George Glass Sr/Response- "Mystery Solved" Thread

[Pastor G]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pastor G, what did your uncle say to you about salvation?

Thanks for asking... I responded in the post above this one...

[Steve Epley]

This very interesting proceed on.

[Straightline]

Allow me to add a few thoughts on this subject. I have direct relations that received the Holy Ghost in Chicago in 1903, on Bonnie Brae Street in LA, and many afterward. Arthur Osterberg, the first trustee of the Azusa mission is also related to me. I also understand that pedigree does not mean ownership of facts; I was reminding my oldest living ancestor of a commonly known fact about her own history, and she (now) denies that it ever occurred. Time will do that to the best of us. The record then becomes difficult for any of us to ascertain, when memory fails to remember all, or tends to favor a few (desired) points.

Consider this point from history: The Upper Room Mission (URM) was a 300 member break-off of the Azusa mission (fall 1906), led by Elmer K. Fisher, who taught that tongues was the initial evidence of the spirit birth instead of a sign/blessing that “may” follow. It was this mission that brought Ewart and Cook to the west coast. The URM became a strong voice for the necessity of speaking in tongues as the reception of the Holy Ghost. I think that all groups consider being “born again” essential, it is in the definition of that phrase that there is disagreement. The URM was not afraid to declare speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance essential.

Rather than submit my own stories or documents, look at what the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, printed by Regency/Zondervan (1988) has to say:

“The issue of tongues as the “Bible evidence” of baptism in the Spirit was very important to this mission [URM]. Azusa appears to have been more fluid on the subject and in 1915 rejected the idea completely, coming to view tongues as a sign or gift that might follow the baptism. [Elmer]Fisher, however, repeatedly kept the issue before his readers”. (page 865).

“The significance of the revival is equally related to its teaching about baptism in the Spirit and in the gift of tongues. Unlike later Pentecostals, and clearly in opposition to the Pentecostal message of the Upper Room Mission a few blocks away, Seymour moved away from a theology of tongues as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Spirit. In point of fact, Seymour ultimately repudiated the “initial evidence” teaching as providing “an open door for witches and spiritualists and free lovism”. (page 36).

Please also note that The URM split off in fall of 1906, and in October of that same year Ch. Parham visited the Azusa mission and found it in theological disarray.

All points to ponder
When keeping the timeline in a
Straightline

[Straightline]

Regarding the PCI on the West Coast:
Because travel was very constrained, men found fellowship nearby. Also added to this was that the PA of JC did not have a strong presence on the west coast. In speaking to several men about this, they all find agreement that the PCI on the West coast was a “mixed bag” of doctrines. Some men were “saved at repentance”(SAR), some were Acts 2:38 salvation. Geographically speaking, the Northwest was more of the SAR, though there were Acts 2:38 strongholds throughout. In California it was a “mixed bag”. I spoke with one strong Acts 2:38 California elder (almost 80 now), and he said he was PCI because, “that’s all there was in my area”. Certainly the name affiliation (PCI or PAofJC) in those days dealt more with geographical fellowship than with doctrinal absolutes – at least on the West Coast!

Not even the Grapevine
Is a
Straightline

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Straightline

Regarding the PCI on the West Coast:
Because travel was very constrained, men found fellowship nearby. Also added to this was that the PA of JC did not have a strong presence on the west coast. In speaking to several men about this, they all find agreement that the PCI on the West coast was a “mixed bag” of doctrines. Some men were “saved at repentance”(SAR), some were Acts 2:38 salvation. Geographically speaking, the Northwest was more of the SAR, though there were Acts 2:38 strongholds throughout. In California it was a “mixed bag”. I spoke with one strong Acts 2:38 California elder (almost 80 now), and he said he was PCI because, “that’s all there was in my area”. Certainly the name affiliation (PCI or PAofJC) in those days dealt more with geographical fellowship than with doctrinal absolutes – at least on the West Coast!

Not even the Grapevine
Is a
Straightline

Thank you my friend. I have heard from old PCI men that the majority were water & Spirit men that is was the leadership that were SAR men.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Pastor G, just one comment and you can take it with a grain of salt. I was present when Gamblin told my father that he(Gamblin) asked GG if one needed to receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be saved and GG reportedly said "Why would one want to go to heaven without it?" According to Gamblin a clear answer could not be elicited. BTW, this purportedly happened in a private conversation and not publicly.

