Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[Max Cosme]

Bernard has decided to close the discussion on some of the PCI and PAJC history. This was his last post last night. He has changed his previous tune about the Fundamental Doctrine indicating a "plan of salvation". There are various points in this last post by Bernard that are worth further analysis and examination:

*************, let's bring this to a close. I don't have time to keep arguing with you, yet you are distorting the point that I am trying to make to our constituents. The UPCI did not vote to dissolve our Fundamental Doctrine. We are fulfilling it. We allow diversity, but we are united on Acts 2:38 as "the Bible standard of full salvation." The unity clause doesn't change that, but it gave time for everyone to develop a better understanding of the theological significance of the three steps listed and to come into greater unity of the faith, which we have done. And the unity clause is not limited to soteriology; it holds true for various other matters, such as eschatology.

My point is a simple one: The basic view of salvation held by the UPCI today is what the overwhelming majority of Oneness ministers have held from the beginning. I mean the basic teaching of the new birth and the plan of salvation (not denying that there were also some doctrines of the new earth, friends of the bride, and so on, as explained in detail in my book). My book documents that the oldest Oneness group, the PAW, out of which the leaders of both the PAJC and PCI came, voted in 1919 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The PAJC, which was twice as large as the PCI, voted in 1936 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. In the PCI, the majority (roughly 2/3s) also held this view, as I documented by quotes from Gray, McClintock, Scism (all PCI leaders), as well as Urshan, Chambers, Hall, and Kinzie, all of whom I spoke to personally. The difference was that in the smaller group there was an official policy of toleration on the definition of "the new birth." The diversity wasn't really on Acts 2:38 as the standard NT plan of salvation but mostly centered on how to view people "in process." In other words, even those in the PCI who said one is "saved" at repentance also said people had a responsibility to continue obeying truth as it was revealed to them, and if they rejected it they would be lost. For example, one time after I preached on Jesus Name baptism, one of the minority-view PCI elders told me, "If someone didn't have enough light before your message, they have enough light now to condemn them if they don't obey." That is a far cry from simply preaching a Baptistic doctrine of salvation.

In short, it is untrue to the spirit of the merger, even of the minority in the PCI, if we do not preach Acts 2:38 as the salvation message that everyone today needs to obey. We leave exceptional situations in the hands of God, for He is the judge, but we must be clear about the message of salvation that we preach.

[Max Cosme]

Point 1: Bernard says, The UPCI did not vote to dissolve our Fundamental Doctrine. We are fulfilling it. We allow diversity, but we are united on Acts 2:38 as "the Bible standard of full salvation." The unity clause doesn't change that, but it gave time for everyone to develop a better understanding of the theological significance of the three steps listed and to come into greater unity of the faith, which we have done."

Here we find Bernard sticking to his guns. He believes the FD has be FULFILLED. He also believes that it only existed to give those with other views a chance to see things as he does. He believes this has happened. Somehow those with a different view have outgrown their error. A fait accompli, per se.

[Max Cosme]

Point 2: Bernard says, "My book documents that the oldest Oneness group, the PAW, out of which the leaders of both the PAJC and PCI came, voted in 1919 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The PAJC, which was twice as large as the PCI, voted in 1936 that Acts 2:38 was the new birth. In the PCI, the majority (roughly 2/3s) also held this view, as I documented by quotes from Gray, McClintock, Scism (all PCI leaders), as well as Urshan, Chambers, Hall, and Kinzie, all of whom I spoke to personally. The difference was that in the smaller group there was an official policy of toleration on the definition of "the new birth."

A case of selective history.

Bernard in several posts continues to choose to want to only point out that the official policy of toleration only existed in the PCI. He will not openly say that the official policy of the UPCI is still the same. Also, he selectively omits facts about the policies and practical application of these in their predecessors, the PAW and PAJC.

For example, Bernard makes it seem that the PAW voted on making Acts 2:38 the New Birth. What does history really tell us at the founding of the PAW?

Let us look at what Bishop Tyson of the PAW tells us in his book which has the 1919 minutes of the PAW founding:

On Tuesday, October 14, 1919, the following resolution was
adopted: That on Thursday, October 16, 1919, at 10:30 A. M., this
Assembly should commence and determine by deliberation, the following Scriptural questions:
(a) That one baptism, as recorded in Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44-48,
Acts 19:1-6, is evidenced by the speaking in other tongues as the
Spirit gives utterance, its the initial evidence thereof.

