UPC found in Wikipedia under "Schisms & Splits"
 

I looked up the UPCI and found this on Schisms and Splits and low and behold I found this on Wikipedia:

The UPCI has experienced several splinters since its inception in 1945.

In 1955, a group of ministers led by Bishop C. B. Gillespie (Fairmont, WV), Bishop Ray Cornell (Cleveland, OH), and Bishop Carl Angle (Nashville, TN) rechartered the PAJC using the original charter.[citation needed]
1968 a number of ministers organized the Apostolic Ministerial Fellowship - AMF, lead by Robert Cavaness, Murray Burr and others, citing the UPCI as 'liberal'. Central issues were holiness and local church government. Detractors said that Murray Burr was disgruntled because he was not elected General Superintendent.
In 1986, Pastor L. H. Hardwick, a UPCI pastor in Nashville, Tennessee, and Jack Dehart of Texas broke away from what he called "legalists" (referring to the issue of dress code and standards), and formed Global Christian Ministries (now Global Network of Christian Ministries).[citation needed]
In 2001, Bishop Teklemarim Gezahagne and the more than 2 million members of the Apostolic Church of Ethiopia broke their 45 year alignment with the UPCI and joined up with the AWCF. The division was over Christology. Interesting accusations since most Pentecostals differ with the UPCI on Christology issues.

In January 2008 another split came to the UPC prompted by a 2007 resolution to allow advertising on television. The schism led by Jonny Godair formed the Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship.


Interesting..........

Another reason I don't put any stock in Wikipedia's factual content.

why is that?

wonder how they find out that kind of information...maybe Brother fudge???:walking:

Because anyone can change the info placed in there.

The UPC article on Wikipedia has long been a battle ground of sorts. There was a long drawn out debate over whether or not NBA star David Robinson was a "prominent member of the UPC." Some UPC people said he was, others said he wasn't.

The core of the site is the public domain 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The site is handy for undisputed facts like population figures and such.

They have their facts wrong.

the info under january 2008 split was about 2 paragraphs a couple of weeks back and was edited
also there has been a there again and gone again addition under: one contested viewpoint is ownership of a "television set"
I mean who besides holiness pentecostals still call it a television set.... j/k

Sounded like they got this one right. My grandpa recalled all those men and said it was true.

As I said above. They got their facts wrong...

Okay... what facts in particular? The one quoted about the year 1955 seems to reflect events that I thought had happened in 1947. What else do you see?

I am not 100% certain on this issue, but I am of the strong impression that some of these men picked up the charter in the late 1940s.

Pastor Hardwick was out of the upci long before Jack Dehart left. Jack Dehart did not leave until after the Affirmation Statement was adopted in 1992. Furthermore, he did not leave over the "holiness" or "legalist" issue. He debated against the resolution on the floor in Salt Lake City. He along with C.L. Dees were two of the strongest voices against the Affirmation Statement.

45 year alignment? Not hardly. That would have placed a date of fellowship back to 1962. In fact, I don't believe brother Wendel, who later committed suicide, went to Ethiopia until after then.

Can't say it is led by Johnny Godair alone. There seems to be bigger pushers and shakers leading the charge than just him.

to add to Apprehended's post above, I believe that Teklemarim was disfellowshipped by the UPCI, and not the other way around.

Whatever. There is always a certain amount of truth in every lie.

I believe that you are correct. The following is from the February 1947, Pentecostal Herald:

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...ais/021947.jpg


That part puzzled me as well. I'm not familar with when Pastor Hardwick left exactly, though at one time I worked for his predecessor.
I agree.

The denunciation of the "Divine Flesh" teaching would have left him out. I don't think Teklemarim himself was disfellowshipped, but the issue was pressed until he had to choose. He was out at the time that the Clyde Haney Bible School was dedicated in Ethiopia.

I remember a certain furor being raised because the school bore the name of the father of the UPC's GS. Of course, funding was raised and the project was begun before the "Divine Flesh" issue became a problem. It seemed like a low blow (at least to me) that so much of a fuss was raised - most of it after the fact.

To call it a "lie" means passing a moral judgment that I think is unnecessary. It could be that they simply got it wrong, without resorting to a "lie."

That's right.

