Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Here is an article from the April 20, 1918 edition of the AG's "The Weekly Evangel" written by Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue."


CONFESSION OF FAITH
"So then faith comes by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17.
It has been reported lately from this
city something that may create a wrong
impression that I am supporting the
advocators of the "new issue" so-called
in our great blessed revival meetings in
this city. This is absolutely not so, but
rather contrary. I personally believe
and stand on the blessed written word
of God concerning the great mystery of
godliness, not on the conclusions of men,
nor in their words of strife concerning
God-head teaching, therefore I prayerfully
and humbly confess that I believe
in one God, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19.
I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of
the Father, who is the true God and the
eternal life. 1 John 5:20. 2 John 5.
I believe that there are three that bear
record in heaven the Father, the Word.
(Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost and
these three are one. 1 John 5:7.
I believe in the Spirit by which we
are all baptized into one body, whether
we be Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or
free and have been all made to drink
in one Spirit; yea one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one God and Father of all,
who is above all, and in you all. 1 Cor. 12:13,
and Eph. 4:5-6.
I believe this adorable Three-One God
can be only approached and seen in and
through the person or face of Jesus
Christ. the son. 1 Timothy 6:16. Matthew 11:27.
John 1:18. John 14:7-11.
"For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of
the God-head bodily." Col. 2:9.
I believe in one most glorious eternal
incomprehensible and mysterious Being
of God; and that Jesus Christ the Son,
is the only true and full express image
of His glorious and bright Being. Heb. 1:3.
Col. 1:15-19.
I believe also and practice the emphatic
and definite commandment of
God through the lips of the great apostle
to the Gentiles who said, "and whatsoever
ye do in word or deed, do all in the
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks
to God and the Father by Him." Col. 3:17. .
Now, "The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ and the Love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Ghost be with you
all. Amen." 2 Cor. 3:14.
Brethren, "We having the same spirit
of faith, according as it is written, I believe,
and therefore I have spoken; we
also believe and therefore speak! 2 Cor. 4:13.
Dear saints pray for us.
Your brother, sincerely, believes in the truth and the whole truth, as it is in Christ Jesus.
ANDREW D. URSHAN,
"The Old Time Gospel Revival Campaign,"
LOS Angeles, Cal., 1041 South Broadway

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

This is unfair because it was in his early experience into the Oneness doctrine before he had formulated in his mind and teaching. Please remember it was the Trinitarians who ran them off in Hot Springs. They were expelled if they were to continue preaching the doctrine.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

And we have been running each other off ever since. What a shame.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

It should also be pointed out that NAU was speaking in 1918 as the debate raged about this "new issue" and was leading to the 1919 split where the Oneness people were shown the exit. NAU was seeking to heal the split before it was a split.


Context is key to understanding what he was saying. In the end, He didnt decide to remian with the Trinitarians.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

I agree with both Elder Epley and Ferd that this document is not surprising given the date. I think it is clear Andrew Urshan's doctrine evolved from this point.

However it is true it did not evolve to what the UPC church believes today completely.

If you really want to stir things up post some writings by early Oneness pioneers about their belief that trinitarians are still their brothers in Christ vs today!

I wasn't trying to stir things up, I just found it interesting that AU would have written against those that he would later join.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Truth of the matter is, that Howard Goss would not be accepted in today's UPC. The very organization that he helped to plant.

A lot of them wouldn't be accepted today.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

True.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Your early Fathers were not treated with much respect by your own brand.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

my friend you havent been posting with us for very long.

some years ago these things were hotly debated. the 1992 Westburg amendment was a hot topic.

I called that the "Infernal document". It was wrong. It was a dark day for the organization.

There are a lot of guys like me in the UPCI that dont think Westburg was right. When we talk about "old paths' mine doesnt look anything like those guys.

I would also say that in large measure, modern PCIers dont look anything like those old timers either. so that knife cuts both ways.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Your right Ferd I have not been posting here long and in fairness UPC is part of who you are.

Things look much different today in the UPC/PCI/AG than it did in 1945.

Would you say that the UPCI has blossomed into something better than what Brother Goss could have ever hoped for?

Would he even be allowed behind a pulpit???

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

That sir is a trick question.

I know/knew some of the men who were there at the merger. I also know what struggles those men had in holding the thing together against the wishes of some of the more ardent voices who wanted "purification"

Men like Murry Burr caused no small amount of discomfort. I got stories that I wont tell until some more people die...

There was always a fight to keep the organization together. in the end two things happened.

1. Some guys who were more liberal got really liberal
2. That gave a bit more clout to the hardliners like Westburg to say "see I told you so"

Then that second generation was being ushered out the door and needed some legacy. Preserving "the doctrine" became a rally point for them in 1992.

It would have broken Papa George Glasses heart and he was certainly a Water Spirit guy. (that is my herritiage)

THen curiously enough the hardliners werent happy and eventually they cut and ran and formed the World Wreslting Pentecostal Fellowship and left the mothership.

leaving the UPCI more moderate even if more Water/Spirit.

Things right now arent what Goss and Glass and all the others would want but I think it is moving in the direction that would please them.

Where it all ends, as far as I can tell, no one really knows.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Thank you Ferd!

My background, my dad was an Independent Oneness and I went to church with him but never really cared much for (any) doctrine, so he let me go to the Church of God and got the Holy Ghost.