(b) That the New Birth (being “born again”), includes a genuine
repentance, water-baptism in Jesus’ name, and the Baptism of the
Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit
gives utterance.

(c) That the Lord’s Supper, (blessing the bread and wine, and
partaking thereof), was continued by the Church after the Day of
Pentecost.

This not a vote for a statement of belief in the New Birth, rather a deliberation over questions, (a poll of sorts), about these questions.

[Max Cosme]

For those interested these PAW minutes of the 1919 founding are found in the appendix of Tyson's 20th Century Pentecostals. Minutes Book and Ministerial Record ... page 293. Specifically page 299.

On Thursday, October 16, 1919, this Assembly commenced
its deliberation on the three questions specified in the resolution of
October 19, 1919, which same were finished on Saturday, October
18, 1919, it being the opinion of a majority of this Assembly that the affirmative of these questions was correct.

This again states that the majority felt the affirmative to these questions was correct. Again, not a statement of belief. No affirmations. No creeds. No statement saying Acts 2:38 is the New Birth.

It can also be argued that the question in 1919 posed was that the New Birth includes these things -- not necessarily that one must do these things to be born again.

We also know that the PAW, then consents to one steppers having considerable influence in their leadership positions. Opperman, LC Hall, Clibborn-Booth, Frank Small, Goss, EJ Douglas and Kidson who would not have voted in the affirmative in this query. They were one steppers. However, they are accepted on the General Elder Board. Their inclusion and participation speaks volumes. At least 7 of the original 17 board members- one steppers.

[houston]

What Bernard has stated is what I was told yrs ago, the idea was to give the PCI time to make the necessary corrections. ROFLOL. If I was a PCI guy way back when, I would have been insulted. Ha. So, maybe the PAJC always planned to hijack the org. I can't imagine anyone signing on with an expectation to make those kind of doctrinal changes.

[Hoovie]

Max, Where exactly is/was this discussion taking place?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Max, Where exactly is/was this discussion taking place?

It has been taking place on both DKB's personal Facebook page and on his official page as well.

[Michael The Disciple]

It seems to me like modern Oneness is again dropping the ball. The very two issues that Oneness excels in more and more are being pushed to the side. The Oneness of God and the Acts 2:38 new birth teaching.

Modern Oneness seems to really admire Evangelical Protestant teaching. I guess it just seems so much easier. To me it seems like these two issues are really the great contribution Oneness brings to those who believe in Jesus.

[Max Cosme]

Houston, Bernard now joins the likes of JR Ensey and JL Hall in spearheading a campaign to revise the intents of all those who agreed to this compromise, with a supposition.

Further, it would seem Bernard is trying to make a case that somehow the PCI alone allowed for "official" diversity on the New Birth,subtly implying that the PAW voted on making Acts 2:38 the New Birth, as early as 1919. His facts, in this revisionist attempt, are lacking and are selective.

The minutes simply record a statement of "opinion". IT DIRECTLY STATES AS MUCH.

This is not same as saying we believe this as our creed. It's a glorified poll, with the results published.

Not a statement that speaks for the PAW as a whole. No attempts to make the constituents affirm this. Much less instituting or codifying a view on the New Birth.

And when we see that fellowship was not broken over this publicized tally --this goes to Bernard trying to imply that it was the PCI that solely tolerated a view on the New Birth when in praxis the PAW, decades prior, allowed for this diversity as is evident in their leadership, constituency make up AND IN NOT FORCING THEIR MAJORITY VIEW ON THE MINORITY, with ultimatums to comply to an opinion.

I'd add, that in the same year, 1919, the PAW tried to merge with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, of which Goss and Small were charter members along with various one steppers -- most being *gasp* Trinitarian -- as history bears out.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It seems to me like modern Oneness is again dropping the ball. The very two issues that Oneness excels in more and more are being pushed to the side. The Oneness of God and the Acts 2:38 new birth teaching.

Modern Oneness seems to really admire Evangelical Protestant teaching. I guess it just seems so much easier. To me it seems like these two issues are really the great contribution Oneness brings to those who believe in Jesus.

It is what makes them distinct from the rest of Christianity, and irrelevant to the historical revisionism that is taking place.