Wanted--PCI Type Books

[Michael The Disciple]

Bro Dave

That's the only thing I can find in the opening chapter that closely resembles your loose quote.

I questioned whether to add that phrase "loose quote". The reason I did it was because of the copyright situation. It had nothing to do with trying to make a quote into something it was not.

[Michael The Disciple]

Bro. Dave

Actually, Ewart's contributions came along a bit later. Charles Fox Parham used the term "Apostolic faith" before 1899, and William Seymour of Azusa Street seems to have picked it up from him. A small, but I think, important point.

When I mentioned the Apostolic Movement I was referring to the Apostolic Oneness restoration. You are right that the "Apostolic Faith Movement" was founded by Parham.

The quote I gave from Ewarts book on page 67 shows that he considered himself as the "ringleader" that is the leader of the group of Oneness believers at that time.

[Michael The Disciple]

It appears the FIRST revisor of Ewarts writings was W.E. Kidson according to the very first page of the book. It was apparently edited by him before the book was ever published. So the "initial contact to a full relationship" quote was allowed to stand by him IF indeed Ewart made the comment.

The book was revised again in 1975. No clear info by who.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I have the revised edition of 1975. Im looking at Pg. 13 as I type. Pg. 13 is the first page of the chapter called "Introduction". I never noticed before but Pg. 13 is the first page that is numbered.

The quote I gave in my post is from the first sentence of the chapter. I present here the first three sentences exactly as they are written.

Im not saying he never thought he was saved when he first repented. Obviously he did as we all who came up in Protestant Churches did. My point is as he looked back he understood that his initial repentance and faith had not given him a full salvation experience.

The quotes of Ewart are from 1947 - post merger and post WW2. The entire book was written in 1947. The "Three Stepper" belief system was a development over time.

Ewart didn't just wake up one day in 1908 and say, "Everybody's going to hell who doesn't speak in tongues..." - And then suddenly look up again in 1913 and say, "Everybody's going to hell that isn't baptized in Jesus' name." In fact, I don't think we have him expressing anything like those sentiments until 1947.

Of course he had to have had those thoughts earlier to pen them in his memoir, but his activities in 1908 and 1913 seem to admit to a more "One Stepper" view. The "Three Stepper" outlook came later.

There was a development that took place over time.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think from other quotes I gave he clearly thought that. Ewart was a Restorationist. He was trying to present the truth that he now saw from scripture as the full gospel without condemning others to Hell who he thought had a walk with God.

I agree entirely. This is the "One Stepper" attitude.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I started out much like he did. Repenting while reading a Baptist book. I assumed I was saved I did not know any different. I received the Holy Spirit 6 weeks later with tongues and prophecy while on the job.

I was not in Church period at that time. I was not in fellowship with anyone who was teaching this. I did not at first even know this was the baptism as I had no teaching of it. But I know it took me into a deeper experience. A reality that reminded me of characters in the Bible.

It was still another 4 years before I was baptized into the name of Jesus.

All this would normally have been done in short order in the early Church who taught this full gospel. Or had I come initially into an Apostolic Church the same would have been true. But because of the multitude of sects, Church groups, and religous material out there God has to take us from where we are to where he wants us in our understanding.

I was out witnessing one night with our Coffee House ministry in the days of the Jesus Movement of the 70's. At about midnight outside a bar where we were preaching to the lost two Apostolic young men approached us.

In their message they pointed out that it was the FIRST SERMON EVER PREACHED BY THE APOSTLES at Pentecost.

When the crowd cried out what must we do Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

That really struck me. The Apostles could not have been wrong! Who knew more about salvation in Christ? The Protestant Teachers I had been under or the apostles of Yeshua?

From that moment I could not shake that truth until the day I was rebaptized in a Charismatic Church that had also just came to the revelation.

To this day I judge what men are saying about salvation against what Peter and the rest of the apostles said on that day.

Was Peter wrong? Were they all wrong?

Is it considered wrong to say what they said? If it is not whats the beef?

Have you understood what they said? Do you mean to say that no one was saved from the start of the Third Century up until the time that Baptist Sunday School superintendent stood and said that he was finally saved in the early 20th Century?

That's the implication of the "Three Stepper" doctrine, and I do have a beef with that. The Three Stepper response has been historical revisionism. They claim that people who were clearly not Oneness Pentecostals in history as their own (Marvin Arnold, Thomas Weisser and Bill Chalfant - though he seems to have moderated that opinion).

