like I'm looking at the night sky and allow a sense of awe and wonder fill my heart.

What I am speaking up against is the way that we have grouped every "anti-Trinity" movement mentioned in history into the the Apostolic fellowship. This leads to all kinds of confusion- people end up thinking that we're Gnostics, dualists and Arians.

[Steve Epley]

I think we're really on the same page here but maybe I'm not articulating very well. I'm not familiar with those groups you described but I do have family in Kentucky and have thought of you fondly for that reason.

I'm certain that there were groups that no one has ever heard from who existed, preached an Acts 2:38 Gospel and then disappeared from the pages of time, remembered perhaps only by God. But I obviously can't prove they existed, so I just have to look at history like I'm looking at the night sky and allow a sense of awe and wonder fill my heart.

What I am speaking up against is the way that we have grouped every "anti-Trinity" movement mentioned in history into the the Apostolic fellowship. This leads to all kinds of confusion- people end up thinking that we're Gnostics, dualists and Arians.

I do agree the Sowder's movement which are twoness are very anti-Trinitarian and claim to baptize in Jesus Name and some actually do. I can imagine if time tarries someone could look back into history and mistake them for Apostolic the same with Christ Gospel folks and Branhamites.

[pelathais]

I do agree the Sowder's movement which are twoness are very anti-Trinitarian and claim to baptize in Jesus Name and some actually do. I can imagine if time tarries someone could look back into history and mistake them for Apostolic the same with Christ Gospel folks and Branhamites.
There really seems to be a growing "twoness" or binitarianism movement out there. I know of one man - former UPC - in LA who promotes this.

[Adino]

I need to do this hurriedly, but first, thank you to Adino and pelathais for your time and efforts, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to this.

I will say again that even without proof, I am of the firm conviction that the Church has always prevailed with a remnant through every period of time.

If I may, I will quote from Bro. MMA's Introduction in Apostolic History Outline, and follow it with a question.

"Heavily documented, this reliable and understandable outline depicts ancient and modern functions of the Jerusalem (Acts 2) Church. Christ’s Church of Matt. 16:18 never died. It was always alive and never ceased to be doctrinally and spiritually intact for all people in all ages…

We have not used suppositional material. We certify that the facts -- dates, figures and quotes are accurate…

The quotes used in this outline are from the most credible of historians -- Heick, Harnack, hogben, Knox, Hayes, Schaff, Langer, Verduin, Bernstein, Geen, Blunt, and many others.”

Are you saying that everything the elder wrote above was not accurate?!Sorry, Barb, I only just now saw this post. I apologize for not responding to it earlier.

Marvin Arnold never really defines what the church of Matthew 16:18 is. Yes, he points to doctrinal earmarks he had come to believe identified the early church, but he began his research with the assumption that Haywood's doctrine was in fact the doctrine of the early church. He then read back into history his modern theological preconceptions and at times forced historical references to support his modern interpretation when they, in fact, really did not. He did not allow history to speak for itself.

Was he accurate? Yes, he was accurate in recording much of the evidence he came across. He was not accurate in interpreting what that evidence meant. He interpreted the evidence only through the prism of his 20th century theological understanding and in doing so forced his own concepts back into the historical record. This is simply poor research.

I will say though, the man was brilliant at recalling bits of history. He would tell you something then give you the place he found it, the book, the author, the page, the paragraph, the sentence within the paragraph. His retention of some of the data was uncanny. It is a shame he allowed his theological bias to skew his research.

[Steve Epley]

Sorry, Barb, I only just now saw this post. I apologize for not responding to it earlier.

Marvin Arnold never really defines what the church of Matthew 16:18 is. Yes, he points to doctrinal earmarks he had come to believe identified the early church, but he began his research with the assumption that Haywood's doctrine was in fact the doctrine of the early church. He then read back into history his modern theological preconceptions and at times forced historical references to support his modern interpretation when they, in fact, really did not. He did not allow history to speak for itself.

Was he accurate? Yes, he was accurate in recording much of the evidence he came across. He was not accurate in interpreting what that evidence meant. He interpreted the evidence only through the prism of his 20th century theological understanding and in doing so forced his own concepts back into the historical record. This is simply poor research.