My personal conversation with bro Hall indicate that to be the case. If I rightly recall, the Ethiopian church was called into conference in Hazelwood. Every effort was extended to the leaders to work with them to get their Christology straightened out. They resisted. Since the UPCI was not willing to fellowship the DF doctrine, the leaders were finally given an ultimatum. I believe that thechnically, the Ethiopian church elected to withdraw from the UPCI after a later conference in Ethiopia. I think that is the way it worked out.

Thank you pelathais.

I don't ever remember seeing that article though I kept many of the very old Hearlds dating back to the late forties and fifties which I gave away to my kids who pastor a upci church.

Interesting article. I just remember that the charter was picked up in the late forties. I wasn't exactly sure when.

That is so Teke beat them to the punch. The leaders sent them a letter severing the fellowship with the UPC.

Wow. Never heard about this.
This was a UPC minister, I presume, who later committed suicide?
Whats the story behind that? / just curious.

This one is news to me too.
I didn't know David Robinson was even Apostolic.
Was he UPC at one point?

I went back to edit the suicide remark out but I see that you have copied it. Too late. In defference to Sister Bobbie, I should not have made that remark. No greater woman ever graced the pulpit than her. She is one of the greatest preachers, man or woman, to fill the pulpit.

Isn't it truly amazing how such good people, right in the midst of a great move of God can fall into the depths of such heresy?

Do we think the divine flesh issue rises to the level of ultimately being salvational?

In Teke's letter they sent the UPC it stated that their group had always taught that and the officials of the UPC knew they did?

yes

I've been in the presence of men to listen to them discussing it both denying and affirming. Actually, I don't understand why either would take the position that they do.

To tell you the truth, I don't really know, even though I have thought much about it. I strongly reject the doctrine, but so far, I don't understand how anyone can say that it is salvational.

Maybe someone here can give me a clear reason why it is salvational.

Not to be argumentative, but I do have to wonder about that.

If they get baptized in Jesus name, and God fills them with his spirit are they not saved?
And if yes, does having a distorted view of the Godhead nullify their salvation experience?

I think they teach another Jesus other then the one the Apostles taught.

I've heard that. I'm not convinced. It seems to me that their perspective on the same Jesus is a bit skewed. But, if every oneness believer was lost because of a skewed understanding of the One God, Jesus, there would not be very many oneness believers saved.

OK.
But even if we say that is the case...if God is still filling people with the Holy Ghost under their ministry, couldnt we take that to mean that God does'nt see their doctrinal error to be enough for Him to withhold His Spirit from them?

And back to the original question, if they're baptized in His name and filled with His Spirit, are they not saved, according to the scriptures? Sems like it to me.

(Just trying to think this through here.)

To teach Jesus had no biological tie with the human family is heresy not a difference of opinion. To have His flesh as some demi-god by creation instead of being the seed of the woman will lead to Twoness eventually but if it never does it is still heresy plain and simple. I think it borders on Gnosticism denounced by the Apostle John.

Good point. If you asked 5 different UPCI apostolics to define the Godhead, you might get 5 somewhat different answers. Doesn't mean they're not saved.

This is NOT the same. This doctrine attacks redemption at it's basic core. The seed of the woman-Abraham-David is our redeemer Teke's Jesus has NO ties to any of them.
Jesus becoming man is the doctrine of the Godhead Teke's doctrine teaches Jesus was NOT really a man.
Teke's doctrine denies the virgin birth and just makes Mary an incubator only.
Teke's doctrine acutally denies Jesus has come in the flesh thus he is a anti-christ.
Teke's doctrine places him outside the Apostolic church.

Agreed...

However heresy for the sake of heresy alone will not condemn a person neccessarily, depending on the extent of the heresy.

This heresy makes him an antichrist.

Well, as as I said before....

I really don't know. I've thought much about it.

I would like to think that all two or three million Ethopians are saved and that their doctrine will be straightened out in heaven...as some of mine and yours too will probably be straightened out.

I would say 2 or 3 million people as uneducated as they are there would not have a clue but these false teachers do. God can sort them out.

Amen. That's right.

I think some of these doctrines are so complicated I have a hard time following this convoluted doctrine myself I doubt if very few comprehend very little of it and that probably is their salvation. But the teachers are a different story.