Could these two men have been talking past each other? Sure. But it does make one wonder.

RD, Did this line of questioning come during the "purging" period? Maybe Papa George didn't want to be pigeon holed!

The question required a simple "yes' or "no". It seems to me that it was a well thought out evasive answer.

Is there a credible witness out there that personally heard GLGJr say in private conversation behind the scenes that it was HG Baptism or Hell? So far we can't seem to find it on recorded tapes or sermon notes!

Saying that he preaching Acts 2:38 strongly is not proof. Many one-steppers preached Acts 2:38 very strongly, and believe it is the plan of salvation.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Pastor G, just one comment and you can take it with a grain of salt. I was present when Gamblin told my father that he(Gamblin) asked GG if one needed to receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be saved and GG reportedly said "Why would one want to go to heaven without it?" According to Gamblin a clear answer could not be elicited. BTW, this purportedly happened in a private conversation and not publicly.

Could these two men have been talking past each other? Sure. But it does make one wonder.

RD, I have commented on this a few times. I remember GG saying the same thing from the pulpit on many occasions. If you go to DeRidder, you will find many people who will quote him on this very thing.

No no one in DeRidder would consider that quote to be equivocatoin on the need for HGB. Quite the contrary.

Could it be that Papa George was the same in private as he was in public (I know that is hard for some to believe)..... and we all know that Papa George lived by the spirit of the merger.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Could it be that Papa George was the same in private as he was in public (I know that is hard for some to believe)..... and we all know that Papa George lived by the spirit of the merger.

I'm sure he was. He was as classy a gentleman as I've ever met in the UPC. My father had him come for many years and preach for us. Usually a week a year and the reason my dad had him so often is that his son loved him. He was my favorite OP preacher(with the exception of DFG).

[timlan2057]

Sorry for the late response.

I woke up yesterday morning thinking Gustav was gone and things were back to normal and there was almost thigh-high water in the street. The day-after was worse than the storm itself and I was out of power from around 9am to 8pm.

Darla returns to Tulane on Sunday so I'm looking forward to the trip to New Orleans as a break.

Let me respond to what little I need to respond to from Pastor G.

And Pastor G, as usual when I post, I'm perfectly willing to let the reading audience judge how plausible a case I made.

You wonder if you've seen me at any family reunions. I recall making maybe one Glass Family Reunion. Most of the time when I was married into the family I was off evangelizing. I don't recall meeting you either at the one or two reunions I went to but of course you were there.

Who am I?

Not that it matters, but my name is Tim Landry. I grew up in Lake Charles. Murrell Ewing was my pastor when I was in oneness pentecostalism and the UPC ministry. I was much more influenced by Marvin Treece professional-ministry-wise and came to look at Treece as a mentor more than Ewing.

My ex-father-in-law, like GGSR also deceased, was Lavelle Cooley, GGSR's first cousin. His mother (my children's great grandmother) was Allie Glass Cooley. (I THINK I have the first name right. It's been a lot of years. Pastor G or George L can correct me here if I have it wrong.)

Hence my family connection. I went three years to college with George Lee (though looking back from this perspective, I now hesitate to call JCM or any UPC Bible school a "college.") George L pastored in N. Little Rock, Arkansas at the time. George Lee and I were not close friends though the Class of 1978 was small enough to be intimate. (Hmm ... "intimate" is probably not a good word to use for Lanny Wolfe-era JCM but you know what I mean, I'm sure.)

I've posted my address and phone number on these boards before so I DON'T hide who I am and where I live when I post my opinion on these message boards.

Not that it matters - the material stands and must be acknowledged as having merit whether or not I lived in a hut in Afghanistan.

But Pastor G wanted to know who I was so I told him.

The rest of Pastor G's response was basically more of the same - ratcheting up the rhetoric and attempting to inflame emotions when he had nothing else to say.

Let's see ... according to him I was certainly going to call him a liar and he made sure to tell me he was not weak and intimidated.

AND, I was amused at the accusation that I was trying to "divide and conquer" the Glass family.

Well ... good luck on your journey of personal self-discovery, Pastor G. I don't particularly care whether you are "intimidated" or not.

I was stating facts, Pastor G. Whether you take it up with George L. or not is certainly your business. I have enough family situations of my own without getting involved in yours, I'm sure.