They have also gone to great pains to push out the writings of Oneness pioneers like A.D. Urshan, John Dearing and many others. Why is it that virtually all the material available through the UPC was written post-merger? What about those pioneers? "Well..." they say, "It's complicated."

I remember N.A. Urshan apologizing for his dad's writings.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

If what they said was in error we are all in trouble if the apostles messed up their very first assignment.

I understand the dilemma Frank Ewart was in. But better to see our experience as going from partial to complete over time than to distort what was plain to the apostles and early disciples.

How we handle that dilemma is really the gist of the whole matter. The Three Stepper way has been to deny that such a dilemma ever existed. That's the historical revisionism that gets discussed here and what you appear to have been responding to.

For me, I see Jesus Christ as the One who saves. He will save us if we sincerely cry out to Him for forgiveness. He will save us even if our baptismal ceremony didn't really go very well. He will save us no matter how eloquently we pray. That's what the Apostles said in Acts 2.

They said, "... You shall receive! The promise is for you, your children and those afar off; even as many as the Lord Himself shall call." (Loosely quoted ).

And notice... the whole process is predicated upon "even as many as the Lord our God shall call..." He does the calling, the saving and the sorting. Such matters are not left to the fallible lips of men who may or may not get a "mantra" right.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It appears the FIRST revisor of Ewarts writings was W.E. Kidson according to the very first page of the book. It was apparently edited by him before the book was ever published. So the "initial contact to a full relationship" quote was allowed to stand by him IF indeed Ewart made the comment.

The book was revised again in 1975. No clear info by who.

The 2000 revision has this statement from the publisher:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This revised edition (2000) preserves the full
text of the original book (1947). The following changes have been
made: (1) Reorganization of the chapters in chronological order.
(2) Addition of explanatory notes, new chapter titles, and missing
Scripture citations. (3) Editing of capitalization, punctuation,
spelling, and diction to conform to current Word Aflame

Press house rules. (4) Correction of a few minor errors.

Your 1975 edition seems to follow the same chronology. I had the paperback edition in my library from about 1979 onward, so it was probably the same one you're holding. Right now I have the ebook version in PDF format. It's the same as the the print edition currently available from PPH.

Brother Kidson published a number of newsletters - one that's still going today as the "voice" of an independent Oneness org, the IMA. He served as an official in the PCI and is highly praised by Ewart in this very book. Brother Kidson subsequently left the UPC and helped found the IMA.

I won't pretend to know all the details, but what forces were at work, do you think, that would have caused a PCI official who labored so hard to create the merger, to then turn and walk away from the organization that he helped to found?

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I have those two... oh, guess not the original 1947 version...

Sam, who posts here, may be your best resource.

I have an original 1947 version of Ewart's book, sorry won't part with it.

[willvan]

Thanks for the replies so far. I should have been more specific on the 1947 (Original) Edition of Ewart's/Kidson's Book. I was looking for someone that would be willing to copy the pages that mentioned A.D. van Hoose (pages 108-9), Raymond G. Hoekstra, and W.E. Kidson, because according to "Christianity Without the Cross" by Thomas Fudge, page 95 footnote 133, these three ministers were removed/not present in the later editions after 1947.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

I have an original 1947 version of Ewart's book, sorry won't part with it.

How about scanning it? If you could just get the jpg type images and send me the files, I could run the OCR and format it all nicely into a PDF document. Ol' Brother Frank would be proud!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by willvan

Thanks for the replies so far. I should have been more specific on the 1947 (Original) Edition of Ewart's/Kidson's Book. I was looking for someone that would be willing to copy the pages that mentioned A.D. van Hoose (pages 108-9), Raymond G. Hoekstra, and W.E. Kidson, because according to "Christianity Without the Cross" by Thomas Fudge, page 95 footnote 133, these three ministers were removed/not present in the later editions after 1947.

I suspect Fudge may have had the 1975 version like the one Michael was quoting from. Interestingly, this latest edition contains the Editor's comment about the "complete text" that I've posted already in this thread.

And, the year 2000, was about the same time frame that Tom Fudge had been digging around the UPC archives before being shown the door. It's probably not a huge leap in reasoning to think that Fudge's research work for Christianity Without the Cross may have compelled the PPH to redo their edited version of Ewart's original.