I will say though, the man was brilliant at recalling bits of history. He would tell you something then give you the place he found it, the book, the author, the page, the paragraph, the sentence within the paragraph. His retention of some of the data was uncanny. It is a shame he allowed his theological bias to skew his research.

Could it be YOUR bias and NOT his that skews your perception.

[Adino]

Could it be YOUR bias and NOT his that skews your perception.Not this time. He simply did not approach the evidence with an open mind allowing it to speak for itself. The doctrine he came to know HAD TO BE TRUE. So he found evidences throughout history of people who used familiar terminology in their record, but when closely examined, believed nothing near to Arnold's final doctrinal positions. Although his "witnesses" may have agreed on a single issue of Arnold's theology, they IN NO WAY held to Arnold's full theological package. They would have thought him a heretic.

Much like you and the trinitarians, Steve. While you could certainly find SOMETHING you'd agree with them on concerning peripheral issues (well, maybe) you would reject their overall theology and consider it heresy. You could not go back into history, point to a trinitarian who agreed with you on a side issue and use him as evidence that your overall theological position always existed. This would be a dishonest representation of the historical facts would it not?

[Steve Epley]

Not this time. He simply did not approach the evidence with an open mind allowing it to speak for itself. The doctrine he came to know HAD TO BE TRUE. So he found evidences throughout history of people who used familiar terminology in their record, but when closely examined, believed nothing near to Arnold's final doctrinal positions. Although his "witnesses" may have agreed on a single issue of Arnold's theology, they IN NO WAY held to Arnold's full theological package. They would have thought him a heretic.

Much like you and the trinitarians, Steve. While you could certainly find SOMETHING you'd agree with them on concerning peripheral issues (well, maybe) you would reject their overall theology and consider it heresy. You could not go back into history, point to a trinitarian who agreed with you on a side issue and use him as evidence that your overall theological position always existed. This would be a dishonest representation of the historical facts would it not?
I certainly would concur but however we can only quote what we have. I will give you an example there are many Oneness groups that have teachings I think are heretical but if time progressed maybe history would only say they were Oneness and without other source in which may be very hard to come by one may never know all these heresies they also taught. Does that prove the church did not exist preaching the Acts 2:38 message? No it only proves there were some who preached Acts 2:38 that ALSO taught heresy. I think you used a magnifying glass on Arnold because of personal involvement and might gives others a slide.

[BobDylan]

I do agree the Sowder's movement which are twoness are very anti-Trinitarian and claim to baptize in Jesus Name and some actually do. I can imagine if time tarries someone could look back into history and mistake them for Apostolic the same with Christ Gospel folks and Branhamites.

Who is Sowder? I know some people in Oklahoma who are "twoness". They believe in holiness standards, many more conservative than UPC, they baptize in Jesus name, but their godhead doctrine is more binitarian than anything else. Is this the same group as Sowder? There are quite a few of them out there if it is!

[Adino]

I certainly would concur but however we can only quote what we have. I will give you an example there are many Oneness groups that have teachings I think are heretical but if time progressed maybe history would only say they were Oneness and without other source in which may be very hard to come by one may never know all these heresies they also taught. Does that prove the church did not exist preaching the Acts 2:38 message? No it only proves there were some who preached Acts 2:38 that ALSO taught heresy. I think you used a magnifying glass on Arnold because of personal involvement and might gives others a slide.Steve, Arnold never really defines what the Acts 2:38 message is. He identifies issues involved in the "Acts 2:38 message" but he never really defines what that message is. Jesus name baptism, tongues speech, and anti-trinitarianism were the earmarks he searched for, but he never defined how these issues interwined in his mind theologically. He only tried to point out that these were present issues in the first century church and that they were issues throughout history. Without identifying their consistent relationship in a soteriological manner he was not at liberty to conclude that any of his findings gave evidence of HIS theological tendencies.

[Steve Epley]

Who is Sowder? I know some people in Oklahoma who are "twoness". They believe in holiness standards, many more conservative than UPC, they baptize in Jesus name, but their godhead doctrine is more binitarian than anything else. Is this the same group as Sowder? There are quite a few of them out there if it is!

