Wanted--PCI Type Books

[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.

Originally Posted by DAII

Gillespie adds:

"A more serious redaction of this book is found by comparing pages 34-35 of the Herald Publishing House 1947 version, with page sixty-eight (68) of the Word Aflame Press (WAP)1975 (through 1990) revision. In the 1975 revised edition, the last sentence of that page
reads:

"However, Scripture has no example for any work of the Spirit other than repentance, water baptism in Jesus Name, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance."

No such statement existed in the 1947 original version. These words were never written by Frank Ewart. Rather, they were inserted by an editor at WAP. It appears that the intent of this insertion is to make the reader think that Ewart confirms the 1975 doctrine of the UPCI.

Later, in 2000, the UPCI published a digital edition of The Phenomenon of Pentecost that has the original wording from the 1947 edition. Neither the 1975 edition, nor the 2000 version give any editorial comment indicating the editing history of these sections, how they were changed from the original, or later returned to the original. Nevertheless, thousands of copies of
the 1975 edition were sold, which give the impression that Ewart wrote those words.

One might ask, “If Ewart did believe the Acts 2:38 interpretation of the UPCI today, what does it hurt to modify his past writings in such a way?” First, this is universally considered unethical by the history writing community -- both within and outside the church. Second, it
changes the intent of the author for political purposes. On page thirty-five (35) of the 1947 edition, Ewart did not give a concise doctrinal statement, as the WAP inserted, but instead bemoaned the resulting divisions in Pentecostalism over the New Issue:

"If it were possible to create a fellowship, based entirely on the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which made us members of the same body, and
independent of the unity of doctrine, and maintain the Divine approval, that is
what we all want."

This illustrates one aspect of the UPCI historiography. Ewart’s book is rare because it gives eyewitness accounts of certain events in early Pentecostalism, which no other sources contain. It is valuable to many historians outside of the UPCI. Tampering with this history to present the UPCI teaching in a more favorable light, is wrong because it misinforms. It is always unethical to arbitrarily change or add words to the work of an author not found in the original version. They do not convey his original intent – especially after his death.

Although the 2000 edition returned to the original text of 1947, there was no public acknowledgment of the changes.

Such revisions undercut the credibility of other UPCI historical publications. Why was this done? I have concluded that Ewart’s writings were modified to bring them more in line with the more recent fundamental doctrine of the UPCI."

Kidson was the original publisher -see the copyrights in the 2000 edition:

©1947 Herald Publishing House
©Copyright Transferred 1975 Word Aflame Press

Revised 2000 Word Aflame Press

I found it interesting that the 1975 revision - the edition that has garnered so much criticism - appears to have been responsible for Michael the Disciples' statement, "So my point here is that all the talk that 3 steppers are revising the past must be taken with caution."

It seems that the evidence for this caution is a work of revisionism itself, which is kind of ironic. But this, in my opinion, just goes to show how deeply the deception has taken root in Oneness Pentecostal circles.

It all seems to have begun with the statement that Agnes Ozman spoke "in the Chinese language for two hours" back in 1899/1900. This is something Agnes Ozman never claimed for herself and in fact would openly repudiate later. More and more such reports have come in over the last 100+ years. We don't call them "lies," however. We call them "evangelistically speaking."

That's the same defense that was made for the statement concerning the General Board's vote back in 1992, on the Westberg Resolution. "99% of the General Board voted in favor of the resolution..." Evangelistically speaking.

Simple faith in Jesus Christ requires no such props. It's when you start to add on to the faith things that are not built upon the foundation that you need the props. Let's get back to the building that is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-22).