Also, note the involvement of controversial evangelist William Branham in the PAJC/PCI/UPC that Ewart describes. This may have been dropped when the reference to Kidson was dropped.

From pages 180 - 183 of the "Revised" 2000 Edition:

W. E. Kidson is now, and has been for two decades,
recognized as one of the key men in this movement. His
remarkable executive ability was early recognized, and he
was elected to a high official position in a Oneness organization,
which through the merging of two main bodies of
this persuasion later became the United Pentecostal
Church. Brother Kidson filled the position of secretary of
the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated for a number of
office terms until a few years ago. He is now pastor of a
growing church in Houston, Texas, and owner of the
Herald Publishing House, from whence he publishes a
fine Pentecostal paper called The Herald of Truth! This
paper is enjoying a fine circulation. At a recent revival
campaign in Brother Kidson’s church, Pentecost was
repeated in a remarkable manner, so that through the laying
on of Evangelist William Branham’s hands, cancers
and other incurable diseases were healed, and some blind
people had their sight completely restored. When God
honors a man’s work, the conditions of his heart and life
must be eminently scriptural.

Raymond G. Hoekstra of Indianapolis, Indiana, is
one of the outstanding figures of this movement. In his
church with a seating capacity of approximately one
thousand people, there is a constant revival going on. In
these meetings the signs and miracles and gifts of the
Holy Ghost that characterized the ministry of the apostolic
church are not wanting. Recently, a Christian
school, recognized by the state, has been erected adjoining
the church in which the courses taught in the state
schools are taught by competent Christian teachers, and
Bible teaching is added to their curriculum. Pastor
Hoekstra has a radio broadcast that reaches out to a wide
constituency. To know this young man of God is to
admire him and love him, and his influence and power

under God’s blessing is growing by leaps and bounds.

...

A. D. Van Hoose is the pastor of a large church in
Evansville, Indiana, and has two broadcasts, one in
Harrisburg, Illinois, and the other in Del Rio, Texas. He
has been used to establish three churches and maintains
control of these, being responsible to supply pastors and
in other ways to supervise the work. We have watched
this young man in his home and in his church and radio
work and had the privilege of working with him, and he
is the nearest thing to perpetual motion we have ever
seen. He has a frail body, but God, the Holy Spirit,
vibrates every faculty with His energy. In addition to all
his many duties involving such great responsibility, he is
the manager and editor of a paper called The Apostolic
Call. This paper is enjoying a wide circulation and is
growing in popularity among Pentecostal saints. His
work bulks big among the Apostolic faith churches in the
middle states. Although still in the prime of life, Brother
Van Hoose has been instrumental in God’s hand of getting
many preachers converted and baptized in the Holy
Spirit. He has sponsored these when they received a call
to the work, and rendered them invaluable help in their

ministry.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

I have an original 1947 version of Ewart's book, sorry won't part with it.

Keith... could you at least scan the chapter on "Pentecostal Leaders" from your 1947 edition? This is Chapter 18, and I believe the final chapter in all three editions.

A full scan of the whole book would be great, but I know that I am imposing.

I am increasingly drawn to the idea of putting up all three editions for a comparative analysis.

Here's the Editor's note from the 2000 edition again:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This revised edition (2000) preserves the full
text of the original book (1947). The following changes have been
made: (1) Reorganization of the chapters in chronological order.
(2) Addition of explanatory notes, new chapter titles, and missing
Scripture citations. (3) Editing of capitalization, punctuation,
spelling, and diction to conform to current Word Aflame

Press house rules. (4) Correction of a few minor errors.

Considering the revisionism that lead up to and followed 1992, it might be good to take a look at the "few minor errors" that are were corrected.

I'm curious as well. How much of a role did the Publishing House play in redacting the Pentecostal history and legacy that contributed to the events at General Conference in 1992?

I was at the Conference and in all of the Business meetings. In fact, I was on the Tabulating Committee, but when I reported for duty the first day I was told that my services weren't needed. I thought that it was because I was a "kid" - I was 31 at the time and a full time UPC minister holding a General License, but still, they had a way of making you feel like a "kid."

That Conference vote went the way it did because of a "misrepresentation" of the General Board's actions. A falsehood swayed the entire outcome. I was there. How deep do the falsehoods go?