James Sowders was the leader of a movement that began on the Ohio River beginning in 1914. He drew large crowds first their camp was in Elco, Il. then later they bought a large camp ground at Shepherdsville, Ky. he pastored in Louisville, Ky. The movement spread throughout the nation. Their main doctrine was the church was being restored using typology of the Temple being built on Ornan's threshingfloor. Thus any preacher was allowed to preach any subject but was questioned thus most services became long Bible discussions. Sowders dies in 51 his heir apparent was T. M. Jolly who had a church in St. Louis, Mo. & Eldorado, Il. They were known first as 'school of prophets' later most churches were names Gospel Assemblies or something similiar.
Their main tenets are:
1. Two Gods in the Godhead and yes they use the term Gods.
2. They baptize in Jesus Name however is a man belongs to an organization he cannot baptize in Jesus Name because he is not operating in Jesus Name but in the name of an organization.
3. They are the Body of Christ everyone else is Babylon.
4. They teach must must reach sinless perfection to be in the Bride. At one time this included not having physical relations with your companion.
5. The 144,000 is the Bride.
6. Sowders taught there is NO personal devil only the flesh is the devil.
7. The sin in the garden was sex between Adam & Eve.
8. No hell.
9. Three groups of people righteous- sinner those who have had some religious experience they will be given time to be saved at the White Throne-the ungodly the do not resurrect but die like a dog.
10. No one has the truth today only parts until the truth is completely restored on the threshingfloor then the latter rain will come and bring the church to perfection.

[Hoovie]

James Sowders was the leader of a movement that began on the Ohio River beginning in 1914. He drew large crowds first their camp was in Elco, Il. then later they bought a large camp ground at Shepherdsville, Ky. he pastored in Louisville, Ky. The movement spread throughout the nation. Their main doctrine was the church was being restored using typology of the Temple being built on Ornan's threshingfloor. Thus any preacher was allowed to preach any subject but was questioned thus most services became long Bible discussions. Sowders dies in 51 his heir apparent was T. M. Jolly who had a church in St. Louis, Mo. & Eldorado, Il. They were known first as 'school of prophets' later most churches were names Gospel Assemblies or something similiar.
Their main tenets are:
1. Two Gods in the Godhead and yes they use the term Gods.
2. They baptize in Jesus Name however is a man belongs to an organization he cannot baptize in Jesus Name because he is not operating in Jesus Name but in the name of an organization.
3. They are the Body of Christ everyone else is Babylon.
4. They teach must must reach sinless perfection to be in the Bride. At one time this included not having physical relations with your companion.
5. The 144,000 is the Bride.
6. Sowders taught there is NO personal devil only the flesh is the devil.
7. The sin in the garden was sex between Adam & Eve.
8. No hell.
9. Three groups of people righteous- sinner those who have had some religious experience they will be given time to be saved at the White Throne-the ungodly the do not resurrect but die like a dog.
10. No one has the truth today only parts until the truth is completely restored on the threshingfloor then the latter rain will come and bring the church to perfection.

Intriging. How large is this sect today? Do they still shun sex?

[Steve Epley]

Intriging. How large is this sect today? Do they still shun sex?

There are a few hundred congregations yet today. Most have revised their stand on physical relations. But in the 50's and earlier that taught it strong and it had an adverse affect on their movement.

[SDG]

There are a few hundred congregations yet today. Most have revised their stand on physical relations. But in the 50's and earlier that taught it strong and it had an adverse affect on their movement.

Yeah .... it's called the BABY BOOM.

[Steve Epley]

Yeah .... it's called the BABY BOOM.

Many my father's age never married, some feel into sexual sins. I am sure maybe some of the elderly still might believe this but I would say the majority has moved away from this teaching. That doctrine will kill a movement naturally.

[Felicity]

I'm glad Tom Fudge wrote the book! I'm glad it's sitting on my bookshelf.

[Sam]

I'm glad Tom Fudge wrote the book! I'm glad it's sitting on my bookshelf.

The book has been controversial.
It has been praised and condemned usually depending on our view we already held before we read the book.

I think a good thing about the book is that it revealed the fact that what we now refer to as the "one-step" plan of salvation on these forums was in the past and can still be today a valid view among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals.

I think something we can all learn from it is to be more tolerant of those who do not agree with us on all things.

[pelathais]

The book has been controversial.
It has been praised and condemned usually depending on our view we already held before we read the book.

I think a good thing about the book is that it revealed the fact that what we now refer to as the "one-step" plan of salvation on these forums was in the past and can still be today a valid view among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals.

