Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

It is said that Jesus name baptism and the Oneness view of God and Christ came about as a result of R E McAlister's baptismal message on Acts 2:38 at the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913. Here's the "official" and well-known report:

n April, 1913, at a "worldwide" Pentecostal camp meeting being conducted at Arroyo Seco, near Los Angeles, a new "revelation" (not an uncommon thing in those days) received considerable emphasis. The main speaker at the camp meeting was Mrs. Mary Woodworth-Etter, but the speaker who unwittingly triggered the eruption was R.E. McAlister. At a baptismal service held near the main camp meeting tent, Brother McAlister casually observed that "the apostles invariably baptized their converts once in the name of Jesus Christ," and that the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never used in Christian baptism." When they heard this, "a shudder swept the preachers on the platform," one preacher even stepping over to whisper to Brother McAlister to refrain from emphasizing that doctrine or it would "associate the camp with a Dr. Sykes who so baptized."

(end of quote - http://www.apostolicarchives.com/art...236/172422.htm )

Folks began pondering the significance, suddenly John Sheppe/Shaefe ran through the camp with "the revelation". The " new revelation spread" and soon became the "new issue". From this, many concluded the trinity was wrong, and Jesus Christ was the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

According to the officially touted history, SOME of those Oneness people years later came up with an insistence that not only was proper baptism to be done in Jesus name, but that it was the only valid water baptism, and further that the Pentecostal baptism with the Spirit WAS regeneration, that without the experience a person had not been born again and/or was not saved.

It is further claimed that these two batches of Oneness believers continued somewhat in parallel until they merged in the 40s into the UPC. It is claimed that many held the original view - that one is saved at repentance, OUGHT to be baptized in Jesus name, and OUGHT to receive the baptism in the Spirit. The " others" insisted on Jesus name baptism and Spirit baptism as essential for salvation. These people supposedly taught a person had not received the indwelling of the Spirit unless and until they got the Spirit baptism. It is claimed the "regular" view was that one was saved at repentance and the Spirit was received by and indwelled the believer at that point, with the Pentecostal experience being a later, secondary experience.

In short, the generally purported belief is that the Oneness of God and new birth of water and Spirit was a post Arroyo Seco development, AFTER 1913. The so-called "one step" or "PCI" view is claimed to be the normal original position of the early Jesus name Pentecostals. In other words, they held THE SAME VIEW as their trinitarian fellows except in regards to the subjecs of Oneness and the baptismal formula.

This is incorrect.

The following information comes from the May, 1912 edition of William Durham's "Pentecostal Testimony" newsletter. This is ONE YEAR BEFORE the infamous "new issue". I will post relevant portions in the next post.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

About four years ago... some came forward with the theory that the baptism in the Spirit and the new birth were synonymous, thus taking the position that only those who had the baptism and spoke in tongues were saved at all.
...
One form of this teaching is to the effect that, as in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and as Christ is received when a man is saved, all who receive Christ at the same time receive the Holy Spirit. In other words, they claim that it means one and the same thing to receive Christ, and to receive the Holy Spirit.
...
At this point Durham spends four paragraphs "refuting" this teaching by demonstrating that people who repent and receive Christ DO NOT RECEIVE THE SPIRIT UNTIL THE LATER PENTECOSTAL BAPTISM. Ed note by esaias

But, say the advocates of this theory, "You cannot divide the Trinity." They even declare that Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. We are not going to advance a long theory about the Trinity. There has been too much of that in times past, but we do say that Christ and the Holy Spirit are not in Scripture one and the same.
He then spends a paragraph trying to prove the trinity doctrine, primarily from the baptism of Jesus. Ed note by esaias
...
Another doctrine which we believe should be classed as false, is the teaching that converts should be baptized in the name of Jesus only.

(end of quotations. The source can be found at this website - https://pentecostalarchives.org/search/ )

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

From this several things are demonstrated.

First, that prior to 1913 there were Pentecostals teaching and preaching the basics of Oneness and the new birth (at least as far as Spirit baptism were concerned) and the use of the "Jesus name" baptismal formula.

Second, it had been going on for four years at least when this edition of Durham's newsletter came out, thus at least from 1907/8. In fact, Durham's wording implies it had been going on since the Pentecostal revival's beginning , or at least shortly right after the Azusa Street meetings began to become famous.

