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?