I think something we can all learn from it is to be more tolerant of those who do not agree with us on all things.
I mentioned this before, and I'm sure others have as well- but for those who would like to read a good portion of the book before buying it- a "preview" copy is available at Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=GmztAtSwxMkC&pg=PP1&dq=christianity+without+the+cross&sig=J1PkQr7X3Ve6_G34lUpt50tVXTk) for free.

[Sam]

I fell asleep last night reading the autobiograph of W. E. Kidson. It was an interesting read. In it, he speaks of Eugene Garret (from Washington) a great deal. I wondered if Bro Garrett was still alive. Anyone know?

could you tell me how to get a copy of W.E. Kidson's autobiography?

[Neck]

This will be my third reading. I read it twice when I first got it when it first came out. But decided to read it through again. Though I do not agree and his bias is evident he must be commended for the hours of gathering information and putting it together. Some things I doubt their factualness not impugning him but the memory can be tricky with all of us and interviewing folks in their late years or early years for that matter all information we remember through the prisms of experiences. I am enjoying it again. I love any history of the American Jesus Name movement. Or Pentecostalism in general. I bougth several books advertized in Charisma during the time of the Azusa celebration.

You simply can't take the heart out of those that have lived it. Much of what he gathered was also from recordings and actual sermon notes. When writing from a side or point of view that was hidden from plain sight during much of the 1960's, 70's and 80's. It will sound bias because it is from a polar point of view. I read the book twice and found over whelming evidence that there was a fraction of our my heritage and past that was kept from me.

In the end we all take the entire history and perspective of our experiences and come to a belief. It was interesting to see my father quoted in the book a couple of times.

[Amanah]

bump to read later

[canam]

bump to read later

His dad and my family were/are great friends, dad has passed,havent seen him in years ,such a good man, been kind to me.

[johnny44]

I need to read it through. I've scanned it front to back but I need to actually read it for the historical research.
I was surprised at how many of the quoted ministers that I knew; as in had met, spoken to etc.

Looks like I need to find our copy of Thomas Weisser's book also. It has a timeline showing the continuous oneness believer. :angelsad You mean I can't believe everything I read?SAw one on Amazon they were asking $111.00 for it.:irate:thumbsdown

[HolyFire]

This thread reminds me of an incident that happened at the first UPC General Conference I ever attended. The year was either 1964 or 65, and it was in Grand Rapids, MI. Do any of you remember that conference? Bro Sam and Sis Fella are the only ones I can think of who would be old enough on this forum to remember, besides myself. Anyhow......

A Chinese man was brought to address the audience. Some of our people had "run into him" in China. This man told us an amazing story. There was an underground church there, and had been there since the "dark ages". He grilled our people (not sure if they were UPC, but were Apostolic) for hours on the new birth.....repentance, water baptism, infilling of the HG....... before he would allow them to preach to his people. He said the only difference in his church and the American church is that their women did not cut their hair. lol

God has always had a church, somewhere, that teaches the way to be saved is through repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Just like the one in the book of Acts.

:spit

[kerry]

looking forward to reading it.. Love to read and anything informational that is relevant to my beliefs..Love anything to do with Asuza street and the people that I now follow

[canam]

Fudge's book is not about that it concerns the PCI influence in the UPC that he feels has been ignored AND the AS letter that he attacks. Of course he is Anglican but his roots are in NB his father went to a UPC church that I think was of PIC influence.

This is a really old thread but Tommy's dad(James) is a upc licensed minster to this day as far as i know ,heard him preach many times ,he also was a detective in the St John PD and retired from that i believe,i think he worked vice squad,Havent seen him in years.

[Sam]

This thread reminds me of an incident that happened at the first UPC General Conference I ever attended. The year was either 1964 or 65, and it was in Grand Rapids, MI. Do any of you remember that conference? Bro Sam and Sis Fella are the only ones I can think of who would be old enough on this forum to remember, besides myself. Anyhow......



Well, I'm old enough but I wasn't there. The only UPC conference I have ever been to was in Indianapolis. It was 1958 or 1959 I think. It was held in Cadle Tabernacle. The place was packed with standing room only and someone from an organization in Mexico that was in fellowship with the UPC preached.