Third, the idea that the new birth of water and Spirit was a late-comer among Pentecostals is patently FALSE.

Thoughts?

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

As a side note, he also refutes "triple immersion" as well as the "saints ought not to marry" and the "those who are married ought not to live together as man and wife" doctrines.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Stop lurking and post something people... lol

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I've never heard of these doctrines.... they sound ludicrous to me... then again I have the luxury of being on this side of these things as opposed to being around then.... I mean I don't know what you want people to say. I have read most/all of what you have written on this post... nothing ATM for me to even begin to contribute... I enjoy learning history and what not.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

The part you quoted was a "side note".

The main point is this proves there were Pentecostals teaching essentially what we believe now, at least four years prior to 1912 (five years prior to Arroyo camp meeting in 1913). Thus " we" have been a part of modern Pentecostal history from the beginning, and are most definitely NOT latecomers after the fact as some here have alleged.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I never really understood people's constant blathering about the age of their establishment or whatever.... How many years something has been around does not automatically make it correct/truth. Neither does something's age make it good... I don't know maybe that's a young person's perspective.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

What's fascinating, is the idea "one receives the Spirit's indwelling at conversion/repentance" is a belief attributed to those who were Oneness, and by "Spirit's indwelling" those people meant the Pentecostal baptism. Apparently trinitarian Pentecostals following the "Finished Work" view held that at conversion ONE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SPIRIT'S INDWELLING, but rather one received Christ...which made them eligible to receive the Spirit (via the Spirit baptism).

So the so called "one-step" view is not a classic Pentecostal view AT ALL. More like a chariatic Baptist view which came later... along with the big name faith healing quacks...etc.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Along with the "Once saved always saved" I hesitate to call it doctrine. I assume?

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

This is not about correctness of doctrine. This is about just setting the record straight and refuting common errors often repeated by those who oppose the truth.

Again this not about showing "whose doctrine is correct" but about demonstrating what was actually at issue in those early revival years.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I mean how can we know with any certainty all of the churches and/or preachers that taught oneness doctrine pre 1900... nothing that I know of was written about them. Surely there were some. (I'm obviously not talking about the first 400+ years after the new testament was written.)

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Not the subject of this thread. ;) This is about 1908-1912 Oneness, Jesus name Pentecostal people preaching the Spirit baptism IS conversion or regeneration.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

What document is the quote from ?

Andrew Urshan did water baptize in the name of Jesus Christ in 1910. I do not know of any earlier.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Pentecostal Testimony, Vol 2 #2 (believed to be May, 1912), pages 6 and 7, section labelled "False Doctrines".

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I have to say I am intrigued.

My take on Pentecostal History from a more spiritual point of view is this:

God poured out his spirit in the United States for various reasons. TW Barnes (no clue where to find the quote) once said that America was birthed for three things 1.) evangelizing the known world, 2.) supporting Israel, 3.) policing the world (all three paraphrased). I generally agree with that. I believe that Azusa was significant in the fact that it formed a movement of spirit filled brethren that were seeking truth. Those seeking truth genuinely found it.

Out of those brethren were a called out and separated group of believers. Those who got the revelation of the Oneness of God and the Baptism in Jesus Name. It was a group separated from the RCC and it's trinity doctrine.

There was another (larger) group were men simply fascinated with the tongues, ecstatic worship, and demonstrative praise. They came from two backgrounds (as all Pentecostals did) the Calvinist/Reformed background and the Wesleyan Holiness background. Though they embraced the tongues, because they really had no heart for truth they kept their doctrines that's why we have two "branches" of "Classical Pentecostalism" that reflect either the Calvinist/Reformed ideals in their doctrine (Higher Life/Assemblies of God) and the Wesleyan/Methodist ideals (COGIC, Church of God Cleveland, Tennessee). These two "branches" never really intended to leave mainstream Christianity, just to adopt this new phenomenon, which they saw as the "power" described in Acts 1:8. In a sense it was almost a thirst for power. Now they could heal the sick, prophesy, perform miracles. Yes for a while mainstreamers called them "demonic" and they were marginalized but all along THEY worked hard in the 70s and 80s to find acceptance in Mainstream Christianity. Now from the Assemblies of God to the COGIC Pentecostals are at the forefront of the new "ecumenical gospel", which is why Kenneth Copeland is running to go see the Pope.