Okay ... a couple more quick points.

Pastor G said that GGSR loved the UPC - true of course.

AND, he said, because he loved the UPC "he would never go against their doctrine."

Interesting.

From his perspective, "three step salvation" is "their doctrine."

A. D. Gurley loved the UPC too. So did Howard Goss and C. H. Yadon. It was a good deal on their broad shoulders that the UPC was even formed.

No one could rattle off organizational structure and parliamentary procedure like Yadon.

These men believed you were saved at repentance as did a good portion of the first General Board of the UPC.

That's why Fudge's book is invaluable ... it tells the TRUE story of the vital role the PCI tradition played in the UPC and how it gave the UPC a link with mainline christianity.

It was a needed book since Hall, Bernard, Ensey and others have attempted, Pravda-like, to say it for the most part, never existed.

Yes, Papa George loved the UPC - probably more than it on the whole loved him.

He was loved and respected and preached his share of conferences and campmeetings.

He wasn't revered as much as Fauss and some others because of his moderate views and of course the far right, led by Burr, gave him their label: a "twice married" preacher. And after, the merger and PCI days, he was never seriously considered for high Louisiana District office. Again, he was looked at as moderate to liberal in Louisiana, which of course he was.

E. L. Holley apparently wasn't quite so radical since I remember Papa George preached Texas Campmeeting in 1980. Now I BELIEVE Holley was Superintendent then. It could have been the more liberal O. W. Williams which would have explained GGSR being the camp evangelist that year.

Okay, I've rambled enough.

The valuable thing about the internet and message boards is people can judge for themselves who has made a case and who is just blowing smoke.

I find it interesting and a little amusing.

In "ole time" pentecost, the internet is the preachers' new toy while TV is still railed against - a great example of a movement that can't see the forest for the trees and is enslaved by tradition.

And irony or ironies - the internet will do much more in bringing about the end of their extra-biblical legalism and tradition to which they cling - than the TV ever will.

[timlan2057]

Just a couple more points since I enjoy the subject and digging into history.

W. E. Gamblin had no axes to grind and I think his observations about GGSR were objective and without malice.

Gamblin was a strong water/spirit man and a strong pretribulationist.

I never considered him a scholar as much as a sloganeer.

Yet, a forceful example shows he did live by the spirit of the merger.

In the early sixties, C. D. Soper was forced out as president of Pentecostal Bible Institute in Tupelo, Mississippi by the Mississippi District Board.

Soper was pretty openly a PCI man.

This was around the time the balance of power tipped in Mississippi and the Gurley/PCI forces from their once-powerful base in northern Mississippi began to be outnumbered by the radicals mostly from the south and the Mississippi District Board reflected that.

Bishop1 could go into much detail here.

Of course Gurley and others tried to stem the tide and failed but they had a surprise ally - W. E. Gamblin.

Gamblin pastored in Jackson at the time before resigning the church and being followed by Tommy Craft in 1962.

He of course was a strong "water-spirit" man but he sided with the Soper forces out of principle - saying that Soper had always taught from his particular doctrinal perspective and to railroad him out was not fair.

So he definitely was not an enemy of GGSR nor had he any ill motives in mind.

I think we can take his deductions of GGSR's views of the new birth as being objective and dispassionate.


And let's get an exact definition of "fellowship."

Epley and others have been misunderstood when they said they would not "fellowship" trinitarians or liberals, etc.

Now while I have not had the privilege, CC1, Pianoman and others have enjoyed meals with Brother Epley.

He was not meaning "fellowship" in the sense of not being friends or not socializing.

He of course meant he would not have a liberal to preach for him or sanction that liberal's doctrine by showcasing him in a church service.

That is understandable.

My point?

Pastor G said this about GGSR and his relationship to PCI men:

That depends on your idea of what fellowship is... If it is: get along, eat together, be friends ect (sic)... He did...

(This was from Pianoman's "Mystery Solved" thread):

Now. Pastor G implies that GGSR treated PCI men like Epley would treat a liberal like CC1 or Pianoman - being friendly and all but not "fellowshipping" them in the doctrinal standard sense.

I pointed out already and emphasize again that nothing could be further from the truth.

GGSR was a prominent member of the Tennessee District and preached for and had preach for him Greer, Hansford, Hardwick and other PCI men.

Perhaps more on this later as the thoughts and reminisces come back ...