[Jermyn Davidson]

James Sowders was the leader of a movement that began on the Ohio River beginning in 1914. He drew large crowds first their camp was in Elco, Il. then later they bought a large camp ground at Shepherdsville, Ky. he pastored in Louisville, Ky. The movement spread throughout the nation. Their main doctrine was the church was being restored using typology of the Temple being built on Ornan's threshingfloor. Thus any preacher was allowed to preach any subject but was questioned thus most services became long Bible discussions. Sowders dies in 51 his heir apparent was T. M. Jolly who had a church in St. Louis, Mo. & Eldorado, Il. They were known first as 'school of prophets' later most churches were names Gospel Assemblies or something similiar.
Their main tenets are:
1. Two Gods in the Godhead and yes they use the term Gods.
2. They baptize in Jesus Name however is a man belongs to an organization he cannot baptize in Jesus Name because he is not operating in Jesus Name but in the name of an organization.
3. They are the Body of Christ everyone else is Babylon.
4. They teach must must reach sinless perfection to be in the Bride. At one time this included not having physical relations with your companion.
5. The 144,000 is the Bride.
6. Sowders taught there is NO personal devil only the flesh is the devil.
7. The sin in the garden was sex between Adam & Eve.
8. No hell.
9. Three groups of people righteous- sinner those who have had some religious experience they will be given time to be saved at the White Throne-the ungodly the do not resurrect but die like a dog.
10. No one has the truth today only parts until the truth is completely restored on the threshingfloor then the latter rain will come and bring the church to perfection.

I know of an old lay in southern Maryland who has beliefs in common with most of what's on this list.

She used to be Apostolic. My Dad used to fellowship her and her church but when she started believing strange beliefs, my Dad and Mom cut her off from fellowship with us.

She left her Apostolic church to embrace her new truth.

[johnny44]

Well, I'm old enough but I wasn't there. The only UPC conference I have ever been to was in Indianapolis. It was 1958 or 1959 I think. It was held in Cadle Tabernacle. The place was packed with standing room only and someone from an organization in Mexico that was in fellowship with the UPC preached.In english or spanish?

[Sam]

In english or spanish?

you know, it's been so long I don't remember if he spoke in English or if he spoke in Spanish with an interpreter.

[MondayMorning]

A book by Boyd was mentioned. Would that by any chance be Paul Boyd?

[Abiding Now]

A book by Boyd was mentioned. Would that by any chance be Paul Boyd?

Probably Gregory Boyd.

[Michael The Disciple]

Probably Gregory Boyd.

When Greg Boyds book came out I bought it. I was stunned that he presented Oneness doctrine before going into his attack. It was so irrefutable he had to then caution his readers AGAINST CROSS REFERENCING THE SCRIPTURES!

Why would he do that? Because he knew in his heart if the readers DID they would be compelled to believe what he was now rejecting.

[Carl]

When Greg Boyds book came out I bought it. I was stunned that he presented Oneness doctrine before going into his attack. It was so irrefutable he had to then caution his readers AGAINST CROSS REFERENCING THE SCRIPTURES!

Why would he do that? Because he knew in his heart if the readers DID they would be compelled to believe what he was now rejecting.

Right Michael! I read one of his other books and thought boy this guy almost sounds like he is oneness, but then he kept using the term "triune". Afterwards I found out he was formally oneness. Almost like he was using terminology to present himself as Trinitarian but still believed oneness.

[MondayMorning]

Thanks

[MondayMorning]

Well, I'm old enough but I wasn't there. The only UPC conference I have ever been to was in Indianapolis. It was 1958 or 1959 I think. It was held in Cadle Tabernacle. The place was packed with standing room only and someone from an organization in Mexico that was in fellowship with the UPC preached.

Sam, was William Branham at that meeting?

[CC1]

When Greg Boyds book came out I bought it. I was stunned that he presented Oneness doctrine before going into his attack. It was so irrefutable he had to then caution his readers AGAINST CROSS REFERENCING THE SCRIPTURES!

Why would he do that? Because he knew in his heart if the readers DID they would be compelled to believe what he was now rejecting.

Kind of an illogical conclusion on your part I must say. Why would he go through the whole excercise if he 'knew in his heart readers would be compelled to believe what he was now rejecting"?