I say all that to say this, from the beginning I believe Azusa happened to birth a single and separate church that would preach truth in this generation. What you've brought to light in some ways confirms this. God was opening people's eyes way before 1913. I'd imagine eyes were opened in 1906, we just didn't hear about it. In matter of fact while I was writing this long (sorry response) I just remembered: there is a book out by Charles Parham where he stated that he baptizes in the name of Jesus Christ alone. I've read it myself I will try to find it. I don't know when the book is written or if it was written prior to 1906. However this article suggests that Parham was Baptizing in Jesus Name in 1901:

"practiced water baptism by immersion. Charles Fox Parham began baptizing in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ around 1901."

https://oldlandmark.wordpress.com/gl...ostal-history/

I have to find the book and see when it was written so I can confirm this, but I'm sure at least it was written before 1906 because Parham lost a lot of his influence in Pentecost after that time because of his supposed sexuality and issues with "interracial churching". I'd imagine if the above article is correct and Parham baptized in Jesus Name as far back as 1901 than William Seymore probably knew a little something about the "New Issue" before it was "new".

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Okay found it A Voice Crying in the Wilderness According to the book it was written in 1902 and in Chapter Two entitled "Water Baptism" he recounts the "bible school" in Topeka praying and fasting to find the truth on Baptism: the Lord told them that "God the Father and God the Son did not die for them". From the way it's written it actually suggests that this happened in 1900 or before.

You can actually read the book on Google Books. Type the name in with Parham's name on google and you should find the e-preview in which you can read the whole second chapter.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I once read Parham baptized "once in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ...into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".

If that is true there are many Pentecostal type groups that do that.

They say in Jesus name (authority) they baptize into the Trinitarian formula.

Our "apostle" from the Ceylon Pentecostal Mission explained it that way.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Early on Parham baptized in Jesus Name claimed to Lord spoke to him to do in keeping with the practice of the early church. After the "new issue" became prominent he changed to baptizing into the Trinity.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

There were different movements in the 1800's that baptized in the name of Jesus.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

IF there were groups baptizing in the name of Jesus prior to 1910, I am unaware of it.

The Parham documentation is very interesting.

Is there more documentation of this practice prior to 1910 ?? The documentation is difficult to provide !!

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

At Arroyo Seco it was mentioned a Dr Sykes baptized that way. Durham referenced a growing number of people who had a Oneness view and baptised in the name, that was in 1912 and he said it had been going on for awhile. I knew Parham baptized that way (but I do not think he was Oneness). He had been doing that since around 1904 or 1905 I think, maybe earlier.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Originally Barton Stone baptized in Jesus Name and they practiced very demonstrative worship practices that would become associated with Pentecost nearly 50 or 60 years later. Look into the Cane Ridge Campmeeting. But after he became associated with the Campbells that seem to change? Also he views on the Godhead would not be traditional Trinitarian?

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

The Cane Ridge camp meetings were very interesting and unusual. They were the subject of the first research I ever did. That was back in 1981.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Hard to believe the Disciples and Churches of Christ were born out of Cane Ridge.

But then it's hard to believe the local UMC church goes back to Wesley and the Great Awakening, or the Nazarene church came out of the holiness revivals of the 19th century.

Of course, some Pentecostal churches today are in the same boat...

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Being a native Kentuckian it was part of our Kentucky history. Stone has interested me I have one some extensive study on him.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I am afraid you are correct.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Anyone that has done a in depth study on the subject of baptism knows that there have always been those that held to the Jesus name mode of baptism down through the centuries. There were even many that held to the oneness doctrine, but these did not always go hand in hand. There is no argument that these two teachings were around before the 1913 camp meeting.
What I would have to insist though is that the outpouring that began in the early 1900's did not result within the ranks of the Jesus name nor oneness groups. Rather outside denominational ranks. One of the best records of the 1900's revival "The Phenomenon of Pentecost" written by Frank Ewart, gives a very concise and unbiased view. Frank by the way was a Baptist minister before receiving the Spirit.
Frank writes "people were coming in and getting saved, and then receiving the Holy Ghost, and going out and spreading the word". The focus was not on doctrinal teachings, rather receiving of the spirit of God, period. Frank wrote, "that while this movement was based on sound scripture, it's heartbeat was based on an experience, not theological premise". For several years the movement crossed denominational barriers unchecked. It was not until the 1913 camp meeting that the barriers came up.
And yes while there were Jesus name, and oneness groups before 1913, they did not organize into true groups until after 1913. Check your history. These people organized into several groups not only the UPC or PCI, For a more detailed history read "United We Stand". The History of Baptism by Thomas Weisser and I believe David Bernard wrote a book on the history of baptism also.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