I joined the Navy and backslid, while I was in the Navy my dad went Charismatic and then he backslid.

Years ago he came back and went back into UPC and is on the team ( I am glad) and when I came back I went to the local UPC until we left 7 years ago for the AG.

So it was never was fully ingrained into, I guess for a better term I was weak on the message and was always a one-stepper. I would say that my wife was more of a 3-stepper than I was. She would always warn me about listening to non-oneness preaching.

I enjoy how in Pentecost, we are all related ,even if we don't claim each other, like the Baptist do in Hooters and the package store. :happydance

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

You will be shocked but I tend to agree with most comments made here. I for one think the merger was a mistake in truth a compromise on the issue of the new birth that should have never been compromised. Many contemporary UPC thinkers believe the merger fulfilled the unity clause which resulted in the 92 resolution and in truth the majority it seems were in harmony over the new birth issue and it was time for a declarative statement? My personal testimony is the exact opposite I never would join the UPC primarily because of the unity clause. Being a firm believer in the necessity of the new birth I had no elasticity concerning the issue. No doubt their motives and efforts were noble Jesus said ' a house divided against itself will not stand.' And it time it didn't.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Well, sounds like he agrees with them! Where is the problem with what he proposes??

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

I have stated before that I think the PCI folks should have seen the writing on the wall and started their own organization way back at the birth of the UPC. Because if you really believe the 3 step doctrine there is no room to allow for one steppers because the 3 step doctrine makes it clear that if you don't agree with it you are not saved. How could one stepper's expect people who didn't believe they were saved to call them brother?

I wonder if maybe enough of the three steppers believed in the "light doctrine" or some other doctrine allowing for exceptions to the 3 step salvation belief that they tolerated the other view but over time that changed.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

In regards to the bold section: I don't think so as much as they felt the same as some do today when they say "they're looking our way." The "until we all come into the unity of the faith" clause was IMO a very clear statement that some (both sides could have felt it about the other) needed to grow or come to a point of belief/revelation/understanding not already attained. Some of the PAJC undoubtedly thought the PCI men needed to have the way of the Lord expounded to them more perfectly and quite possibly vice versa.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Your theory is a plausible one but don't you think something as important as salvation itself would have made that improbable? If you are right then the 3 steppers of that day were certainly more tolerant and patient than those of today!

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Dude they had their own org. it was called th PCI.
However at that time, within the PCI, there were men of both views living quite harmonously. So it can, and was done.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Personally, I *still* find it strange that so many people are Oneness and believe in baptism in Jesus' name yet claim to be 'one steppers'. Seems like most 'one steppers' not only have a low view of baptism, but have a low view of Oneness itself. What I mean is, just as they see Jesus' name baptism as being a small matter of a 'preferred formula', they see Oneness/Trinity as a small matter of interpretation.

Almost as if the 'one steppers' so called are really just adherents to Barth's 'economic trinitarianism' rather than being full-blown 'Oneness'????

Also, I just never understood the idea that Jesus' name believers could maintain the modern evangelical view of baptism.

I am suspecting the original PCI folks did not feel quite the same way about baptism that their claimed descendants do.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

My friend the problem looking back and not being there is this. Those PCI guys so fervently preached Acts 2:38 that when you heard them you wouldn't know the difference unless you listened closely to the terminology. Elder Gurley baptized 100's if not 1000's in Jesus and preached the HGB for strong his converts recieved it. And did the majority of PCI guys. However when personally speaking with them they believed folks were saved at repentance but the only Bible baptism was in Jesus Name and receiving the HGB was essential to living a overcoming life as a saint. So I am sure it seemed more semantical back then. But as time progressed the PAJC men believed Acts 2:38 was the new birth and preached it as so. It was destined to fail.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

I understand that Burr believed in the "light doctrine".

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

I think your are misinformed.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

LOL! well.... that sure would be interesting considering how many Apostolics he thought were going to hell.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

LOL! that's a good one.

Man, I love how some people are able to inject a good, needed splash of humor into a thread. Keeps us all in a good mood.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Really, well inform me of the real story.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

My church today does not preach baptism as a requirement for salvation (our take is that it should not be a question of being necessity but one of why would anybody giving their life to Christ not want to identify with him through baptism)

However to your point about old time One stepper's preaching Jesus name fervently and baptizing many my church has baptized more than 450 people in Jesus name in the last 4 1/2 years. I am willing to bet that is more than all of the 3 steppper churches combined in a 50 mile radius. Maybe a 100 mile radius.

because you compromised for growth (TIC)

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Ultra-Con he was.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

So was G.T. Haywood. :nod

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

:yourock I agree with Brother Epley.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

I bet Brother Epley could speak to Burrs views on things like Light Doctrine.

Burr was in fact an ultra conservative who left the UPCI because it was too liberal.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Actually he (and the rest) left over local church sovereignty, not standards.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

yea.... thats like saying the civil war was fought over states rights.

Burr left for the same reason the World Wrestling Pentecostal Assocation (WWPF) did....

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

I always see the most guests viewing these types of threads, you guys need to come out from hiding and join us reprobates,we don't bite...

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

From a legal standpoint, the WBTS was actually fought over secession. What agitating factors that led to secession are really not important. But that is a topic for another thread.

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

:thumbsup

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

Naw, the WPF gentlemen left because they couldn't run the UPCI.:heeheehee

Re: Andrew Urshan denouncing the "new issue"
 

exactly!