I have no doubt that he sincerely believes what he does now whether it is right or wrong.

I would think it is more likely that you reached your conclusion because you already strongly believe the perspective he first outlined before he refuted it and you understandably had a hard time accepting his refutation. After all that is a discussion that has been going on for a very long time with very strongly held positions on each side!

[Esaias]

Adino I plan on going to Branson in Nov. I will visit the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center. I don't trust Bernie. It is that simple. I find it hard to believe a disciple of Durham having Campbellite leanings. I promise you I have looked high and low for any history to corroborate this and found none. But if I go and the proof is there I will post it here. That wouldn't prove his veiw on baptism wrong I happen to believe baptism remits sins like they do only their baptism is NOT NT water baptism in Jesus Name. But I am man enough to confess I was wrong on this matter if I am proven wrong. Again it is good to see you posting again. Have you heard from our mutual friends lately I have not?

Did you ever find out anything about Cook?

[Esaias]

Found this:

"
In recent years I have heard preachers speak lightly of the Azusa Street meetings, saying they had meetings that were just as good under their ministry. The old timers can only feel sorry for such and pity them.

In the meetings, one was not only baptized in the Holy Ghost, but also lived in such a heavenly atmosphere of love that he could never forget it. All else seemed so empty and void. Even as I write these pages, the memory of that meeting comes floating back, my eyes begin to swim with tears, and such a longing and yearning seizes me for a return of such a condition. I can feel that sacred fire still burning, and have the conviction that God will again visit His people in a like manner before the present dispensation ends.

If God’s people would only come together in love — and not allow differences in doctrine to divide them, or leaders whose vision is blurred by building churches (when not directed by the Spirit) to lead them, and those collecting tithes to satisfy their own greed to defraud them, but work toward one objective: to be filled with all the fullness of God — God would answer prayer. Doctrines, teaching, and tithes have their proper place in the gospel plan. But that overpowering, drawing power of the love of God must come first. Our present lukewarm condition is caused by a lack of this love that nothing can offend."


from: http://www.seeking4truth.com/glenn_a_cook.htm

[Steve Epley]

Did you ever find out anything about Cook?

I have found no proof Cook was associated with the Campbellites?

[Adino]

From post #122 ....

From the pen of Cook himself: Glenn A. Cook, "The Kingdom Message," Vol. 1, No. 1, August?, 1933, p. 2... "The writer [Cook speaking of himself] was raised among the Campbellites, as they were called in those days, and has seen hundreds baptized to get into that organization. Water baptism was all that was necessary, and in later years I have had these same people ridicule me when I told them they needed the Spirit-filled life."

I understand the original article is at Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center in Springfield, MO.

[Steve Epley]

From post #122 ....

I doubt the quote. I want to see it myself. Don't trust the source I know that shocks you.:heeheehee I will go and try to find it.

[Esaias]

Found this -

https://ifphc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=research.showArchiveDetails&ArchiveGUID=ccebfc71-f3d0-4a2a-9b5e-98d50103620b&SearchCriteria=&ResourceTypes=Books,Audio/Visual,Record%20Group,Artifacts&search_referrer=search.moreArchivesBySubject&FullTextIndex_SearchType=all&SortedBy=Title&search_ArchiveID=&Search_Creator=&search_Title=&search_Type=&search_Publisher=&search_Coverage=&search_Subject=COOK,%20GLENN%20A.&search_Donor=&search_Identifier=&search_Contributor=&search_Language=&search_CreatedBy=&search_ModifiedBy=&referrer=search.moreArchivesBySubject&&StartRow=1&MaxRows=25

Other than the above link, the only google result I could find was to this thread.

[obriencp]

From post #122 ....

Hey Buddy. I just saw this on FB and thought it would be relevant here... apparently you thought so too.

[Adino]

I've been in touch with Bernie and he said he'd shoot me a photocopy of the original 1933 article - I'll share it when I get it ;-)

[mizpeh]

Right Michael! I read one of his other books and thought boy this guy almost sounds like he is oneness, but then he kept using the term "triune". Afterwards I found out he was formally oneness. Almost like he was using terminology to present himself as Trinitarian but still believed oneness.

Try reading Repenting of Religion and you will have no doubt that he is a trinitarian, but the book is excellent if you cross out the many uses of the word "triune".