Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

"My book documents that at UPCI merger 8/9s, or 89% held acts 2:38 to be essential to salvation." - DKB

Wonder what his need to assert facts that are deliberately skewed stems from? Perhaps Fudge's book?

Re: Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

Well we will have to wait and see what his documentation was, however I was always under the impression the 1steppers were a minority but not that much of one

Re: Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

He seems to have a vested interest in making that number as small as possible, even going so far as to say that one could not effectively hold that view in the UPC today.

Re: Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

I doubt if anyone really knows how many were one-steppers and how many were three-steppers at the merger. The UPC was formed about 30 years after Jesus Name baptism began to be preached and the schism in the AoG over the "new issue." I'm sure there were still plenty of ministers around who knew they were saved before they got baptized in Jesus' name and who were still preaching and practicing that.

Re: Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

Even with the fundamental doctrine statement being revised in 1973, a one-stepper could say he agreed with it. The motion to accept the revision was proposed by a three-stepper and seconded by a one-stepper. The fundamental doctrine statement was written as ambiguously as it was in order to accommodate both one-steppers and three-steppers.

"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies."

Re: Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

Not according to Bernard.

It was written like that to give the PCI time to correct their doctrine. JK, JK

Re: Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

He has documentation coming from his book, History of Christian Doctrine Volume 3. David Bernard makes this footnote:

138- David Gray, youth president of the Western District of the
PCI at the time of the merger and first youth president of the UPC,
estimated that two-thirds of the PCI and practically all the PAJC
held this view. (Telephone interview, 29 March 1993.) This number
would represent about five-sixths, or eighty-three percent, of the
merged body. J. L. Hall suggested that ninety percent may be more
accurate.

E. J. McClintock said he could not give statistics but
agreed that Gray’s estimate is reasonable, and he pointed out that
most PCI members who did not hold a firm view of the new birth
were concentrated in a few districts.

Ellis Scism, who served as
superintendent of the Northwestern District of the PCI at the time
of the merger and who was elected to the same position for the
UPC immediately after the merger, stated, “A minority in the PCI
did not believe that water baptism or a tongues experience was
essential to salvation.” Ellis Scism with Stanley Scism, Northwest
Passage: The Early Years of Ellis Scism (Hazelwood, MO: Word
Aflame Press, 1994), 227.

Scism would not have called this group a “minority” unless it was clearly less than one-half of the PCI, and thus probably no more than one-third or one-fourth. His district was a major area of concentration for this minority. - page 372

Re: Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history
 

The first "source" David Gray is a telephone interview where Gray only gives an estimate, while say "practically" all held this view.

He then creates his own percentage based on what Gray says, while giving Hall's guess at it.

The second is McClintock. Who insists on giving NO STATISTICS while simply calling Gray's guess "reasonable.

The final source is the best example of Bernard's shoddy methodology. He borrows a quote from an Ellis Scism book where Scism says a "minority" held that view. Bernard then takes the liberty to decide that Scism would only make this observation if it was about 1/3 to 1/4 of the PCI.

This type of statistical methodology would be laughed at by any serious scholar.

But, Bernard recently remarked these were PCI officials who were his friends.