The predominate mode was father son and holy ghost baptism, but as I said in my last post Jesus name baptism had long been the opposing form of baptism down through the centuries.
The history of baptism by Thomas Weisser.
The Phenomenon of Pentecost by Frank Ewart
I was surprised a few years ago, to hear a Assembly of God pastor say that they baptize in Jesus Name. When questioned he stated that while they use the Matt 28:19 formula that they believe that they are baptizing in Jesus name by using the words of Christ.
It has become my personal belief that it is not as much the words spoken over one in baptism, as much as the profession of faith in Christ by the one being baptized.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I would have to say that the last statement, is based on premise that can not be proven. The only thing that can be proven is that there were those that baptized in the name of Jesus before the Azusa street revival but it would be hard to prove that they taught a water and spirit new birth before receiving the Holy Ghost. Before Azusa there are a smattering of individuals recorded that seem to have had the Holy Ghost, but never groups large enough to form a doctrine of water and spirit new birth. This had to be a late comer.
Just my opinion, though from my personal extensive reading on the subject.
It only goes to reason that if there was a teaching in existence that Frank Ewart would have mentioned it in his book, as he was a prominent minster almost from the conception of this movement.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

you forgot to mention the book
The original Matthew 28:19 restored Which has much information about baptism in the name Jesus throughout the centuries.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

According to Durham (writing in 1912) for at least four years previously there were people preaching the baptism with the Spirit was the new birth. These people, according to Durham, taught "unless you had the witness of tongues you had not yet been born again". It is clear those people were Pentecostal. This was in conjunction with people insisting on the Jesus name baptismal formula. The context of the whole article by Durham was dealing with what he perceived as errors among Pentecostals.

Does it really make a difference if the doctrine was originated in 1908 instead of 1913? Does it not still contradict 2000 years of church history?

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Yes it does make a difference, to people who are actually interested in the truth of things. And no, it doesn't contradict anything except 1800 years of catholic propaganda and 100 years of modern evangelical-pentecostal error. All I did was report some facts and state the obvious.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

history is written by the victors, that is the Catholic church.
They went so far as to create a fictitious line of popes, and councils that never happened.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Some how I think you are missing my point. I am in agreement that there were probably those that taught a water and spirit birth. But they were not mainstream and only a small group in comparison to the larger out pouring at Azusa.
But the biggest argument I have is you trying to prove that the group Durham was speaking about, also taught a water and spirit birth. Based on the fact that they may or may not have baptized in the Jesus name formula. Many oneness Pentecostals taught baptism in Jesus name and infillment of the spirit evidence of speaking in tongues, yet did not teach a water and spirit birth. As I said UPCI was formed by the merger of both groups. While I may get the two groups mixed up, I believe it was the PCI that taught the oneness and baptism but that salvation was at conversion. The other group taught what you are calling the water and spirit birth of salvation. Yet these two groups agreed to join on the premise that the end result was the same.
Which I might add is brought out in "Christianity without the cross" by Fudge.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Why do people respond to what they THINK someone is "trying to do" instead of what they actually say?

Anyways, reading these old pentecostal writings makes me realize that probably 75 - 85 percent of what is called pentecostal today would be rejected and denounced as delusion or apostasy by those old timers. A LOT of how we do things, doctrines, practices, etc are quite a devolution, or degeneration, of "old time Pentecost" (whether Oneness or trinitarian).

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

Esaias has a valid point.

The Azuza crowd permitted diversity of thought. They also permitted freedom of devotion that may or may not have been a good idea.

It is tempting for me to quote Harry Morse and say that they were Sabbath keepers (he was). It is easy to quote the guy who believed drinking coffee was a sin.

The truth is that there was diversity of thought. Morse promoted education. W F Manley thought higher education for ministers was terrible.

There were more women ministers than is commonly seen today. even in the Azuza alumni.

Understanding what they had in common is not easy for us to document.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

I ordered that book last night, looking forward to reading it.

Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
 

:angelsad Well, then I'm definitely a sinner. :heeheehee